The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Presidential 2022: "Why we must change the rule of 500 sponsorships"

2022-01-04T18:37:16.795Z


FIGAROVOX / INTERVIEW - Candidates for the presidential election must obtain 500 sponsorships from elected officials to be able to stand. The expert associated with the Jean-Jaurès Foundation, Antoine Bristielle, considers the process unsuitable for the current electoral context and reflects on possible alternatives.


Antoine Bristielle is director of the Opinion Observatory of the Jean-Jaurès Foundation, associate professor of social sciences and researcher at Sciences Po Grenoble.

FIGAROVOX.

- To run for president, candidates must justify 500 sponsorships of elected officials.

Do you think this process is necessary?

Antoine BRISTIELLE. -

This process was introduced to avoid fanciful candidatures for the presidential election and to limit the number of contenders for the race for the supreme office. Moreover, while the number of required referrals was originally only 100, the system was hardened in 1976, when the number of compulsory referrals rose to 500. In a way, it is there to lock the system since it requires the party to be established locally before being able to win the presidential election. It should indeed be noted to what extent this process can be restrictive for potential candidates. It is not enough to obtain 500 sponsorships, the signatures must come fromat least 30 different departments and there cannot be more than 30 signatures for the same department.



Is it normal that a candidate, who represents according to opinion studies between 1 and 4% of the voting intentions, like Fabien Roussel, has less difficulty in obtaining his 500 signatures than a Marine Le Pen, who is nevertheless likely to to go to the second round again?

The local political system does not correspond to national political life.

Antoine Bristielle

This process could be justified at a time when the local weight of political parties was similar to their national weight. This is much less the case today as the local political system does not correspond to national political life. The main reason for this phenomenon is the differential abstention that we observe between the local ballots and the presidential election. During the last regional elections, only one in three voters went to the polls, when the abstention was only 22% in the first round of the 2017 presidential election. Voters from protest parties thus tend to demobilize in slower political periods, which in turn favors the historic parties, which nevertheless obtain moderate scores in the presidential election.The difficulties encountered by Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon to obtain the right to run for the next presidential election may seem aberrant when we remember that they both obtained more than 40% of the votes in the first round of the presidential election. of 2017 and that the polling institutes measure them together at around 30% for the first round next April. Not to mention Eric Zemmour who does not benefit from any local presence and therefore has maximum difficulty in obtaining these signatures, while he is measured around 15% in voting intentions.they two obtained more than 40% of the votes in the first round of the presidential election of 2017 and that the polling institutes between them measure them around 30% for the first round next April. Not to mention Eric Zemmour who does not benefit from any local presence and therefore has maximum difficulty in obtaining these signatures, while he is measured around 15% in voting intentions.they two obtained more than 40% of the votes in the first round of the presidential election of 2017 and that the polling institutes between them measure them around 30% for the first round next April. Not to mention Eric Zemmour who does not benefit from any local presence and therefore has maximum difficulty in obtaining these signatures, while he is measured around 15% in voting intentions.

Read also Presidential 2022: with 273 sponsorship pledges, Zemmour is addressing mayors to ask for their "help"


Since the last election, sponsorships are public.

Does this prevent some of the mayors from speaking freely?

Undeniably. This reinforces the idea that sponsorship is political support on the part of the elected official and not just an authorization to run. Under these conditions elected officials can self-censor, in particular to sponsor candidates present in the electoral margins - those who paradoxically would need these signatures - so as not to incur the wrath of their voters. This phenomenon is often reinforced in small municipalities, where many elected representatives present themselves "without labels" during the elections.



What other method would be applicable?

We could consider sponsorship citizens rather than sponsorship of elected officials to authorize a candidate to run. If this solution appears in the program of Jean-Luc Mélenchon it does not date from today. In 2012 the Commission for the renovation of public life, which was chaired by Lionel Jospin, proposed an equivalent solution. It would have the undeniable advantage of allowing candidates to more accurately represent the French political landscape. The major stake would then be to determine an adequate threshold of signatures, allowing a sufficiently large number of candidates to compete, without multiplying the number of suitors. Another, hybrid solution would consist of associating a smaller number of signatures of elected officials with citizen sponsorship. She would have the merit ofcombine local roots with popular representativeness.

Source: lefigaro

All news articles on 2022-01-04

You may like

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.