Research director at CNRS, member of the political research center of Sciences Po (Cevipof) and author of the book Reasons for mistrust (Sciences Po Press, 172 pages, 15 euros), political scientist Luc Rouban answered questions from readers of the World, Wednesday January 12.
The remarks of Emmanuel Macron on the unvaccinated will they not lead to greater anger against the elected representatives of the majority, with possible overflows?
It is true that Emmanuel Macron has remained faithful to his policy of “little phrases”, which may have aggravated the feeling of social contempt for citizens on the part of political staff. His comments on the unvaccinated suggest that there are two worlds, that of power and the rulers and that of the ruled. This reinforces the vertical character of his governance, and stirs the anger of the 75% of voters who did not vote for him in 2017. With, indeed, the risk of overflows, which are already appearing.
Several elected officials describe the level of violence as unprecedented, figures from the Ministry of the Interior also show it. But wouldn’t this be due primarily to an increase in reports? Is the climate really more harmful today than twenty years ago?
One might wonder, in fact, if the statistical measurement apparatus, by evolving and becoming more precise, does not play a certain role in the construction of the reality of violence. We are already familiar with this debate with the issue of police violence. However, we can also think that the nature of violence has evolved, more explicitly political twenty years ago, more diffuse and more individualistic today, which does not mean depoliticized, but politicized in another way. Basically, the climate has nevertheless deteriorated sharply between non-militant citizens and elected officials for twenty years.
Isn’t representative democracy sick? Some voters no longer feel represented by their elected representatives. Others sometimes forget that deputies do not have an imperative mandate …
Yes, it is undeniable, representative democracy is in crisis. It is the very notion of representation that is called into question – we have clearly seen this with the movement of “yellow vests”, which refused the existence of representatives. The idea of representation was born from the liberal philosophy of the XVIIe century and intends to separate the representatives from the represented in order to free the latter so that they can devote themselves to their private affairs. But the evolution of economic, social and political issues has made this barrier abstract, pushing to ask for a direct intervention of citizens on public action.
The abstention rates are regularly high. Are elected officials and politicians of all parties aware of the disenchantment of the French towards the political class and, above all, of the enormous lack of confidence in them?
Yes, when we talk to elected officials, we can clearly see their dismay because it must be said clearly: many are devoted and overworked in a world whose complexity they ignore – if only the legal complexity. This awareness is very acute, especially among mayors, who are in direct contact with citizens on a daily basis, especially in small towns. They say very clearly that the climate has deteriorated and many are only considering one or two terms. It is more complex for other elected officials, regional or national, such as deputies, because their mandate is part of partisan power games and long careers.
Is there a demonstrated or probable relationship between abstention and violence against elected officials? In other words, are violent “citizens” also people disconnected from the vote?
Violence towards oneself or others is the child of anomie, that is to say of a lack of social benchmarks. However, it should be noted that the proportion of anomics in France is 50%, according to the results of the latest waves of “ Political confidence barometer From Cevipof. This constitutes a breeding ground for violence that we do not know in other comparable European countries.
With the Covid-19, mayors as well as deputies have been sidelined, the government making its decisions in direct consultation with scientists … It is difficult to be surprised at a distrust of elected officials …
Scientific experts and doctors have by definition taken a preponderant place in a decision-making system confronted with many uncertainties (virulence, diffusion, long-term effects, etc.). But in many aspects, the health crisis is only the extension of the democratic crisis of which we have had strong signs with the “yellow vests” or the abstention rates.
Does this violence against elected officials result from a still too summary transparency of public and political life?
Mistrust of elected officials is fueled by a feeling of opacity in public decision-making and above all – perhaps even more so – by the existence of political careers not very sensitive to setbacks, which leads to denouncing an oligarchy which protects itself . But the transition to violence is not only a result of endemic mistrust, but above all a lack of respect for institutions and the functions of representatives. We could show that political life was at least as opaque thirty years ago, with much less direct violence against the person of elected officials.
The best option to stop having violence against politicians would it not be to no longer have elected political professionals?
One can imagine it but one can also think that the designation of ordinary citizens (with the drawing of lots, for example) could arouse strong protests (why him or her?) And violence in a country which has the cult of the ‘equality. The issue of professionalization is also difficult to decide, because we like to have competent elected officials, knowing the territories and therefore benefiting from a certain experience.
The problems are old, but haven’t they become more acute since 2017? Does not the fact of having a very young head of state, never elected before, and surrounded by a majority of “amateurs”, in his own words, not fuel the trial in incompetence?
Macronism does indeed have characteristics which strongly distinguish it, on the sociological level, from ordinary political life as it was conceived before. However, other factors can play in this trial in incompetence, such as the fact of having widened a divide between the tops of the State and the daily ground of the public services. But, again, this divide did not begin in 2017.
Don’t the media have a role in this “hysterization” of political life which turns into aggression and sometimes violence?
No, I don’t think so, and for two reasons. The first is that the level of trust in the media is just as low as the level of trust in parties. The second is that history shows us moments of great political violence born out of highly conflictual situations at a time when the media were reduced to newspapers (I am thinking, for example, of the Dreyfus affair). I rather think that the potential for violence is an “already there”, the triggering of which is often individual (for example during attacks against the President of the Republic) and linked to a desecration of republican institutions.