The elections on March 23 and 30 renewed the municipal councils. These days, they have held or will hold their first council with the election of the Mayor. Besides the political considerations of an election, there is also the institutional aspect: A commune is, above all, as the meaning of the word confirms, a territory, a community of people, and a place of life. These words call for a local order, a distribution of roles and responsibilities.
The French say they find reassuring proximity in their city, feel good there, and have a true sense of belonging. Local elected officials as a whole, but particularly the mayor, enjoy a credit of trust increasingly lacking in the rest of the political class.
Why?
In the face of globalization and numerous political, economic, and cultural evolutions, the local level has become the concrete site of people’s lives. In the face of risks of social unraveling, the community is the cement for encounters and exchanges that can offer a place for everyone.
In short, the community is actively involved in the living conditions and existence of its inhabitants.
The Mayor embodies the political function in which the inhabitants have the most trust. Of course, among them, there are all sorts of personalities and backgrounds. Most work hard and have a great command of their files.
As in any population, there are great intelligences and those lacking, there are modest and attentive people and unbearable egos. Their drift is the argument of authority: They are elected, and thus, they are right.
Of course, beyond the mayor, there is still local political life, there is a majority and an opposition, there are democratic places for debate, such as municipal councils and community councils and all other representative bodies of its inhabitants.
Yes, one can question the limits of these councils, which are sometimes merely places for recording decisions, when a file arrives at the council, it is already wrapped up. In these assemblies, conventional role-playing occurs where everyone is obliged to play a part to sustain a local political scene that only interests its actors and whose public debate is reduced to the pleasure of some elected officials among themselves.
Thus, multiple forms of institutional consultations develop, such as neighborhood committees, development councils, youth municipal councils, or even consultative commissions, workshops, workshops, urban walks as inaugurations. This marketing is useful for the image, but instead of calling it participatory democracy… We should define it as a vast patronage.
Moreover, regarding those who participate, generally representing only themselves, questions remain about their mode of designation and the nature of the lobbies or associations they represent.
In fact, we are dealing with a kind of benevolent autocracy surrounded by an oligarchy composed of emitters formed, to use sociological jargon, namely the various lobbies, associations, the people the local community elects as deserving.
We forget that consensuses are all the more legitimate when disagreements have been previously listened to and respected. But then, why this reality, with a mayor who remains the most popular political figure in France?
It is because he carries the principle of heritage, the heritage received and that which he will leave. He carries the historical continuity of the city. This principle legitimizes his actions and illustrates his figure. Building, destroying, reshaping are the privilege and enjoyment of power. The other side of the coin is to continue the story, be faithful to it, and project it into the future.
For these reasons, he must be a unifying authority between officialdom and proximity.
Ad maiora!
