To criticize the elites is not to reject them, but rather to believe in their mission. Provided we don't fall into systematic opposition.
Criticism of the elites has become suspect in public debate. It's as if any questioning of those in positions of intellectual, political or cultural authority must be the expression of «anti-system» resentment, of a dangerous rejection of the democratic order. A kind of taboo has taken hold: we can mock the crowds, mock the masses or denounce popular excesses, but we must kneel before any holder of symbolic power, on the pretext that they embody ’expertise« or »legitimacy«.
This reflex is not only lazy, but intellectually dishonest. It betrays a degraded conception of democracy and responsibility. To criticize the elites - in the noble and demanding sense of the term - is not to deny their usefulness. To do so within the bounds of good faith and rational debate is, on the contrary, proof that we still believe in their mission. Precisely because we need genuine elites, we must be entitled to hold them to account. Demand that they live up to their responsibilities. And denounce their failure when they go wrong.
Human societies need elites. They have always had them. A society without elites is not egalitarian, it is disoriented. The only thing that matters is equality under the law. The diversity of talents and tastes then determines a spontaneous order. And this is desirable: history shows that a planned order generates worse results and more injustice.
Go to our dossier «When elites are irresponsible»
What we call the «elites» is not a social class in itself. They are not a hereditary caste, nor an opportunistic nomenklatura. True elites are people of merit. They are people who, by virtue of their training, experience and willingness to think beyond themselves, are in a position to assume higher responsibilities: academic, political, institutional in the broadest sense...
Elites are defined by the fact that they exercise power - real or symbolic - over the people. It goes without saying that their actions - including their discourse - can and should be subject to public scrutiny.
It's not because we criticize the elites that we reject them. It's because we want them to exist. It's because we don't want them to become hollow figures, reduced to entre-soi, communication and careers. It's because we expect them to manage the city's affairs to the best of their ability, to guide it, to embody it.
Read also | Céline Vara and the revolt of the elites
It's when you love an idea, an institution, a mission, that you're most critical of it. We only correct what we deem worthy of correction. Indifference is abandonment. Criticism, on the other hand, is loyalty. To demand more of our elites is still to believe that they can do better. That they must do better. Conversely, criticism by default on the part of the «anti-elites» testifies to a hatred of them. And it's not real criticism, because it's not based on an accurate case-by-case analysis.
So it's not a question of being automatically against, but to be always critical. This is the very condition for the survival of elites and their quality. Legitimacy cannot be decreed once and for all. It has to be cultivated. It is nurtured and earned, day after day.
To refuse criticism is to confuse authority with immunity, respect with submission. But there can be no real respect without reciprocal demands.
Every month, a member of the editorial team takes a stand on a subject related to the issues addressed in Le Regard Libre. Write to the author: jonas.follonier@leregardlibre.com
French 
German 
English