A freely accessible analysis of one of the most fragile mechanisms of our representative democracy: the gap between what candidates show and what they actually put in their programs.
The image illustrating this analysis is not a caricature: it is a barely exaggerated depiction of what our current electoral system produces. A dazzling smile. A vague slogan. A crowd in an emotional trance. And, right at the bottom, in very small print, what nobody reads: the real program, that is, what the candidate actually intends to do once elected.
This gap between the staging of the campaign and the reality of exercising power is not an accident. It has become the structural way our modern representative democracies work, and it raises a fundamental question for the citizens’ debate opening up as the 2027 presidential election approaches.
The observation: the reading of programs in free fall
Successive surveys of French voters’ behavior all point to the same observation: the proportion of voters who actually read the candidates’ programs before voting is marginal. Most electoral choices are made on other criteria: the sympathy the candidate inspires, their physical appearance, their speaking ability, their media positions on a few emblematic subjects, the pull of their social circle, opposition to an opponent judged worse.
The program, that is, the written document that commits the candidate to what they will do if elected, is largely bypassed. It formally exists, it is sometimes even printed and distributed, but it is not the main basis for the electoral decision. This reality is not a temporary failing of distracted citizens: it is structural, and it is sustained by the whole contemporary media and political system.
Why the program no longer decides the vote
Several factors combine to explain this drift.
First, the growing length and technicality of programs. A serious presidential program today runs to several hundred pages, deals with dozens of technical subjects (taxation, pensions, defense, energy, immigration, education) and uses administrative and legal vocabulary that is often impenetrable. Reading such a document in full requires dozens of hours of concentration. Few citizens have the time, and even fewer the desire after a day’s work.
Next, the systemic gap between the program and actual action once in power. The experience accumulated over recent decades has convinced a large part of the electorate that campaign promises are not kept. What is the point of reading a program that, as we know in advance, will be applied only at the margins, or even contradicted in the first months of the term? This learned cynicism, the fruit of so many successive disillusionments, feeds disinterest in programs and the slide toward the emotional vote.
Finally, the evolution of the media system. Television, and then social networks, favored short, emotional, visual formats. Substantive debate gives way to the clash, analysis to commentary, argument to the punchline. What holds attention is no longer what informs judgment, but what produces buzz, virality and emotional engagement. Programs, long and dry by nature, are structurally disadvantaged by this media ecosystem.
The political consequences of this shift
The shift from programmatic democracy to the democracy of appearances has major political consequences, which must be clearly named.
First consequence: the selection of candidates now favors those who master the image rather than those who master the issues. Political parties, fully aware of this change, put forward first and foremost young, telegenic candidates who are at ease in the media and able to produce viral moments. Real skills in public administration, knowledge of technical issues and operational experience become secondary. The modern politician increasingly resembles a film actor: selected for their appearance, trained in media performance, surrounded by communication advisers who write their speeches.
Second consequence: once elected, the candidate is no longer bound by their program. Since voters did not vote for a program but for an image, the program loses its morally binding character. The elected candidate finds themselves with great freedom to pursue a policy that may differ substantially from what they promised. This freedom is systematically exploited, and in turn it feeds electoral cynicism.
Third consequence: a structural distance between elected officials and the popular base that brought them to power. If the vote is no longer an act of programmatic delegation but an act of emotional allegiance, then once the electoral sequence is over, the allegiance evaporates and the elected official is left alone in the face of economic, media and technocratic powers that never sleep. The popular mandate, having never been a precise and written mandate, carries no weight against the permanent pressure of organized interests.
A few ways out of this trap
Recognizing the problem is not enough; ways out must also be sketched. Several avenues deserve to be explored and debated within the citizens’ debate now opening.
First avenue: simplifying and standardizing programs. Rather than documents of several hundred pages, require candidates to use a short, standardized format, for example one A4 sheet per major subject (taxation, pensions, immigration, defense, education, and so on), with costed, dated and verifiable commitments. Such a format would force candidates to clarify their intentions and would make it easier for citizens to compare the political offers.
Second avenue: strengthening accountability mechanisms during the term of office. Make the possibility of standing again conditional on a public, measured record of the campaign commitments, organize mid-term votes on structural reforms, and make citizens’ initiative referendum procedures easier so that voters can redirect the policy pursued without waiting for the end of the term.
Third avenue: education in the critical reading of election campaigns. Include in the school curriculum training in the mechanisms of political marketing, the comparative analysis of programs, and the distinction between a precise commitment and an incantatory formula. This education is absent from schooling today, although it is more essential than ever.
Fourth avenue, more radical: revising the voting system and reintroducing the imperative mandate on major orientations. Several democratic traditions (notably Switzerland) show that it is possible to submit major political orientations regularly to citizens’ direct vote, thereby short-circuiting the risk of a gap between campaign promises and actual action. This avenue requires substantial constitutional revisions, but it deserves to be debated seriously.
For a debate that is finally informed
The aim of this analysis is not to make citizens despair, nor to push them toward abstention. On the contrary: it is to give them the intellectual tools to become conscious actors in representative democracy again, rather than passive consumers of an electoral show.
Read the programs. Compare the commitments. Check the candidates’ track records. Distinguish what belongs to the media image from what belongs to real political action. Vote with full knowledge of the facts, not out of emotional allegiance. And, once the vote has been cast, demand accountability throughout the term of office.
This civic discipline is demanding. It requires time, effort and lucidity. But it is the only one that allows representative democracy to work as it is supposed to: a system in which informed citizens delegate the exercise of power to chosen representatives, in return for precise and verifiable commitments, under the permanent control of the electorate.
This analysis is consistent with the Plan de Rupture et de Restauration de l’État and with all the work published on this site, which shares the same goal: to restore a real French democracy, founded on knowledge, debate and deliberation rather than on emotion, image and slogans.
Read the analysis directly online
You can read the entire analysis below without downloading it. Downloading remains possible via the backup button at the bottom of the viewer.