“Clerocracy is today where democracy was two centuries ago,” still at the theoretical stage, as Landry Benoit states in his opening speech. Rather than presenting itself as a revolutionary ideology, clerocracy aims to be an evolution of democracy. It retains the advantages of democracy while improving upon them. Most importantly, it aims to reconcile citizen-voters with the political world by actively involving them. The system of elections as we know them would be limited to the smallest local scale—a zone of 3,000 inhabitants. Electing the President of the Republic by universal suffrage is not part of the clerocratic system. “In major elections, the issues are not accessible to the majority of the population. The President, for example, is not elected based on his program or his vision for the country’s future, but on a communication strategy, impactful statements, and a few principles of his project,” argues Landry Benoit. Clerocrats also wish to reduce the disparities in means between different candidates in the same election.
“In clerocracy, power is neither kept nor passed on,” explains François Amanrich. Voters vote within a group of 3,000 inhabitants, grouped geographically. They elect 20 counselors whom they deem capable of handling public affairs. The scale of political campaigning is thus reduced to its strictest minimum. These counselors then elect in turn 3 representatives, who sit at the higher level—at the cantonal level. And so on up to the top of the state. However, a subtlety is introduced: the leader of the group of elected officials—mayor and president of the canton—are chosen by lot. Moreover, all these elected officials are given a single, non-renewable term. Thus, there are no campaigns by sitting politicians to be re-elected. They know that at the end of their five-year term, they will return to civilian life.
The End of Lobbies and Major Political Parties
Clerocracy implies a total overhaul of our political landscape. “Lobbies are groups that aim to influence political decisions. They do not necessarily represent the interest and opinions of the citizens. Thus, they have no place in the clerocratic system,” explains François Amanrich. The same applies to the PS and the UMP: “Today, we no longer consider whether a reform is good or not. It is only about defending it if one is in power, or criticizing it if one is in opposition. In the clerocratic system, each elected official judges a bill on its own merits.” This hopes for great independence and a lot of integrity on the part of the elected official.
The meeting was also an opportunity to launch the Cercle 06, the clerocratic association of the Alpes-Maritimes. The circle is “open to anyone who wants to reflect on democracy, regardless of their political orientation,” emphasizes Landry Benoît. The Cercle 06 organizes its actions around café debates, and meetings on local or national news. By organizing into similar associations, French clerocrats hope to present a candidate in the presidential elections of 2012—254 sponsorships were collected in 2007. The ultimate paradox of clerocracy: it counts on the existing political system to come to power and then change it later.
This video is from the site Web TV Nice [Web TV Nice](https://www.webtvnice.com).
