L’art du consensus is also foreign to French politics, which is couscous in Japanese cuisine

In many countries, the result of the last legislative selections would have caused nothing but a passing astonishment, a mere vicissitudes in the life of the nation. As soon as it is known, one would have begun to study the possibility of this or that alliance, the subjects of disagreements exist between each other, the points of convergence able to create the conditions of a governmental dynamic.

In France, nothing like that. In the night, Germany reportedly declared war on France and the unrest was not greater.

Suddenly, it was as if the earth had opened up under the feet of French democracy, threatening to engulf it forever. We no longer knew which saint to dedicate ourselves to, and in this great hesitation where everyone looked at each other like earthenware dogs, the fangs already out and ready to bite, it was understood that nothing naked would be as simple for the majority as for the opposition.

It is that the art of consensus is as foreign to French politics as couscous to Japanese cuisine. The other, the adversary, the one who does not share your ideas, is always seen as the incarnate devil with whom he would not be arguing like a crime of high treason. In France, you don’t negotiate, you invective, you shout, you spit in your face, and you bow to your principles like an orthodox Jew in your roll.

I don’t know where this hexagonal particularism comes from, this kind of hysteria that prevents political formations from gathering around a table in order to work for the general interest. As if in the end, it was more important to stay on top of his self-care to participate in the life of the nation. Or as if engaging in such practices meant giving up one’s beliefs, when it is all about finding common ground that is acceptable to all parties. Pragmatism is not a defeat of thought but rather an accommodation with reality, the ability to find agreements without renouncing, to bend one’s position in order to keep moving forward.

What is democracy if not a compromise where, year after year, one strives to work for the community while knowing that succeeding in meeting each other’s expectations is the responsibility of the community? squaring the circle, the metaphysical impossibility? Especially in France, a country of untraceable concord where one would rather let the street dictate its law than find common ground.

It is by virtue of considering the other as an enemy of mankind – a danger to the very life of the homeland – to portray him as an “ultraliberal” or an “extremist leftist”, one ends up believing in one’s own exaggerations, thus making any dialogue impossible. Deadly logic in which one sinks at the risk of losing for good. When even before listening to what the other has to say, one says “no” in advance, one stops doing politics to sink into vain militancy.

That in the election period, one practices outrage and verbal bidding, the stigmatization of the opponent, what is more normal? But that this all-out grip is perpetuated after the election results, once the curtain falls, is not surprising. For, finally, what is politics if not the art of compromise, the possibility of finding a common denominator to points of view considered a priori to be irreconcilable?

Without the practice of consensus, politics is nothing but masturbation, a sterile ode to its own glory. We enjoy opposing without even realizing that this stubbornness serves the cause of those we are supposed to represent. If in no way one influences the decision-making, if one opposes to oppose, if by existential principle one refuses any inflection, any inclination to negotiate, what is the use if not to maintain his condition as a donkey, as a sectarian individual incapable of reaching out for the common good?

So much for playing tennis against the wall of his garage without annoying anyone. The problem is that this practice of scorched earth where there is no salvation outside the four walls of one’s own orthodoxy ends up automatically going to the extreme. Since the ruling parties are unable to erase or at least soften their differences to move forward, the voter ends up concluding that they are completely useless. And to vote next time for troublemakers in whom the love of the fatherland is confused with the hatred of the foreigner.

Also, you will have to take into account the results of the last day, such as a chance for France. The time has come to leave these adolescent postures to gain maturity and responsibility. To put the general interest before the gratifications of the partisans. The country is in no way ungovernable, it is just looking for a balance where the permanent invective must fade in the face of the need to build a common future. Ladies and gentlemen, instead of opposing to oppose, the time has come to agree.

To show openness. And tolerance.

Tolerance.

That’s a nice government program, isn’t it?

Leave a Comment