Democracy in peril

Democracy in peril? Democracy, born of the ideals of equality, freedom and collective decision-making, has historically been a beacon of hope for many nations. However, recent events in our own political landscape highlight troubling deviations from these founding principles, suggesting that our democratic system could be drifting toward self-destruction. The recent legislative elections triggered a series of events that call into question the integrity and sustainability of our democracy. We witnessed demonstrations sowing chaos and destruction, allegedly to oppose the rise of opposing ideologies. These actions, while claiming to defend democratic values, paradoxically undermine the very fabric of our democratic society. The violence and destruction inflicted on our cities, as well as the exorbitant costs associated with these demonstrations, pose a serious threat to public order and to an economic stability already sorely tested by the tax burden and the loss of energy sovereignty. This raises two crucial questions: have the acceptance of the verdict of the ballot box and the tolerance inherent in democracy reached their limits? The practice of candidates withdrawing from the second round to support opponents against an adversary designated as common also raises serious ethical concerns. This strategy, however politically expedient, betrays the trust of the voters who supported these candidates for their distinct programs. Manipulating election results in this way erodes the integrity of the democratic process and disrespects the will of the electorate, reinforcing a distrust of politics among our fellow citizens that we were already struggling to contain. To make matters worse, the defacing of French historic monuments with politicized graffiti is the sign of a worrying contempt for our national heritage. These symbols of our history and culture are being desecrated, reflecting a broader societal erosion of respect for our common past. Such acts of vandalism not only damage physical structures but also inflict lasting harm on the collective memory and identity of our nation. They help deepen a rift within it between those who identify with its history or accept it, and those for whom it means nothing. The philosopher Karl Popper set out the paradox of tolerance, which highlights the limits of democracy. According to him, unlimited tolerance can lead to the disappearance of tolerance itself. If we extend tolerance even to the

intolerant, and are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In a more insidious form of subversion, we have also seen with astonishment instances where ballot papers for candidates were not available in polling stations. This deliberate suppression of voters’ choice to favor one or more candidates violates the fundamental democratic principle of free and fair elections; if one rejects democracy and wants to impose a person, why take part in an election at all? It shows an alarming willingness to compromise democratic norms in pursuit of political goals. These phenomena illustrate a wider crisis within our democratic system. The mechanisms that once protected our collective decision-making are now being exploited in ways that threaten the stability and cohesion of our nation. The founding ideals of democracy aimed to foster a just and equitable society, yet the current trajectory suggests a distortion of these values. Faced with these challenges, it is imperative to reflect on the original principles of democracy and to consider reforms capable of restoring its integrity. Ensuring that democracy serves the common good, rather than becoming a vehicle for discord and division, is essential to preserving our national unity and our historical heritage. The problem of the individual in the democratic equation Democracy rests on the fundamental principle that every citizen has the right to take part in decision-making, regardless of social, economic or educational status. However, the viability of this democratic model is being tested by the current reality in which part of the population, living on social benefits and often on the margins of society, also influences the nation’s political choices. In its origins, democracy was a system in which citizens, though relatively few, had a basic education and shared common values that reflected the interests of the nation. Today the situation is more complex. Electoral participation now includes individuals with little or no education, sometimes involved in illicit activities and making no productive contribution to society. These circumstances raise crucial questions

about the ability of these individuals to make informed choices on matters of state as sensitive as the command of the armed forces or legislation. It is legitimate to ask whether the participation of these people, often disconnected from the country’s economic and social realities, is beneficial to a healthy democracy. How can part of our population accept that those who reject our laws and institutions, and who are sometimes dealers, traffickers, swindlers, thieves or rioters, can choose the man who will hold the nuclear button and become commander-in-chief of the armed forces, or the members of the national parliament? How can individuals without education, rejecting the society in which they live, with no grasp of the state’s sovereign functions, and known to the police and intelligence services for offenses, be in a position to choose those who will lead us? Must the system accept that convicts, dealers, mafiosi, “outsiders,” revolutionaries or anarchists can be elected by those who identify with them, in the name of democracy, even at the risk of a loss of sovereignty, the economic bankruptcy of the country, an external war or a civil war? Who should be able to determine the limits of democracy, and can those limits themselves be considered democratic? On the one hand, restricting the right to vote could be perceived as undemocratic and discriminatory. On the other, allowing everyone to vote, regardless of their involvement in society or their understanding of national issues, could compromise the quality of the decisions taken for the country’s future. The question then arises: can and should a democracy select its voters to preserve the quality of its decisions? This question goes to the heart of what democracy really means. Historically, some democracies restricted the right to vote to citizens meeting certain criteria of property, education or military service. However, such restrictions run counter to the modern principles of universal rights. To go further, let us question ourselves: can democracy survive and prosper if a significant part of its voters is perceived as not contributing positively to the general well-being of society? This amounts to asking whether the democratic system is scuttling itself by allowing everyone, without distinction, to take part in crucial choices.

At the same time, it is increasingly common to see the flags of other nations flying alongside, or even instead of, the French flag at demonstrations. In many countries this would be unthinkable and considered a serious attack on national sovereignty. This situation raises questions about citizens’ attachment to their own nation and its values, and about how this influences their participation in the democratic process. Another worrying dimension is the absence of a legal obligation to vote. This absence leads to high abstention rates, meaning that the country’s strategic decisions can be taken by people elected by a minority of the population. When only a few tens of percent of voters take part in elections, the representativeness and legitimacy of those elected are called into question. Clearly the solution is not simple. On the one hand, we must preserve inclusiveness and equality, the central values of democracy. On the other, we must ensure that the decisions taken reflect an informed understanding and a genuine interest in the common good. A democracy that selects its voters risks losing its essence. However, ignoring the need for informed and engaged electoral participation could lead to decisions harmful to society. Careful reflection is therefore needed to balance these contradictory imperatives. Possible reforms could include strengthened civic education initiatives, stricter conditions for exercising the right to vote, or hybrid models that take into account both inclusiveness and the quality of electoral decisions. In conclusion, questioning the ability of certain people to vote raises complex and fundamental debates about the very nature of democracy. It is a matter of finding a delicate balance between the ideals of inclusion and the requirements of enlightened and responsible governance. To that, I say good luck, recalling that history teaches us that empires are born and collapse, that nations are made and unmade. This recurring observation in the study of history reflects the cyclical and changing nature of political and social structures over time.

To go further, here are the books that address the limits and potential problems of democratic systems in the greatest depth:

"How Democracies Die" by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt This book examines how democracies can erode from within, often by legal means. It highlights the weaknesses of democratic systems in the face of populist or authoritarian leaders. "The Dictator's Handbook" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith Although not explicitly anti-democratic, this book shows how political incentives can lead to similar behavior in democracies and autocracies. "Political Order and Political Decay" by Francis Fukuyama Fukuyama discusses how democratic institutions can deteriorate over time, leading to inefficiency and corruption. "Democracy and Its Critics" by Robert Dahl Although Dahl is generally favorable to democracy, his book presents a nuanced analysis that recognizes the challenges inherent in democratic systems. These works do not reject democracy as an unviable system, but they offer constructive criticism and identify areas in which modern democracies can fail or deteriorate. They often suggest reforms or adjustments rather than a complete abandonment of the democratic system.

As for works specifically criticizing the viability of French democracy and proposing alternatives, one could cite: "La France en crise - Ces intellectuels qui pensent la démocratie jusqu'à son abolition" by Pascal Riché and Nicolas Truong This book examines the ideas of contemporary French thinkers critical of the current democratic system. "La Démocratie représentative est-elle en crise ?" edited by Dominique Rousseau Although this book does not entirely reject democracy, it offers a critical analysis of the French representative system. "L'État profond en France" by Alexandre Gerbi and Olivier Rouquan This work explores the controversial idea of a "deep state" undermining French democracy from within. "Le nouveau pouvoir" by Hervé Juvin The author criticizes the current democratic system and offers reflections on alternative forms of governance. "La Tyrannie de la majorité" by Tocqueville (republished with commentary) Although a classic, this work remains relevant for understanding the potential limits of democracy.

Works on regimes classed as extreme: Finally, if we want to push things a little too far, but for the sake of general knowledge, which can be interesting, here are some works that explore concepts rejecting democracy and proposing alternative systems. These works present extreme and potentially dangerous ideas. I strongly recommend reading them in a historical and critical context, comparing them with more balanced analyses of political systems. It is crucial to consider the disastrous historical consequences of such ideologies: "La Nouvelle Droite" by Alain de Benoist De Benoist criticizes liberal democracy and proposes alternative nationalist ideas. "Le Coup d'État permanent" by François Mitterrand Although Mitterrand does not defend authoritarian nationalism, this book criticizes the Fifth Republic in a way that might interest those who question the current system. "The Doctrine of Fascism" by Benito Mussolini A historical text setting out the arguments in favor of fascism. "La Révolution conservatrice allemande" by Armin Mohler A study of the intellectual movement that preceded Nazism in Germany. "Capital" by Karl Marx This is the foundational work setting out the economic and political theory of communism. Although dense, it is essential for understanding the ideological foundations of the communist system. "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Shorter and more accessible than "Capital," this text sets out the fundamental principles of communism and its political program.