It was built from the beginning by de Gaulle himself

General de Gaulle has left in our political landscape a double trace: a partisan, stable descent through the diversity of its acronyms (from the RPF to UMP), and a consensus national hero image, transcending ideological cleavages. Over the years, the second mark erased the first: the politician reference "Gaullist" gave way to the "Gaullist myth." While the presidential campaign of Nicolas Sarkozy claimed little of the presumptive heirs of the General (she announced on the contrary the "break"), one is struck in the number of events - programming, exhibitions, books, pilgrimages to Colombey - organised this year to celebrate a double anniversary, one of the appeal of 18 June 1940 and in the death of its author, November 9, 1970.

It is precisely on the Gaullist myth that the British historian Sudhir Hazareesingh dedicated a work insightful and amply documented. The image of the General note, combines all forms of exemplary: "liberator of the country, founding father of the Republic, educator civic, protector of the nation" - with "bonus, a touch of martyr", following his departure from power in 1969. Another virtue of this image is its ability to reconcile opposites, and therefore to serve as a reference to political attitudes the most various: the assertion of a strong power, but also the rebellion against the established order, conservatism and reformer bold, uncompromising worship of the "greatness" and opportunistic adaptation to the circonstances

This myth, says the author, is not the simple result of exceptional historical action. It was built from the beginning, by de Gaulle himself. The way in which it manages, in London, to be recognized as the embodiment of all the forces of the France is certainly a very sincere view of legitimacy, that will be up to the end of his political career: the accession of thousands of French, wrote in 1941, is "a kind of election permanent which justifies our authority."

But if this "permanent election" has been largely spontaneous, the art of political communication has also played a role: the June 18 human has always been a remarkable organizer of symbolic events. Several occasions, between 1941 and 1944, he put in some cities of France ad - generally very followed - silent gatherings: a way to maintain distance, a link with the supporters of the resistance. In 1945, who came to power, he refuses too pompous celebration of the June 18, to not be open to the charge of caesarism - and decided now celebrate this anniversary at mont Valérien, in tribute to the dead of the two wars: "Foch, Clemenceau, de Gaulle, it is the same thing," he says to Claude Mauriac.

The construction of the myth, finally, owes much to the strength of the verb. If speeches and interventions TV General remained of anthology pieces, the huge success of the first two volumes of the "memories of war", published in 1954 and 1956, marked a turning point. Punctuated forms have become legendary ("all my life, I had some idea of the France"), they indicate the contours of the Gaullist statue: the role of the free France as true hub of resistance, and the fierce defence, in the years of war, French interests in English and American settlement. Above all, these "memories" are of the France war one vision somewhat mythical, but positive and reassuring - a sort of "national Refoundation deal."

That suggests, in fact, reading this study, is that the myth of De Gaulle was for him a means than an end. Needed to attract volunteers to the free France; and, later, to impose his own account of the national history to the Communists. The PCF, in the aftermath of the war, wanted to enhance the action of its own in combat, as opposed to inertia or betrayal of the "bourgeois France. With this politicized vision, the Gaullist story was a France, but United, never resigned, and ready for a new class.

One question remains: why the memory of General recessional today, much more vigorously than in the previous anniversaries Can invoke the existential questions raised by the debate on national identity, or abandonment of sovereignty related to the struggling European construction. But the real cause is perhaps the economic crisis, which exacerbates tensions between classes: more worsens the fear of the future sacrifices, to promotes the image of the powerful and impartial decision-maker bearer of a reconciling project. The Gaullist myth would be a barometer of the anguish of the French. Today, it is not the fixed beau.