“The National Council for Refoundation, unidentified object”
[ad_1]
Lhe principle of an assembly bringing together diverse actors (national, regional and local elected officials, representatives of intermediary bodies, trade unions, associations and citizens drawn by lot) and allowing them to deliberate together to find ways to rebuild the country could in itself be a salutary proposition. France has indeed entered a new era. Crises multiply: geopolitical upheavals and emergence of a postcolonial order, destabilization of the ecosphere, nibbling of the social state, multiplication of decisions being taken within the framework of global governance rather than elected bodies, strengthening of authoritarian tendencies , racists and xenophobes, new forms of politicization and growing distrust of the party system.
Clearly, the status quo is no longer an option. New ways must be found to breathe new life into the nation. Mixed forms of deliberation can be promising from this point of view. They have begun to be tried out in places as diverse as the French-speaking Parliament in Brussels, referrals to the Economic, Social and Environmental Council or the Conference on the Future of Europe. However, the conditions necessary to hope for the success of such an initiative are unfortunately not met. This is another wasted opportunity. There is a great risk that the National Council for Refoundation (CNR) will remain only a new political operation which will contribute to discrediting experiments in democratic innovation and will reinforce the mistrust of citizens.
The acronym CNR appears as a usurpation. Certainly, a refoundation is necessary, as it was after the Second World War. Marginal changes will not be enough to meet the challenges of the 21st century.e century. However, the National Council of Resistance embodied a completely different approach. It was the result of coordination between different currents, ranging from the Gaullists to the Communists, passing through the Christian Democrats and the Socialists. The common objective was the fight against the Occupation, but also the establishment of a new social and economic order. It was based on a program that wanted to be a synthesis between the different progressive currents in the country, based on a political and class compromise.
Who is debating?
However, for the moment, Emmanuel Macron and Elisabeth Borne have refused to discuss their electoral program, despite the obvious narrowness of their electoral base. They try to marginalize or fracture the main force of the opposition, the Nupes, and settle for piecemeal agreements with the traditional right of the Republicans. The dialogue with the unions and associations, in particular environmentalists, is at a standstill or almost. How to engage in a fruitful and inclusive discussion under these conditions?
You have 49.37% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.
[ad_2]
Source link
