INTERVIEW. Petition against the Duplomb Law: "In France, power is extremely concentrated and citizen participation is undervalued," according to Loïc Blondiaux.

Nearly two million signatures, and what next? While the petition against the Duplomb law has broken records on the National Assembly's website, the future of this controversial agricultural law remains unclear. This exceptional mobilization's sole effect, under the Constitution, is to make it possible to organize a debate in the chamber, without a vote, and it is still unclear whether it will be scheduled for the fall.

Emmanuel Macron can still request a new deliberation in Parliament or call a referendum. Parliamentarians, for their part, are free to adopt a new text repealing the Duplomb Law. But these outcomes all seem politically improbable. This impasse raises questions about the place of direct democracy in the institutions of the Fifth Republic. Franceinfo spoke with Loïc Blondiaux, professor of political science at the University of Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne and member of the National Commission for Public Debate, specialist in participatory democracy issues.

Franceinfo: How do you view the emergence and rapid success of the petition against the Duplomb law?

Loïc Blondiaux: This isn't the first time a petition has gained momentum. The "Notre Affaire à tous" petition reached roughly comparable numbers [2.3 million signatures]. A petition from the Bloom association on deep-sea fishing also grew quite spectacularly [300,000 signatures]. However, I wasn't expecting it. Especially since the National Assembly's petition site isn't easy to access. You need to have an identity on France Connect [to be able to vote].

"The speed of the signature collection surprised me."

Loïc Blondiaux, professor of political science

to franceinfo

There are several reasons for this success. It seems to me that the television sequence of Fleur Breteau [founder of the Cancer Anger collective] calling out to MPs from the public seats in the National Assembly had a very important symbolic dimension. The second reason that may have mattered is the feeling of a denial of democracy . A bit like the demonstrations against pension reform that increased tenfold following the use of Article 49.3. Beyond the arguments on health and the positions taken by the CNRS and the League Against Cancer, I think that the feeling that Parliament pushed through is something that shocked a lot of people. This is the cocktail of reasons that could explain the success of this petition.

What impact can this direct expression of citizens have on the future of this law?

The legal impact will most likely be minimal. In September, the National Assembly's Conference of Presidents will decide whether or not to hold a debate. This new debate will not result in the repeal of the law. There could be 5 million petitioners, but it would change absolutely nothing from a legal perspective.

From a political point of view, it seems to me that parliamentarians, the President of the Republic and the Constitutional Council will have to take this petition into account in the choices they make. The Constitutional Council rules on the law and is, in general, quite impervious to political pressure. But still, it is one of the parameters of its decision. The President can, for his part, request a new deliberation of the text, according to Article 10 of the Constitution. We will see if he will do so. Finally, I think that parliamentarians will think twice the next time they decide, through a motion of rejection, to misuse a tool of rationalized parliamentarism to short-circuit the debate in the Assembly .

As for citizens, one might wonder how they would react if they were not heard, even though they had seized one of the few tools at their disposal to express their protest. A frustration effect is likely to occur.

How can we explain this reluctance towards participatory democracy in France?

A political culture has undeniably emerged under the Fifth Republic—on the pretext that the president is elected by universal suffrage—which creates a form of verticality of power incompatible with compromise. The second, more fundamental reason is that France is a representative democracy in the strongest sense of the term, in which direct democracy has little place. This is unlike other countries where compromise, discussion, and deliberation are absolutely essential.

"In France, it has become customary to use force to make certain decisions and pass certain laws."

Loïc Blondiaux, professor of political science

to franceinfo

France is not unique as a representative democracy, but as a democracy in which power is extremely concentrated and citizen participation is undervalued.

How could this change?

To prevent this feeling of denial of democracy from recurring, we will have to institutionalize forms of deliberation with citizens. A citizens' convention based on the French agricultural model could move things forward and overcome very sterile opposition. Among the defenders of the Duplomb law, there was a strong desire to delegitimize the signatories . We are in a state of polarization. The same is true for immigration and education. I think that if we institutionalized the use of citizens' conventions with the possibility of organizing a referendum afterwards, we would reform our democracy in an absolutely decisive way.