Are people dangerous?

News Mondays - Clément Guntern

In this month of January 2019, in France, the popular «gilets jaunes» movement tends to take two different forms. On the one hand, those who continue to demonstrate more or less violently and, on the other, those who wish to take part in the debate inaugurated by President Macron. For the latter, it's a question of debating the thousand and one issues tormenting the country and discussing democracy. Or even reinventing it.

Let's not go that far. Reinventing democracy, certainly not, but reshaping representative democracy, perhaps. The great debate called for by the President could take the form of participatory roundtables. Or, simply put, a debate around a table. Many among the «gilets jaunes» regret the attitude of the government, which, during certain pronouncements, sometimes excluded certain reforms from the debates, sometimes admitted all the themes. Indeed, the modalities of a nationwide debate are complex. In fact, the first meetings in the communes of France revolved around the modalities of the debate. Where should it take place? With whom? When should it take place? How many people? Having rules to frame a discussion is essential to a productive approach, and those who take offense at this are not clear about what democracy is all about.

The French seem to be waking up to the fact, or perhaps asking more strongly, that democracy is more than just elections. The definition of a democracy is so complex and varied that not a single one on this earth has its exact counterpart in any other country. The ways in which institutions, parliaments, governments and citizens are organized are as numerous as the states themselves. The same vagueness reigns and the same field of possibilities opens up when we ask ourselves where democracy begins and ends. Is the election of a parliament enough? Certainly not. It needs conditions that frame it: impartial justice, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, meaningful participation, an accurate vote count and a multitude of rules that we no longer necessarily equate with the exercise of democracy.

The same applies to citizen participation, which can take more or less extensive forms. In the «yellow vests» movement, one demand quickly emerged: the citizens' initiative referendum, or RIC. The latter have presented it as a miracle cure for France, even though some, mostly members of the political or intellectual elite, see it more as a threat to democracy; arguing that the people would risk demolishing progressive legislative constructs such as the death penalty, marriage for all and many others.

Doesn't this reaction justify the very demand for the RIC? For it is this paternalistic, elitist attitude of politicians, denying the opinion of many in order to impose what is really good for the people, that is disturbing. This is the disconnect between the people and their leaders that the RIC aims to combat. Are referendums, and by extension the people, dangerous? No. On the contrary, more or less regular elections help to impose a degree of confidence and serenity in the political system, and can regulate it. A party that finds itself disavowed at the ballot box will have to question itself and accept the result. There's no need to hear «what the French want» from politicians from all parties who think they know what's best for the country. Why not simply ask them?

But, as with all democratic bodies, referendums need to be framed by rules and institutions. The aim is to avoid becoming a meaningless system where decisions are not implemented. All these questions about democracy in France need to be followed closely from Switzerland. After all, we're not perfect with our semi-direct democracy. Interesting ideas on referendums and popular initiatives could be taken up by us if they go in the direction of a fairer and more impartial regulation of the right to vote. This is still lacking in Switzerland.

Write to the author: clement.guntern@leregardlibre.com

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons, CC 2.0