Are the French in the process of integrating, or even accepting a form of sobriety, it is a social question that we are asking ourselves, in this new weekend of demonstrations against the A69 motorway project, between Castres and Toulouse, project recently confirmed by the government. Decryption with sociologist Jean Viard.
An IFOP survey of residents of Tarn and Haute-Garonne, published this week on behalf of opposition groups, shows that 61% of residents are in favor of abandoning the A69 motorway project, even though they consider it useful. In this new weekend of demonstrations against this motorway project, between Castres and Toulouse, a project recently confirmed by the government, we can ask ourselves the question of the integration, by a majority of French people, of a form of sobriety .
franceinfo: A project that they consider useful but not essential, is that sobriety, Jean Viard?
Jean Viard: We are all questioning ourselves, we feel that we need to change direction, and then at what speed, and we could almost say that there is a double legitimacy. There is the incontestable legitimacy of elected officials, the court decisions which took years. And then suddenly, there is indeed the rise of ecological anxiety, of a completely legitimate question. The first legitimacy is almost direct democracy. And then the other would be representative democracy. And that’s a bit of the problem.
And that’s why this survey is interesting, because it’s an issue that interests me a lot, and I was basically saying to myself, what do people think, and I mean people, residents ? The survey figures are very clear: public opinion has evolved significantly on these subjects. And it’s very complicated because the elected officials, the time of deliberation, of the trials, of the purchases, of the waits, finally, when they arrive, it is very reminiscent of Notre-Dame-des-Landes which lasted even longer. So I believe that the normal response would be to say – when there is a debate between direct democracy and representative democracy – it is the people who decide, that would be the legitimate response.
And as for the expression of the population, the most striking figure from this survey carried out among around 600 inhabitants, shows that 82% of those questioned support the organization of a local referendum, on this project of motorway between Castres and Toulouse. The government has confirmed the A69 project, but promises to modify it. This is a logic that the Minister of Transport, Clément Beaune, already explained at the end of September on franceinfo. : “We cannot do as before, and therefore the projects which are in progress, we will reduce their impact on the environment. This applies to the A69, and for the projects which have not yet been launched, we will maintain a few that are useful, and we are going to stop some of them. We are going to continue this effort: more rail, and less road.”
So, how can we qualify this logic, Jean Viard. Is this the logic of small steps? Is it the one which, in terms of acceptability, is the right one and ultimately the most effective?
Look for example, the motorways in Brittany, which are 110 motorways, they are not real motorways, we will say, the exits are much shorter, so we are not obliged to have a motorway, perhaps be on the very wide model, with very wide sides. So, there are technical developments, there is also listening to the population, and there is a second subject which will start in this region, it is the LGV line, Bordeaux-Toulouse.
I tend to think that we perhaps need to know how to let go on one subject in order to gain on the other, because the real tool for planning this essential region is the Bordeaux-Toulouse high-speed line, which puts Toulouse on the TGV network. That seems to me to be a major issue. So perhaps wanting to run two projects, in the same region, at the same time is extremely dangerous.
Would the inhabitants of Castres tell you that the Bordeaux-Toulouse line will not pass through them? How can we find a form of acceptability from the population in the changes that climate challenges impose on us?
It is politics that is reorganizing itself, with climate war as a central element. What we need to learn is where we compromise, and where we have a spirit of tolerance? This is the essence of democracy. Not everyone can win. There, for the moment, we have the impression that there is no place for arbitration. This is why the idea of a local initiative referendum in this territory may seem like a democratic solution to move forward.
Thomas Brail, an environmental activist, mobilized precisely against this highway project, began a hunger strike, then a thirst strike, to try to win his case. He had to be hospitalized about ten days ago. In both substance and form, are we at this moment where environmental struggles must be radical to be effective, or is it the other way around?
It must be said that we are in a gigantic battle, and we are accelerating it, probably not enough, of course. Then there are people who are hyperradical. Not everyone can be right alone. That’s why I insist on the democratic process, saying, we respect each other, we discuss the method, the modalities for making the decision, and then we will apply it. But everyone must accept that this is it; that democracy is an aesthetic, and that if we do not accept this aesthetic of democracy, to listen to each other and agree on the rule of decision, then we are in trouble.