CHRONIC. What does “debureaucratization” hide from us?

Clément Viktorovitch returns every week to the debates and political issues. Sunday February 4: debureaucratization, an objective declared by Prime Minister Gabriel Attal.

It was indeed one of the highlights of the general policy speech delivered on Tuesday January 30 by Gabriel Attal: the time has come for “debureaucratization”. Fighting against bureaucracy to advance freedom, lifting constraints, breaking the chains of chains: that reminds us of something, a certain Emmanuel Macron. In 2017, he already promised a “simplification”to fight “the stacking of standards”. This objective seems self-evident, it’s true, because it pivots on words that give us this impression. Bureaucracy, the stacking of standards, are terms that are intrinsically pejorative. But we must be careful not to let our view become locked into the connotation of the lexicon chosen by political leaders.

Standards are neither good nor bad in themselves. They are simply rules which organize our collective life, which say what is authorized and prohibited. In this way, they are always, above all, the expression of a political choice. Still, there are more and more rules, right? The Prime Minister recalled in his speech that the number of words published on Légifrance has doubled in 20 years.

And there is indeed normative inflation in France. This was notably shown by a State Councilor, Christophe Éoche-Duval, in a paper published in the Revue du Droit Public in March 2022. And yes, undoubtedly some of these standards are unnecessarily complex. However, if there are more and more rules, it is also because we need to regulate more and more sectors.

The emblematic case of environmental law

Take, for example, environmental law. Indeed, 20 years ago, it was much less dense than today. But it is precisely this absence of standards that has led to the dramatic situation we know today, with unprecedented degradation of soils, aquatic environments and biomass.

Ecological standards are precisely what farmers are protesting against. And besides, this shows us that this whole question is a little more complex than what Gabriel Attal says. That there are convoluted, even absurd, rules imposed on farmers: this is probably the case. But there are also constraints imposed on them for ecological reasons. What are we going to give priority to: protecting the environment, or the daily lives of those who feed the French? It is not up to me to answer it, but what is certain is that all this is not just a simple question of “simplification“.

The danger of reforming labor law

And it’s not over because, in his speech, the Prime Minister also mentioned businesses. Gabriel Attal wants “debureaucratize the burdens weighing on businesses”. Apparently, we can only agree with it… and that’s the whole problem! Because this simplification does not concern, or not only, company law, commercial law, banking law or competition law. What Gabriel Attal talks about is labor law. Now, what is labor law? It is the one that regulates relations between companies and employees. In other words: labor law is the legal translation of the balance of power between employers and employees.

When the Prime Minister says that he wants to reform this right for the benefit of companies, this can, by definition, only be done to the detriment of part of the protections for employees. So we can be for, we can be against: it is, again, a political decision. But the least we can do is take responsibility. And not to disguise this choice behind the appearance of “simplification” and “debureaucratization”.