“When I ran for the City Council of Nice, I signed an ethical charter by which I committed myself to respecting two principles: an elected official should dedicate themselves to a single mandate and live off extra-political income (in short, have a job or personal financial sources),” explains Marc Concas, well known to the people of Nice for his left-wing activism and his role as an elected official in various local governments.
Result: At the end of his term as a general councilor, Marc Concas, elected as a municipal councilor during the last March municipal elections, applied what he had signed and announced it during a press briefing, which was also an opportunity for a small friendly gathering with his friends and other activists of his political movement, “My Party is Nice.”
“Elected to the General Council in 2001 and re-elected in 2008, I am stepping down from this mandate for that of the Nice City Council. It’s an act of coherence and respect towards my female and male voters,” he said with his usual eloquence.
Then came the blow against his colleagues on both the right and left. “The equation is simple: I am a lawyer and I do not live off the allowances of my political offices. To be able to practice a professional activity, whatever it may be, one can only serve one mandate at a time. Professional politicians inevitably have to accumulate. Here’s a good example: Nice’s city hall created 9 territories whose boundaries coincide with the 9 districts of Nice. And indeed, the UMP candidates will be the same deputy representatives of these territories, who can thus add the 1,800 euros monthly allowances of the General Council to the 300 euros of municipal councilor. Clever, isn’t it? And then people lament that citizens no longer believe in their politicians!”
Taking advantage of the opportunity, Marc Concas wanted to clarify his position in today’s local political landscape: “I am free of any ideological investment. Faced with a problem, the question I ask myself is simple: what is the best solution? Am I centrist or reformist? In reality, labels do not interest me.”
“On the other hand,” he continues with a certain vigor, “I know who I am against: The National Front (FN) which calls for the reinstatement of the death penalty and leaving the euro… just that? And Christian Estrosi and his spectacle-politics paid with the money of the people of Nice.”
Marc Concas thus turns a page and maintains a commitment. How can this not be seen as a virtuous sign against certain political tenures that plunge political men and women into a sort of autism?
Of course, his decision was also facilitated by the substantial difficulty of being re-elected in a newly modified version of the “mini-constituency,” facing opponents who are announced to be competitive and combative.
But, even so, that should not diminish its fairness and its exemplary value. And, if we wanted to go all the way, why not also ban being elected for more than two consecutive terms for the same role?
First result: we would find ourselves with a more participative democracy for the greater good of the “polis,” including the citizens.
Second: more opportunities to attract people of value to political practice and more opportunities for them to have a non-definitive experience.
And third, finally: the image of female/male politicians would be improved, and they would no longer be considered, by some, as parasites.
So bravo, Mr. Marc Concas! Who will be the second elected to follow the example and make their choice?
