“We are witnessing a return of ideology to the National Assembly”
[ad_1]
Has the National Assembly once again become the theater of French political life? Between fragmentation and unpredictability, blurring of ideological lines and attempts to reinvent the brand image of the formations, the sociologist at the CNRS Etienne Ollion, specialist in parliamentary life, has for his work investigated for years at the Assembly.
After this extraordinary session, what conclusions do you draw from the debates that took place at the Palais-Bourbon, in this context of the absence of an absolute majority for Emmanuel Macron?
We are clearly witnessing a “re-ideologization” of debates in the National Assembly. To say that there is a return of ideology does not mean that we are speaking in a purely theoretical way or disconnected from reality. I mean ideology in the sense of a constituted, established body of ideas. We have seen this during the debates on whether there should be a bonus or a salary increase during the examination of the purchasing power law, or on the redemption of RTTs. Each time, it is a vision of work, of social protection, of the role of the State that was at stake.
This of course existed before, but what struck me is that we saw many more links between a specific measure and what parliamentarians on one side or the other consider to be its political significance. This is something that had been less common for several decades, and certainly during the previous legislature (2017-2022), where politics was done less in the mode of ideas than by invoking “common sense” or technical reason. .
But behind reason or pragmatism, there is always politics at play, and these interventions are as many arguments of authority which serve to close the debate. We still heard in July calls for common sense and pragmatism, but they are challenged by debates that operate this political sense.
How does this affect the quality of the debates?
This changes the content, in any case. If we look at the debates of the 1970s, we see that on average we took positions that were less technical, where we quickly moved from a specific question to a general issue – whether it was the French Communist Party (PCF), from the price of diesel to the class struggle, for example. However, since the 1980s, we had gotten into the habit of criticizing this type of intervention, which was considered flat, uninformed, and ultimately demagogic.
It is true that this has a less precise side, but it reinjects politics into the technical debates, and it clarifies the issues: we debate to know who wins, who loses in the vote on the measures under discussion. It is certainly more readable for those who listen, the journalists, but also the fellow citizens. This also has the consequence of bringing back the left-right divide that the majority had tried to sweep away.
You have 61.33% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.
[ad_2]
Source link
