While the U.S. elects its president through an electoral college, France chooses him or her through a direct election. Outwardly, its presidential system resembles Korea’s.

With the presidential term shortened to five years from seven, France has since 2002 conducted its presidential election in the same year as we do. A major difference is the knockout system whereby the frontrunner and runner-up in the first ballot compete with each other in a second and final round.

So I carefully watched the French presidential election in May. At the beginning, I felt there was little difference, no matter that France is a developed country.

In the past 26 years, France produced only two heads of state. The late socialist president Francois Mitterrand ruled a total of 14 years, and president Jacques Chirac, a center-rightist, a total of 12. Under the prolonged Mitterrand-Chirac administration, which lasted about as long as the presence of the three Kims -- Kim Young-sam, Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-pil -- in Korean politics, people’s impatience with politicians was at its peak.

Voters complained about a lack of qualified contenders and floating voters were at a record high until the eve of the election. Francois Bayrou, an undistinguished candidate who professed to represent neither the Left nor the Right rose like a meteor to capture third place in ballots.

However violently the branches shook, however, France restored bipartisan stability on account of two solid bases which are lacking in Korea.

The first base is the tradition of party politics, which we lack almost entirely. Unlike our politicking by motley crews of carpetbaggers who frequently move from one party to another and whose parties merge and disappear so often that voters can hardly remember their names and understand their identities, French politicians stay with the party they choose and seldom bolt from it.

The second is the press. France differs from Korea in that each newspaper has its clear-cut political color and publicly supports a particular candidate. But what is really impressive is that French newspapers allocate more space to a comprehensive diagnosis of French society than to telling their readers which candidate to support.

Le Monde, for one, printed a series of pieces on a theme a day examining French society by contrasting the views of specialists with different perspectives. Le Figaro, in a separate section, reviewed the international standing of French society and problems in politics, the economy, society and welfare. Hundreds of books were published during the presidential election period, analyzing French society and public pledges made by the contenders.

Thanks to all of them, I was able to understand French society more deeply during the few months preceding the campaign than during the entire three years I have been assigned to Paris.

Even for a foreign correspondent, then, and much more so for the voters, a presidential election is an important opportunity to make an in-depth study of the country they live in. Everyone thinks carefully about what the country has done, what the problems are and which direction it should pursue in the future. These are not the tasks of presidential candidates or politicians alone; they are the tasks of every voter.

The French press offered plenty of such study materials. Using them as reference, voters were able to enrich their political understanding by diagnosing their country and thinking hard which leader will resolve France's problems.

Little can be expected from politicking by motley crews of carpetbaggers; but wouldn’t it be marvelous to see the press perform the role of assessing the central trends and developments? It's a pity that our press appears too much preoccupied with scandals and exposes to act as a compass.

The column was contributed by Kang Kyung-hee, the Chosun Ilbo's correspondent in Paris.