The “100 Days of the President”: Tradition or Illusion?
The concept of the “100 Days of the President” has always fascinated and sparked heated debates in political and media circles. This tradition, imported from the United States by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, which consists of evaluating the first actions and achievements of a new President at the end of his first 100 days in power, has become an essential barometer for measuring the proactivity and effectiveness of a Head of State.
However, this tradition is not without raising questions about its relevance and validity. Indeed, is it realistic to judge a presidential mandate on the basis of only 100 days of exercising power? Wouldn’t this be a reductive and simplistic vision of the complexity of governance and the challenges that a President faces?
Some leaders, such as François Hollande in France and Emmanuel Macron, have expressed their reservations about the importance given to these famous “100 days”. For them, politics must be part of the long term, and judging a President on his actions during his first months in office alone seems to be a reductive approach.
However, this tradition persists and continues to fuel political debates. In Congo Kinshasa, for example, the “100 days of the President” have become a hot topic, attracting the attention of the media and political experts. But is it wise to apply such a concept in a country with continental dimensions, multiple and complex challenges?
Certainly, evaluating the first actions of a Head of State can be a legitimate exercise to measure his responsiveness and initial vision. However, it is important not to limit oneself to this symbolic period and to take into account the overall context in which the President operates.
Thus, the “100 days of the President” could be seen as one indicator among others to assess the leadership and capabilities of a Head of State, but should in no case be considered as the sole criterion for the success or failure of a presidential mandate.
Ultimately, the question of the “100 days of the President” raises fundamental issues about the way politics is perceived and evaluated. Rather than an immutable tradition, it might be wiser to adopt a nuanced and comprehensive approach to understanding governance and political leadership.