For the past several days, France Soir asked about the place of the State. Interventionism is excessive penalizing citizens and businesses ? Should I review the balance of public power for the benefit of a more participatory democracy ? The weighty issues of meaning and consequences.
Tomorrow, the president of the Republic will present the cape, that it intends to infuse into the politics of France for two years to come. The moment is awaited by many, and the questions multiply. Of course, the recovery of the economy remains at the heart of the concerns of the French. But, Emmanuel Macron will also need to define the strategy of the government, now led by Jean Castex, and as France Soir you presented it since a few days, it will have to be wary of a State is too interventionist, under penalty of penalizing this recovery as expected.
Affect a recovery without delaying the recovery by a government intervention too marked
Although it is necessary to find measures to boost consumption and thus support the activity of companies, businesses remain cautious about the government (past and future). Often, these last constitute real obstacles to the development of the latter. It is easy to understand, that the current debate between a policy or strategy that focuses on the application will not be without consequences on the economic future of France.
This debate revives the question of liberalization. If the latter is supported almost naturally by the companies, it has found support weight with the support of the local authorities. The town halls, departments and other regions are heard now so that the State agrees to delegate and do more to impose decisions on vertical and arbitrary. This is a first warning shot as to the interventionism of the State.
A State more attuned to the needs for an intervention, the more measured
This desire for greater decentralization responds to the aspirations of the citizens, who now prefer to use a ” proximity policy “. For a long time, the citizens are lost in the face of the stack (often illogical) standards, laws and other regulations, and it increases the distrust vis-à-vis the power.
The State should set a cap, in particular in the economic field, but should not want to regulate all aspects of this line of conduct. In the same way, the ecological commitment of the population should find traces of concrete in the public right of action, which should not however be a substitute for the power of each one.
It is easy to understand, that the citizens are not against the decision of the part of the State, but what they hear that they are limited to broad guidelines. More pragmatism and less centralization, that is a request that the government of Edouard Philippe was met by organising the ‘Convention’ for the Climate.
In the end, too many state or State interventionism to review in depth ?
Other conventions citizens are already planned on the theme, it remains to be defined. Is this an admission of the impotence of the State to address the larger issues of society ? Or a recognition / legitimization of citizen action, put in light from the movement of the Yellow Vests ?
In the speech, the president of the republic and the government seem to have been aware, that the State could not, arguing ultimately for a intervention is more measured. On the other, the power can hear the requests that are made to “show the way ” and thus to decide. It is also at this question, that will have to try to meet Emmanuel Macron in his speech of July 14.