The opening round of the French presidential election has delivered a straight choice between Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal for the final ballot in a fortnight. This is a welcome outcome. It would not have helped the country if François Bayrou, the self-styled centrist with a political platform of pious platitudes, had managed to edge himself into the frame. And it would have been a farce if divisions within the Centre-Left had allowed Jean-Marie Le Pen, who would never attract the votes of more than one in five of the electorate, an unwarranted slot in the run-off as they did five years ago. France did not need either a careerist who openly wants to avoid difficult decisions, as Mr Bayrou has done, or an unelectable extremist like Mr Le Pen, when making its ultimate decision on a President. It needs a real contrast between the last two candidates, and that is what this initial result has provided.

The campaign so far has not, however, been inspiring. Mr Sarkozy has sought to maintain his electoral base (which has not been helped by occassional sniping from those still loyal to Jacques Chirac) while pandering to some of the fears of those allergic to reform. He has thus tempered his instinct to tell the French exactly how large the challenge in front of them is and has sought to soften his reputation as a bruiser. On the whole, nonetheless, he has stuck to his principles, even if not at full volume, and he seems prepared to coax France back into the real world.

Ms Royal's effort, though, has been mediocre — and so inconsistent as to risk implosion. She, too, has had to fend off internal critics who would rather she was not the Socialist Party contender at all. She has survived a series of blunders, including a suggestion that Quebec secede from Canada. She may also have benefited from a strong “anyone but Sarko” showing from previously unregistered voters. But she has done little to diminish the impression that she is at best an amiable lightweight whose attempts to highlight her “femininity” have alienated many women.

France has many undoubted charms, but the truth is that it has underperformed economically for decades. It has also pursued a foreign policy, particularly under the departing Mr Chirac, which has looked more an exercise in irritating the United States than anything more constructive for international order. At home, a crippling unemployment rate highlights the lack of social mobility afflicting much of the working class — the elites are content, but the disadvantaged are, too often, doomed. France has to look again at some long-held policy assumptions.

The second ballot now offers that opportunity. If France is interested in change, then it will endorse Mr Sarkozy and understand that his words, coded of necessity as they might be in the coming fortnight, are a request for a mandate to take action. It will reinforce his position by ensuring that he has a sympathetic majority in the National Assembly elections which will follow very shortly. If, mistakenly, it wants to attempt to muddle through as it is, then it will back Ms Royal and hand the Left control of parliament. The worst of all worlds would be a President and National Assembly of different colours.

The choice, then, is clear enough. The potential consequences of this election are profound not only for France itself but for the direction of the EU and the wider international community. France now has the chance to change; does it have the courage to do so?