Benjamin Morel is a lecturer in Public Law at the University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas.
The political book is a mystery. With few exceptions, it sells little and does not add much to the debate. It is generally filled with clichés. We could therefore see in the title of Richard Ferrand's book ( Our Common Places ) a tribute to the genre. However, it stands out for its purpose, the communities and the State. If the author develops relevant, and really interesting, reflections from a field he knows well, the analysis quickly stumbles for lack of rigor and leads to questionable propositions.
Richard Ferrand puts forward real questions about decentralization. In this, his work is precious and common sense. In particular, it questions the articulation between local freedoms and equality.
Richard Ferrand sheds light on major issues.He makes the just observation of a necessary return of the local State to guarantee this equality. He challenges regionalization, an instrument of a new local centralism. He notes the dismemberment of the State into agencies and independent administrative authorities (AAI). Finally, his analysis of the excessive constraints imposed by law on municipalities, particularly within EPCIs, is particularly judicious. It also raises the question of the engineering resources that mark the inequality between communities, particularly in their responses to calls for projects. This good knowledge of the local reality is a real contribution of the book, as we rarely learn much in a political book. Here, Richard Ferrand sheds light on major issues.
It is at the analysis and conceptualization stage on this sum of experiences that things get out of hand. The work first shows a structural problem. The introduction and the conclusion are disproportionate and summarize, each time, the whole book. Certain paragraphs are badly positioned (beginning of the first part which takes up the overall plan of the work; pages 136 to 137 which are clearly more integrated in the previous chapter…). Some passages digress out of the subject, others sometimes come from the exquisite corpse. Page 112 notably delighted us: “The President of the Republic has reformulated this expectation: fewer circular officials and more counter officials are needed. And we should also hope for the disappearance of counters and other hygienic devices, to modernize the reception areas. Because, as the Telephone group sang it a long time ago in Hygiaphone: “Like that, looking at each other on each side - We look like groupers stuck in the aquarium.” In a secular Republic, the hour n is no longer entirely at the confessional counter. ”
These misinterpretations lead to a rather anarchic conception of territorial organization and the legal order.Basic knowledge also seems poorly mastered. As technical as that is, the consequences in terms of analysis that flow from it are then very important. Let’s take a few examples. The objective of an administrative circular appears to escape the author (page 26). The idea that public policies can have varying relevant perimeters, in education or transport, for example, also seems to greatly surprise the President of the Assembly (page 28). Similarly, on page 121, Richard Ferrand appears to take the EPCIs for local authorities. We reach something really very annoying on page 92. The President of the National Assembly does not seem to understand the difference in nature between control of legality and guardianship, which is the very principle of decentralization.
The proposals that derive from these misinterpretations lead to a rather anarchic conception of territorial organization and the legal order. Thus, the prefect should not be able to seize the judge if the community does not respect the law. Such an absence of state control does not even exist in federal states (see in particular Articles 84 and 85 of the German Basic Law). What Richard Ferrand is proposing requires in fact a constitutional revolution trampling on all the principles established since 1789. His idea of allocating endowments only to intermunicipalities, and more to communes, represents the tomb of communal democracy which he nevertheless does praise. If he finds that the State should maintain equality, it seems to limit its powers so much that one wonders by what miracle it would fulfill this role.
Concerning the organization of communities, Richard Ferrand very intelligently considers that the desired and fluid cooperation is much more effective than forced cooperation. However, it misses modern cooperation, adapted to each public policy and terminable to match the rapid evolution of networks of actors. He prefers to give in to the myth of the good old monolithic mergers of communities. The contradiction is understandable if we consider that the address of the work is also local. The aim is to promote, on page 51, a community with special status in Brittany, along the lines of Corsica. In doing so, Richard Ferrand succeeds in his bet to unite Jacobins and Girondins ... against him. The fight of the Girondins was indeed at the antipode of special status. They fought for the strict equality of each department vis-a-vis the singular weight of the commune of Paris, which weighed on the decisions of the Assembly. The position defended here in fact refers to an eminently reactionary territorial conception, prior to 1789.
Finally, in his section on local democracy, Richard Ferrand shows that he did not understand the crisis of "yellow vests". He sees in organized civil society (unions, associations), already over-represented through his networks, the link with these citizens who have long been inaudible. However, the crisis of "yellow vests" has shown us that, precisely, the confusion between the people and organized civil society blinded us. Finally, he finishes his work by proposing in particular, small provocation assumed, a civic service from the legal retirement age. Boldly, these volunteers are compared to the soldiers of Year II (p. 144)…
Richard Ferrand's book bears witness to good intuitions, the analysis of which is unfortunately burdened with basic blunders and sometimes opportunistic localism. Good testimony, however, we should be careful not to apply it as a political program.