A reference figure in sociology, Dominique Schnapper has been exploring for decades the dynamics of democracy, whose virtues as well as deviations she has highlighted. Director of studies at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, she has devoted numerous books to the links that unite individuals and groups in citizenship, beyond religious and cultural affiliations, the latest of which, Worried times. Sociological reflections on the Jewish condition (Odile Jacob, 2021), recalls that anti-Semitism is “the obvious sign of a weakening of democracy”. The first sociologist to have sat on the Constitutional Council, from 2001 to 2010, she chaired the Council of Elders of Secularism, set up by the former Minister of National Education, Jean-Michel Blanquer.
Director since 2013 of the Terra Nova think tank, close to the center left, Thierry Pech is an essayist, author ofInsubordination. Portrait of the coming France (Seuil, 2017), where he paints a portrait of the French-style social pact. Former editor of The life of ideas, he co-chaired in 2019 with Laurence Tubiana the governance committee of the citizens’ convention on the climate which brought together 150 citizens drawn by lot for nine months. He dedicated a book to her, Citizens’ Parliament. The citizens’ convention for the climate (Seuil, 2021), claiming that these devices are “a new type of representative democracy”.
If both are alarmed by the consequences of the crisis opened by the pension reform, Dominique Schnapper and Thierry Pech are opposed to the solutions to be provided. They discussed it for The world.
How do you analyze the social and political crisis our country is going through?
Dominique Schnapper : This episode bears witness to a worrying relationship with democratic institutions. There was a double malfunction, but one and the other are not of the same order. On the government side, the provisions provided for in the Constitution and the regulations of the assemblies have been applied, even if they are criticized by many observers. On the side of the parliamentarians, a systematic obstruction was carried out in the hemicycle to prevent any real debate on the content of the reform. The spectacle given by the National Assembly is contrary to the democratic spirit: Parliament must be the place for debate, exchanges and compromises.
While everyone knew that the time allowed was limited, there was an exchange of insults, a multiplication of sub-amendments that were not, instead of going to the heart of the matter and bringing the debate to the bottom. Seventy hours were needed to adopt a harmless first article. Two extremisms do not really play the democratic game in the National Assembly, which makes any decision difficult.
You have 87.67% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.