To celebrate the centenary of the VIe République (2012), whose creation is due to the introduction of the drawing of lots into French democratic procedures, the Ministry of Education and Citizenship asked a collective of historians to return, for the benefit of young generations, on this decisive turning point.
This text is included in the file “ The world in 2112. Utopias for the day after tomorrow “.
During the forum “ Rebuild society », which will be held in Grenoble from November 11 to 13, the Workshop of the Future will take up this theme with numerous live conferences from XXIIe century.
Retrospectively, the years 2010-2013 appear in history as the turning point of the French political system. Contemporaries did not immediately grasp the importance of the transformation underway. And yet, signs were accumulating.
First experiments
On December 12, 2010, the local group of Europe Écologie-Les Verts de Metz met to draw lots for the candidates who would represent it during the cantonal elections of March 2011. Three hats were placed on the table, containing respectively the names of the four cantons whose seat was to be filled and those of the members of the group who had volunteered, with the men on one side, and the women on the other side. An activist successively drew the name of the first canton, a masculine name and a feminine name for the incumbent and the substitute – and alternately a feminine name and a masculine name, so that once all the cantons had been allocated, men and women would be divided into equal share between full members and substitutes. The use of this procedure made it possible to bring out vocations. People who would not have imagined entering the electoral battle finally felt empowered to participate. All those who had had a mandate in the past, even a minimal one such as that of municipal councilor, had been previously excluded.
The commitment was to work closely as a team during the campaign and to support the candidates so that they could educate themselves. If the procedure made people cringe, the candidates drawn at random received the support of José Bové (a peasant leader, pioneer of sustainable agriculture which has gradually established itself in the XXIe century, who made his name at the end of the 1990s by dismantling a MacDonald store, a very well-known brand at the time), came to Metz during the campaign. Despite fears, the electoral result was satisfactory: with 10 % on average, the group achieved a score comparable to the departmental average. If relations remained tense with certain elected officials, the activists who had engaged in the adventure appeared very united and the collective functioning of the team seemed remarkable. Summarizing the interest of the initiative, one of the candidates, from the associative world, explained that “ the draw makes it possible to explain to people who have always been in politics and who consider that it is their preserve that in fact, this is not the case “. Drawing a parallel with activism against nuclear power, long marginal but whose action led to the abandonment of atomic energy following the Fukushima accident on March 11, 2011, another candidate described the dynamic involved: “ The draw is part of this underground fringe which works » and which could one day lead to major changes.
On Sunday October 9 and 16, 2011, left-wing voters came out en masse to nominate their candidate for the presidential elections, denying the skeptics who were legion a few months earlier. The experience left its mark. Reformers who thought that this process would be enough to restore sovereignty to citizens were, however, disappointed. The story accelerated: Greece went bankrupt at the end of 2011, Portugal and Ireland followed in early 2012. In June of the same year, it was Italy’s turn. The victory of the left in the presidential and legislative elections of May-June 2012 took place in an explosive context. The banks were in turmoil, France’s rating was significantly downgraded, the euro zone was in disarray. The country’s sovereign debt threatened to become unmanageable. The discontent of the citizens exploded, commensurate with the anxieties. It manifested itself in massive support for the social movements which agitated France. Led by Stéphane Hessel (nonagenarian, this former resistance fighter had an unexpected global success in 2010 with the publication of a small book entitled Be outraged !), the Indignés, a grassroots movement independent of political parties, proclaimed their refusal to pay for the errors of bankers and politicians. They occupied the Place de la Bastille. By July, chaos threatened. The right was out of action, but competition was sharpening on the left. Environmentalists and communists slammed the door of the government, Arnaud Montebourg and Ségolène Royal, who had unsuccessfully tried to be designated as official candidates of the Socialist Party during the primaries, called for new elections. The new President of the Republic, François Hollande, was on the defensive. Martine Aubry, the Prime Minister, took the opportunity to assert her authority. She then managed to convince the left-wing majority in the Assembly and the Senate to radicalize the constitutional revision process.
The Icelandic precedent
The Metz experience was hotly debated at that time, but it was Iceland in particular that stood out as a point of reference: it had just adopted a new Constitution by referendum following an unprecedented democratic experiment. After the banks collapsed in 2008, huge protests forced early elections that brought a left-wing coalition to power. In two successive referendums, Icelanders rejected the agreements concocted by bankers and governments. At the same time, a Citizens’ Assembly of 1,200 people drawn at random and 300 personalities was brought together at the initiative of civic associations to identify the fundamental values on which the political and economic system should be based. The experience was repeated in November 2010, this time with state support. The task of the Citizens’ Assembly, made up of a thousand people selected randomly on the basis of quotas allowing for gender parity and representation from all regions, was to highlight the areas on which the reform should focus. constitutional. Its operation was exemplary: the work in small groups, led by neutral and previously trained facilitators, was synthesized following the procedure of the town meeting electronic.
In the process, a Constituent Council was elected, composed of 25 citizens “ ordinary “. The 523 candidacies were individual, and the electoral campaign was reduced to a minimum. The articles of the constitutional project were then put online as they were written, the public being able to make comments and make suggestions via Facebook, Twitter or Flickr pages, the major social media of the time. The legislative assembly agreed to submit the project to the people with only minor modifications.
The transition to VIe Republic: a political upheaval
Under pressure, French deputies and senators decided in the summer of 2012 to entrust a Citizens’ Assembly, drawn by lot, with the task of developing a new draft constitution, drawing inspiration from the experience of British Columbia. , which during the 2000s saw such an institution draft a bill on voting methods. At the beginning of August, 1,000 citizens were selected, who represented a mini-public representative of the diversity of French society. Paid like deputies, they alternated for four months working in small groups and plenary sessions, hearing experts and political or association leaders. The contributions that poured in online helped to reinforce the audacity of the proposals. Some sessions were broadcast on television, and all could be viewed on the Internet. Public opinion became passionate about these debates. The most innovative political leaders rode the bandwagon to prevail against their adversaries. In December 2012, the project resulting from the work of this Citizens’ Assembly was the subject of a referendum. The citizens approved it by a large majority: the VIe Republic was born.
The French political system was turned upside down. If the president remained elected by universal suffrage, it was no longer he who governed. Its role was only to embody the Nation and to be the guarantor of institutions and the long term. At all levels of government, the function of the head of the executive was resized according to the same logic. The accumulation of mandates was now strictly prohibited. Proportionality with majority bonus became the rule for all elections. The popular initiative referendum with decision-making value was legalized at all levels, from the neighborhood to the Nation. A third Chamber, composed of representatives chosen by lot, was also created. It was responsible for ensuring the preservation of long-term balances, and was given the power of suspensive veto. She could judge political leaders accused before the courts during their mandate. She was finally responsible for developing future modifications to the rules of the political game, these having in any case to be validated by referendum.
The procedure for designating elected officials was reformed in depth by precise legislative provisions. The candidates for the presidential election and the two heads of list (a woman and a man) in the other elections had to be designated at the end of primaries, which could be open to all citizens or only to supporters (the small parties thus wanting to avoid being the target of manipulation attempts). The other candidates were drawn at random on the basis of a pool that the parties were free to designate as they wished, but which had to include at least four times more names than places to be filled and which had to respect male/male parity. women.
Decision-making and the selection of leaders were therefore now carried out through a mixture of elections, referendum and drawing of lots. Thanks to the primaries, citizens could better than before choose the leaders for the highest offices, but the presidential stakes were less. Universal suffrage continued to determine the major political balances. The elements of participatory and direct democracy allowed the intervention of the people in legislation. The abolition of the accumulation of mandates and the use of drawing lots considerably broadened and diversified political representation. The random selection, which played a role in the constitution of the lists of candidates, also helped to reduce the conflicts between people which spoiled party life. It guaranteed the impartiality of the Third Chamber: turned towards the future, guarantor of the rules of the game, it saw itself decoupled from short-term electoral issues.
The exit from the economic crisis took place little by little, following courageous decisions combining social justice, modernization of the State, ecological reconversion and budgetary rigor. The new institutional arrangement made things easier, by promoting the quality of democratic debate and greatly reducing the autism of the political class. The balance he established was subsequently considered a sustainable basis, much better adapted to the democratic and ecological requirements of the XXIe century.