Clément Viktorovitch returns each week to the debates and political issues. Sunday, February 19: institutional reform.
Emmanuel Macron is currently consulting on this issue. He notably received, at the beginning of February, his predecessor François Hollande. An idea to suggest to the Head of State: appoint senators by lot!
The idea may seem curious. We must begin by recalling that, if the Senate remains an unknown institution, it is no less essential. It is the second chamber of Parliament. It fully participates in the drafting of the law. And even if it is the National Assembly that has the last word, the Senate has real influence, and can even block the adoption of certain texts. The tracks that circulate for the reform of institutions seem not to want to touch on it. However, I say it: we have, today, a problem with the Senate.
>> Reform of institutions: Emmanuel Macron promises “a new chapter of decentralization”
Over-representation of the right
Just do the math. The French chose four times, under the Fifth Republic, to be led by left-wing majorities: 1981, 1988, 1997 and 2012 – I deliberately leave aside the question of macronism, which complicates everything. This represents 20 years in power. At the same time, with the exception of three short years between 2011 and 2014, the Senate has had only right-wing majorities. There is therefore an undeniable divergence between the will of the people, as expressed in national elections, and the Senate, where the right is over-represented.
The explanation is simple: it is the voting system. Senators are elected by our elected officials – it is an indirect election. And the electoral college over-represents rural France, which traditionally votes on the right. Realize: It took the left to hold almost all of the regions, most of the departments and the big cities, for the Senate to change, fleetingly, in majority. This distortion between the French vote and the composition of one of the two assemblies is simply not acceptable.
And yet the Senate is a magnificent chamber, with a very different culture from the National Assembly. The Assembly is the heart of the conflict, of the political confrontation. And that’s good, it’s even necessary in a democracy. The Senate is the place of deliberation. The debates are both less observed and more civilized. This makes it possible to discuss the texts in more depth, to improve the drafting of the law, and even, sometimes, to find cross-party consensus. This is a tremendously valuable contribution to our Republic!
Drawing lots to better represent the company
Adapting the voting system would be the least we could do. But we could go further. A Senate drawn by lot, among volunteer citizens, with the same powers as today: that is what I propose. The advantage of the draw is that it allows a much better representation of French society. We would suddenly see students, workers, delivery men become senators. Their experiences, their points of view would enrich parliamentary deliberation. Their debates would be freed from partisan affiliation: no label, therefore no instructions, fewer postures and more debate. We would see proposals emerging directly from the French social body, which would then irrigate the debates in the National Assembly, as the amendments voted in the Senate already do.
The question of competence arises. But how is it different today? Look at what happened in 2017: most of the Macronist deputies had never been elected. They were business leaders, directors of human resources, doctors without any political experience. Nobody worried about it. Why would it be any different with farmers or plumbers? On the contrary: one could very well imagine that the drawing of lots takes place one year before the start of the mandate, which would make it possible to offer future senators accelerated training. In this case, the skill would even tend to go up!
Besides, look at what happened with the Citizens’ Climate Convention. We were on a format very close to the one I propose. In a few months, the citizens drawn by lot have acquired specific skills on climate issues. They found consensus, on strong proposals, of which all the experts underlined the audacity and the quality. I propose nothing other than to perpetuate this solution, in the form of a true Chamber of Citizens.
What legitimacy of unelected citizens to decide the law?
They would have additional political legitimacy. Of course, the principle of election must be preserved in the National Assembly. The election is what guarantees each citizen equal power in the choice of rulers. It is fundamental: it is what forges legitimacy. But drawing lots is what ensures each citizen an equal chance to exercise power. Without these two principles, it is impossible to speak of an authentic democracy. Emmanuel Macron has announced that he wants to give more space to popular sovereignty. If these are not empty words, he could find food for thought here.