Jonathan Fenby is clear in his political allegiance; France on the Brink provides a lot of insight into the machinations of Fifth Republic French politics, but what it does best is show its author's political biases.
It was an interesting read and provided me a lot of detail I previously had not known about the leaders (and wannabe leaders) of the 5th Republic. The writing was of a higher quality than your average history/politics book. But for someone trying to convince his readers that France needs to move forward and embrace a new world economy, he seems awfully stuck in his old-man ways. He glosses over all the negatives associated with his obviously preferred economic platform (privatization, straight capitalism, austerity measures) and only begrudgingly (and rarely) gives credit to any socialist-ish tendencies within the French economic system, constantly decrying it as a welfare state and the cause of all the malaise in France.
He clearly disapproves of workers rights, younger retirement ages, reduced working hours (even though he grudgingly admits that "the hourly productivity of French workers is good" (56), and regularly throws in snide evidence-less pokes at the 35 hour work week (eg, "the thirty-five hour working week introduced by the Socialist government of Lionel Jospin remains a drag on output and saddles companies with overtime payments."(54) --he has not and does not provide any evidence of this claim he states as fact, but instead goes for anecdotal humorous quotes made my millionaires to support his belief). He refers to "progress" as increasing the retirement age and selling off state-run moneymakers to private businesses (ask Chicago how well that works to close a deficit).
However, his book is almost as detailed as it is biased, and based on the evidence supplied by Mr. Fenby the more obvious conclusion is that near universal corruption (among politicians) and bureaucratic redundancies are more to blame than the 35 hour work week and corporate taxes.
His choices of description of the major players of the last 70 years is further evidence of this book's right-leaning bias: d'Estaing and Sarkozy had 'unfortunate' circumstances disrupt their terms, whereas Mitterand and Hollande are immoral and inept, respectively, and both 'ignored' the economic realities. The evidence presented, however, certainly makes a clear case that every single one of these men (and the few women mentioned) was/is corrupt, blatantly and knowingly manipulating the system and breaking the laws to increase either their money, their power, or (most often) both. The entire book practically screams that all of the politicians of the 5th Republic, from both sides, have significantly contributed to the problems in Modern France, and led to what he identifies (melodramatically) as the "brink" on which France is teetering. Despite his own 400+ pages of proof, he obviously thinks the protections for the workers and the politicians who claim to support them are what is really wrong with the country.
The organization of the books reduced its enjoyability a bit, as well. It feels like Fenby wanted to create a chronological history of France's political and economic woes, but instead it feels hastily slapped together at the last minute, occasionally trying too hard to be clever. He constantly says things like 'but we'll cover that in a chapter ahead' and 'as was made clear in previous chapters', but rarely does the promise or reminder feel fulfilled or complete. It is as though he cannot help himself, and regularly uses future events to explain past actions.
Another detractor is how hastily it seems to have been updated from it's original edition ten+ years earlier. He uses the same allegories, quotes, and comparisons over and over and over again --I'm assuming he forgot that he'd already used the Malade Imaginaire reference about 6 times in earlier chapters before overtly using it 3 more times in the final one. This repetitiveness happens a lot.
Mr Fenby preemptively defends his outsider status immediately, acknowledging that some will see him as an ignorant foreigner throwing mud at the french way of life and politics. He clearly has a good academic understanding and appreciation for French culture, but he certainly is (and comes across as) a foreign outsider, commentating on a political and cultural climate that he neither understands nor approves of. He may love the adorable little villages, and he has clearly interviewed and reported on some of the top power of the hexagon throughout the years,* but he does not respect the importance -and honestly impressive- role the people play in holding their governments accountable. He talks of the way the French will take to the streets in protest as though it is something to be ashamed of, and praises Germans for putting more faith in their leaders and quietly going about their daily lives. There is some true insight in this book, but as a reader you are yanked out of the moment and made to question all of his conclusions when struck by one of his out-of-sync assumptions about the way people/economies should behave.
I'll give him this, though. For all his blatant right-side-of-the-aisle bias, he is clearly anti-Le Pen and his (later her) racist, fascist party.
*He has peppered his book with "casual" mentions of his important interviews and published articles. He always tries to make it a "surprise" that the journalist he is describing is actually him.