“The criterion of fairness is to not forget anyone”, explains an expert in constitutional law on the subject of speaking time

Didier Maus, expert in constitutional law, was the guest of franceinfo on Sunday, less than two months before the European elections.

“It is not because a list does not represent much in terms of electoral potential that it does not have intellectual or political interest,” said Sunday April 14 on franceinfo Didier Maus, expert in constitutional law and president emeritus of the French association of constitutional law. With less than two months before the European elections on June 9, speaking time will be counted from Monday. Unlike the presidential election, where candidates are entitled to equal speaking time, the “principle of equity” will be applied during this campaign.

Franceinfo: What are the criteria for this principle of equity?

Didier Maus: Arcom set the criteria in its decision of March 6, saying that we must be interested in the representativeness of the lists, in particular according to their results during the previous election, taking into account the polls, and taking into account the contributions of each list of candidates and their support to the animation of the electoral debate. It is both precise, but largely vague. Equity is not equality. Tie is impossible due to the number of lists. The criterion of fairness is not to forget anyone, but not to over-represent anyone either. So we will have to navigate what we call reasonable. I think that not all channels will have exactly the same criteria.

Who is affected by this speaking time?

These are all the interventions that are made for the benefit of a list. That is to say the candidates, but also the supports. That is to say that someone who is not a candidate on a list but who says “I support it” and who develops this argument obviously counts in the speaking time. We have always considered that the President of the Republic is outside the count, but if by chance – which will not be the case – he took part in a meeting, he would probably be included in the count. If he speaks on television simply during a speech or an interview, he is usually not taken into account but there may be developments.

Who controls?

The Arcom. But the services are supposed to regularly send him the statement of speaking times or support times, and Arcom will assess whether this is fair. My feeling is that there are going to be three groups of lists. There will be the big lists at the top of the table, which are in the plus or minus 20% zone, sometimes well beyond that. There will be a second group around 10%, and the third very large group, with all the “small lists” which are less than 5% in the polls. They are there to testify, but are intellectually interesting. And this is one of the difficulties: it is not because a list does not represent much in terms of electoral potential that it does not have intellectual or political interest.