We are beginning to get to know the hubbub of politics. We saw yet another illustration of this this week with the vote on the immigration law after a much criticized joint committee. This is the social question of the day that we are asking sociologist Jean Viard.
franceinfo: Is this tension in politics a sign that we are having trouble talking to each other?
Jean Viard: There have often been tensions in the Assembly, but we looked at it less, but here it reached a level… I believe that the world is changing suddenly and we must not hide it. There is an immense climate crisis, there are demographic waves: Africa, there will be 2 and a half billion. There are 450 million of us. There are lots of heavy subjects, in societies shaken by global warming, which, moreover, prevent Africa from developing with oil and coal, because if Africa did that – what does Africa do? elsewhere partly China – the world would be even more unlivable. So there is extraordinary violence.
And does that affect our National Assembly?
But yes, because when it’s like that, there are two ways to react: either we start yelling at each other because we think we’re right and the other doesn’t see the danger, or on the contrary we says: wait, we’re going to compromise because we’re not going to get out of this, it’s too dangerous. When you look in the same week at what happened in Brussels, where in fact the socialists, the conservatives (Macron’s liberals), made a contract together to strengthen the borders, filter people at the entrance, put waiting places for those who appear to be false asylum seekers. They took seven years to negotiate, they agreed, and we argue like that? It’s unimaginable.
This parallel between France and the European Parliament is interesting, because our National Assembly, on paper, is almost representative of the political forces but as it is not proportional, it is difficult to find peaceful compromises. How do you learn to compromise?
But we learn to compromise by switching to proportional representation. We are in a world where no one can have more than 50%, basically. In the United States, this is a little less true than here. You have to say to yourself, when you go into a political battle, I’m going to have to deal with someone, and so it’s not at all the same arrogance, it’s not at all the same violence. The goal is not to have 51% of the votes.
Now, with our model, we can say that the chamber is a proportional shape, but that is false, they were each elected with the idea that they were right about everything. We are never right about everything. And look around us, all the assemblies with politicians elected largely by proportional representation. This does not actually mean that it is better elsewhere, et cetera. But as it is elected, largely proportional (which is not true for England), in fact we have assemblies which are preparing to negotiate before being elected.
But in France, we have a bit of a shameful consensus, in fact the government often says it, there are around fifty laws which were passed without 49-3. So that means with input, either from the right or the left, but everyone is hiding, no one says it.
Of course, it’s shameful. Compromise is a negative view. The Gaullists made this speech a lot. It helped them a lot to break the Fourth Republic – which, moreover, was quite ungovernable, on the theme there are compromises all the time, we can no longer get out of it – while the economic results of the Fourth Republic are one of the best in French history, but politically, it was a disaster, it never worked.
So it was broken politically, and I think we need to rebuild it. We must build a discourse of tolerance, but at the same time, we must protect people. There are things in this law that should not have been up for debate. Someone who kills a police officer, their dual nationality is taken away, it’s not dramatic, someone who commits a crime, who is a foreigner, they are expelled. This seems relatively normal to me. Why is this debated?
This political brouhaha we were talking about, what impact does it have on us? On voters, on the involvement of the French in politics?
But it mainly has an effect on young people. Who votes in this country? These are rather old people. And when you look at the opinion studies, again, on this law, the support is massive among the elderly, it’s normal, when you are 80 years old, you are in the street, you don’t want that We are shaking up, and young people are turning away from politics, not in the sense that politics no longer interests them, but they are engaging in the politics of action.
If there is a tree to be cut down and they do not agree, they will go for it, all these movements are very punctual, often ecological, but big politics, they find it ridiculous, that these howls are absurd. And so, we are in the process of breaking down society between those under 30 and those over 50. Today young people and those living in peri-urban areas are abstaining from voting.
Does this hubbub feed this abstentionism?
I think that it reinforces abstentionism, and that’s what’s the most annoying, it forms a youth who distances themselves from politics. What is in danger after a week like this is the democratic model. We must not deceive ourselves. And we have the same thing in the United States and in many countries. Democracy is in crisis because many people find that the way it works does not make them want to vote.