Will the “Civil Society Chamber” created by the government really give citizens and civil society players a say in French politics? Nothing is less certain.
Civic participation is to democracy what practising sport is to health. Good on the face of it, it can do more harm than good if it is insufficiently and badly practised. In recent years, however, practices aimed at involving citizens in political decision-making have proliferated in France, sometimes at the risk of exhausting citizens’ energy.
From neighbourhood councils and national consultations to “co-construction”, citizens’ petitions and other participatory urban planning initiatives, right down to the very recent Halles Civiques in Paris: “citizen participation”, now enhanced by civic tech, is definitely in the spotlight. All these initiatives are generating enthusiasm, but remain scattered and struggling to have an effective impact on public policy. The future “Chamber of Citizen Participation” would therefore have the task of bringing them together institutionally. Are the conditions right?
Participating is not deliberating
Article 14 of the draft constitutional law for a more representative, accountable and effective democracy, which will be examined this week by the National Assembly’s Law Commission, creates a “Chamber of Civil Society” in Title XI of the Constitution. Previously known as the “Chamber of Citizen Participation”, rapporteur Yaël Braun-Pivet (LREM) is proposing to rename it the “Forum of the Republic”.
This chamber will take the place of the Economic, Social and Environmental Council in order to organise public consultation and thus enlighten the government and parliament on the economic, social and environmental issues and the long-term consequences of the decisions taken by the public authorities. Citizens’ views will be taken into account through a petitions system.
We can only welcome this development which, if the polls are to be believed, meets a strong expectation on the part of the French. According to a recent survey, 86% of French people believe that it is important for France to have an institution representing civil society, whose opinions are taken into account by the public authorities. However, the success of this Chamber will depend on the quality of citizen deliberation and the place that political decision-makers give to citizen expression. Although the concept of “deliberative democracy” is only about thirty years old, we know from the many experiments conducted in recent years the conditions that need to be in place to enable real deliberation producing informed citizens’ opinions, and to ensure that these make a useful contribution to public decision-making.
Kumbaya democracy or direct democracy?
Here’s the basic recipe: take a diverse group of citizens, representative as far as possible of the population concerned. Give them all the information they need, and allow them to examine the opinions of all sides carefully. This is the prerequisite for informed expression, allowing collective intelligence to flourish. Then make sure that this expression has a clear place in the decision-making process. If it is simply an informative opinion, that must be said, without claiming that it is the citizens who “decide”. And, in the long run, we can’t hope to motivate sustainable, high-quality participation without offering a real grip on the power to decide.
Deliberation is not just about enabling citizens to participate in nothing more than a kumbaya moment in political life. And, let’s not beat about the bush, actually taking part in the decision means giving more room to direct democracy. If the Chamber does not really allow for deliberation or choice, we will remain at the level of a decorative “participation” in which citizens will not recognise themselves and which will not interest them. Nowhere in the institutional reform does it say how the contributions of this Chamber will be dealt with. And the amendments proposed by Mrs Braun-Pivet to “clarify its place in relation to that of Parliament” would have the effect of making its consultation… optional.
Instead, this body should strive to implement best practice in deliberation. And the government and parliament will have to ensure that its input is traceable in their decisions. Otherwise, there is a risk of fuelling mistrust between elected representatives and citizens, bearing in mind that a third of the latter now believe that democracy is no longer the system best suited to meeting their needs.
The stakes are vital: if we don’t get the blood of citizen expression flowing more effectively through the body politic, which is currently suffering from a lack of legitimacy and effectiveness, democracy itself could perish.
Source poll: ‘The French, civil society and the EESC‘, carried out by IFOP in February 2018.
Author: Stephen Boucher
