Members of France’s ruling conservative party began voting yesterday to determine the level of support for Nicolas Sarkozy, who has emerged as the Union for a Popular Movement’s (UMP) sole candidate for the presidential elections in April. The final decision will be taken on January 14, when most of the party’s 336,000 members are expected to support the ambitious Minister of the Interior, after the withdrawal of the other main contender, Michèle Alliot-Marie, the Defence Minister. One important endorsement is still missing, however: that of President Chirac, the party’s founder and, after 12 years in the Elysée and 40 in ministerial office, the man most able to influence the choice of his successor.

Mr Chirac has, however, pointedly refused to endorse Mr Sarkozy. He said little in his new year message about the forthcoming election, trumpeting instead his own assessment of achievements in office while slyly criticising those — such as Mr Sarkozy — who want France to move to more American ways of doing business. His vendetta against the man who is by far the most popular and credible politician on the Right is notorious. It goes back to Mr Chirac’s pique at Mr Sarkozy’s backing for the rival Gaullist candidate in the 1995 presidential elections. But it has since been fuelled by what appears to be petulant jealousy of a man who has called for a “break” with past policies and has won widespread acclaim for doing so.

Mr Chirac’s motives are unclear. He may still believe that, at 74, he could run for a third term and is therefore keeping his options open. He is still personally popular, even though most voters find little substantial in his legacy and regard him as the weakest president of the Fifth Republic. He may be misled by the 82 per cent majority he achieved in the final round of the last election — which was due far more to voter distaste for his far-right opponent, Jean-Marie Le Pen, than to his own popularity. Or he could be hoping that a sudden new international crisis will persuade his party to stick with a safe pair of hands.

It is time he saw through such self-delusion. Voters are heartily sick of the opportunism, policy zig-zags, miasma of corruption and vacuity that have increasingly marked his final term in office and paralysed French policy at home and abroad. Many, however, see in Mr Chirac’s studied ambiguity something more sinister: a determination, like Samson, to pull the pillars down on his party if this would also destroy his hated rival. It will be hard for the UMP stalwarts and those still loyal to the President to endorse Mr Sarkozy if they think that Mr Chirac still intends to stand. Few seriously think he will. But if he waits until the last minute to withdraw, he will hamper seriously the momentum that Mr Sarkozy needs to pull ahead of Ségolène Royal, the telegenic Socialist presidential contender.

The Socialists are delighted by the continuing disarray in the UMP. They do not think the President’s promises of last-minute initiatives to reduce homelessness will make any difference to unease at the current stagnation. They are hoping that Ms Royal can count on Mr Chirac’s continuing sulk to portray the Socialists as the only unified, viable alternative. They may be right. For unless Mr Chirac accepts the coming end to his career with dignity, he will leave office without achievement, honour or Gaullist successor.