Tribune. The two candidates in the second round of the presidential election compete with institutional projects relatively absent from their first round campaign and seem to be late in taking note of the demand for democratic renewal. The candidate Emmanuel Macron announces that he wants to hold, if he is re-elected, a new citizens’ convention and lead “a new great permanent debate” pour “share responsibility” reforms with the French. But the outgoing president’s track record in terms of democratic reforms seems out of step with his statements.
What conclusions did the executive draw from the great national debate, whose audiences were largely drawn from its electorate? The legislative and regulatory proposals of the citizens’ convention for the climate have been taken up too little to achieve the objective set, despite the presidential promise of the “without filter”, quickly abandoned. Candidate Macron’s program, as it stands, does not give enough guarantees of a renewal.
On the other hand, the candidate Le Pen exploits, through her calls for a “referendum revolution”, the real desire for direct democracy to advance, faithful to its oft-repeated convictions, its project of limiting the rule of law and of rapprochement with authoritarian regimes.
Fundamental right
In this configuration, and in the face of recent setbacks in environmental rights and protection, with the proliferation of derogatory texts calling into question the existing procedures for citizen participation, it is appropriate to recall that participation has become a fundamental right , and no longer just a mode of consultation on projects. The Environmental Charter gave constitutional value, in 2005, to the new rights to information and participation, essential to environmental democracy. Since the law of 27 February 2002 on local democracy, the National Commission for Public Debate (CNDP) has been the independent administrative authority responsible for guaranteeing this new general interest.
But this dynamic of participatory democracy has since been reversed. Evidenced by the proliferation of parliamentary reports or reports commissioned by the government, which, under the pretext of simplifying and accelerating authorization procedures, ultimately only aim to improve the “acceptability” of projects, and all propose restrict public participation. For the first time, projects with a strong environmental impact will be able to be decided on by bypassing the obligation, established by the law of 2002, to inform the public and discuss them. Maintaining the public inquiry, an important high point within the continuum of participation in projects, is weakened by its transformation into a simple electronic consultation in an increasing number of cases. Public participation is seen as an unnecessary barrier and a secondary right.
You have 65.15% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.