Intercommunal Cooperation to Political Gerrymandering
“Supposedly aimed at:
– organizing the territory more rationally;
– simplifying the administrative map;
– promoting intercommunal cooperation;
the so-called “departmental schemes of intercommunal cooperation” presented by prefects prove to be more about political choices than adhering to the rules they were theoretically subject to.
This is the conclusion reached by the Alternatifs PACA during their last regional coordination meeting, upon reviewing the schemes established by the prefects of the six departments in our region.
Should we be surprised at a time when prefects, supposedly representing the State, are appointed based on their loyalty to local power brokers?
The Alternatifs do not hold the administrative organization of the country as sacred: it is a structure marked by ambiguity from its very inception.
Admittedly, this organization arose from the revolutionary fervor post-1789, but it is also the result of a compromise between the centralizing bourgeoisie and the peasantry—a compromise that has little to do with authentic democracy and keeps the working classes at a distance.
The Alternatifs advocate for a new territorial organization that takes into account profound changes over two centuries, to be democratically established within the broader framework of a founding process, a radical overhaul of existing institutions, and the grassroots construction of an active and citizen-driven democracy.
The Alternatifs, always supportive of intercommunal cooperation, were already very critical of the so-called “Chevènement law” of intercommunal cooperation for its highly authoritarian and anti-democratic nature.
They now condemn even more strongly the new December 2010 law, which exacerbates these flaws without providing—on the contrary—more coherence in the territorial scheme or democracy in management.
Indeed, the borders defined by the prefects master the feat of combining State authoritarianism (everything is decided “from above”), submission to local political dynamics, territorial inconsistencies, and administrative non-simplification!
For the Alternatifs, the most symptomatic examples in our region are those:
– of the perimeter of the Avignon community, the borders in the north of the Bouches-du-Rhône with, as its culmination, the contradictions between the prefects of Vaucluse and Bouches-du-Rhône regarding the extent of the Aix community!
– of the perimeter of the urban community of Nice becoming essentially… rural!
Destined to become the first metropolis created under the December 2010 law, this community already named “Estropole” by the people of Nice, is a fief tailor-made for C. Estrosi… who temporarily concedes on the territory of the former County of Nice two vassalized areas: one for the opposition at the gates of Nice (Pays des Paillons) and another for an allied family in the upper Var valley.
With the December 2010 law and these territorial cuts, management moves even further away from the citizens. Feudalism seems to be making a comeback, and the political crisis worsens.
It is more necessary than ever to build a new self-managing project for territorial organization. The Alternatifs will engage with all those who wish to do so. But, for now, they will continue to be active in all spaces where citizens can influence city life.”
For the PACA coordination of the Alternatifs:
Bruno Della Sudda (06),
Magali Braconnot (13)
