I'm pretty piss-poor at reading comments over the internet, but I understand you better now. I interpreted your comment in a more insulting or derogatory manner, in the typical style of "I LIVE HERE U DON'T U KAN'T SPEAK ABUT MY KUNTRY!111".
I wouldn't tell that to
you of all people.
We can agree to disagree, of course. Especially if you have tons of work (believe me, I have come to reconsider the notion of "being overwhelmed by work" in the past week).
Still, I have to restate that Sarko's "reforms" have been far from what you'd consider to be the sound and necessary reforms any government should do. It's not like they have gone that far after all (what does Sarko's super duper ultra-necessary pensions reform do ? It fixes the problem for barely a decade. What will we do at this point, raise the retirement age again ?), they have just made the country more unfair. They obviously haven't fixed the budget, as a quick look at numbers do. Really, I don't see how the majority (I understand you'd agree on one or two) of Sarko's reform could be considered as a step in the right direction by anyone except a neoliberal.
As for Mitterrand, well, of course there are lots of things to blame. But I think an overwhelming majority of laws passed have been good on balance. And it's not like they've crippled the deficit more than the right has. Regarding economic performance, I think it's fairly easy to compare Mitterrand and Sarko : both had sh*tty economic performances which weren't entirely their fault (remember the 1980s crisis was a pretty tough one and hurt the entire West). Regarding corruption, the right was hardly more honest. I don't say this to justify, but it simply means it's a general characteristic of the 1980s-1990s and not something you can blame solely on Mitterrand. And precisely, Bérégovoy's campaign finance reform is one of the main reasons why corruption has significantly diminished in the latter years IMO.
