Before being shaken up by the appearance of the internet and the revolution of social networks, television was the setting for the main political contests. Theater of murderous debates or sequences that have become cults, the small screen offered a multitude of highlights under the Fifth Republic. This summer, Le Figaro tells you behind the scenes of these meetings.

Boxing gloves and helmets taken out. The game can begin. In the ring, the “Playboy CEO” Bernard Tapie, facing the “Menhir” Jean-Marie Le Pen. These two “television beasts” have not seen each other since their first meeting on the front page on December 8, 1989. The two men had “exchanged bird names”, had “almost come to blows”, recalls journalist Paul Amar.

But, on the evening of June 1, 1994, less than two weeks before the first round of the Europeans, Paul Amar this time took “precautions”. “As we want to avoid trauma or blows, there will be gloves and a helmet,” he announces, taking two pairs of red boxing gloves out of a Decathlon bag. On the set of Antenne 2, circumspection, followed by a silence tinged with unease. Thinking that he could keep the paraphernalia, the leader of the National Front is amused by this little “tribune effect”. And to temporize: “We do not need them, but I would have used them if they had been given to me. I see that the generosity of Antenne 2 does not go that far.” As if to stand out from his opponent, MP Bernard Tapie retorts dryly, in a deep voice, with a stern look: “Politics is serious”. Hubert Védrine, former secretary general of the Élysée, deciphers: “At the time, entering into confrontation with Le Pen was a way for Tapie to be appreciated by the moralist left.”

Orchestrated by Paul Amar, this staging suggests a heated debate. It is not so. The two candidates turn out to be courteous. So much so that the journalist slips: “You are very timid.” And, amazed by this equanimity, compliments them: “You have progressed. What dignity in the exchange!”

Behind the scenes, the atmosphere is much less cordial. Opposed to this debate, Paul Amar resigned the same morning from Antenne 2. Retained by the rest of the editorial staff, he “ends up obeying his direction, but goes there in ‘kamikaze’ mode”, he will tell a few years later. The boxing gloves are his way of expressing his disagreement with Jean-Pierre Elkabbach, director of the channel, with whom he maintains execrable relations. “But it was also to remind the two guests of the rules of the art,” insists Paul Amar.

It must be said that, as soon as he entered politics, Bernard Tapie made Breton an enemy to be defeated. It all started in 1988. The legislative elections appeared to be an opportunity to confront the founder of the FN, then a candidate in Marseille. But, failing to obtain the approval of the PS, Tapie is finally invested in another constituency. Six years later, the aversion has not subsided. No sooner had the debate begun than the former socialist minister launched: “I believe that the two who cannot go a long way together are the FN and the radicals”. Jean-Marie Le Pen is no less distant with his adversary, whom he cynically describes as “an emblematic symbol of non-France”. For Lorrain de Saint-Affrique, close adviser to the FN candidate, who organized the meeting, it is above all a question of political spectacle. “There was never any hatred for them. Their entourages have never stopped communicating. Upstream of the debate, a pact would have been sealed in particular: not a word on the controversy of the “detail of History”, which continues the frontist, nor on the affair of Crédit Lyonnais, which affects the former minister.

But Tapie and Le Pen do not only have their media-judicial imbroglios in common. And the communication consultant Thierry Saussez was one of the first to notice it. In his book Tapie-Le Pen. The twins of populism (Edition° 1, 1992), presented by Paul Amar at the start of the debate, the parallel is unequivocal. Followers of the show business, they share a taste for provocation, and have a keen sense of formula, which they sometimes embellish with grave undertones. “Tapie was very attractive. His banter and his nerve appealed to the popular electorate, ”recalls Hubert Védrine. “Le Pen practiced Gauloiserie. He had the art of putting the laughers on his side, ”notes a former RN strategy adviser.

Excellent in the art of self-promotion, they constantly claim their popular origins. Thierry Saussez refers to them in particular as “the son of the people from his native Brittany and the child of the poor suburbs”. Similarly, while on the left Tapie denounces the brown peril, on the right Le Pen cries out for the end of European civilization. “Le Pen embodies an ideological populism. While Tapie is getting closer to the populism of a business leader, like Berlusconi, ”analyzes political scientist Marc Lazar.

Central figure of the far right for one, new face of the left for the other, they present themselves as “spokespersons for all those excluded from the system”. Both proclaim themselves “passionate, violent” marginals. Both vilify technocracy, the elite or even the “establishment”, which Le Pen criticizes on several occasions during this debate. Le Pen’s former right-hand man concludes: “They have a common popular love and, from this point of view, they have always respected each other.”