“I want to tell the story of what organised civil society has to say about the major issues facing our country”

Elected president of the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE) on 20 May, Claire Thoury is the first woman to hold this position. This is also her first participation in the Rencontres économiques d’Aix-en-Provence. A sociologist by training and former president of the Mouvement associatif, she specialises in civic engagement and wants the CESE to fully assume its role as the Republic’s third (consultative) chamber.

Her ambition is to make the CESE’s voice heard on public finances, the social model, housing, education, and other major issues on which the institution is still rarely consulted. Her assessment is unequivocal: part of the population no longer feels represented in its lived experience and perceives a growing gap between the reality of everyday life and the narrative presented by politicians and the media.

---

Intermediary organisations provide an essential link with civil society, but they appear to suffer from a lack of recognition among both citizens and political actors. Trade unions, in particular, sometimes face challenges to their legitimacy. Caught between a centralised state and a growing demand for direct relationships between citizens and decision-makers, they are often described as “the forgotten actors”. Do you share this assessment, or do you think it is overstated?

Claire Thoury: I am not sure that the issue is really a crisis of intermediary organisations. I think we are facing a broader crisis: a crisis of democracy, of everyone’s place within society, of the way we live together and build meaningful connections.

Saying that intermediary organisations are generally in crisis seems too simplistic. Take the voluntary sector, for example: France has 1.4 million associations and around 70,000 new associations are created every year. On 1 July, we celebrated the 125th anniversary of the 1901 law on freedom of association. When Pierre Waldeck-Rousseau introduced this law at the time, I imagine he could not have anticipated that this model would grow to such an extent.

Today, forms of civic engagement are being reshaped. They are changing significantly and continue to evolve.

There is nevertheless frequent discussion of a crisis of social cohesion…

C. T.: I challenge that idea. People are still getting involved; people are still building collective initiatives. The problem is not the absence of collective action, but rather the way in which we connect the different forms of engagement and representation that exist today.

Is it at least a crisis of listening?

C. T.: Yes, absolutely. I believe we have not succeeded in building a properly structured relationship between the political world and organised civil society.

In reality, we turn to civil society during major crises, and then we forget about it afterwards. After the First World War, the Economic and Social Council was created because it was believed that social democracy needed to support political democracy. In his 1946 Bayeux speech, General de Gaulle emphasised the role of organised bodies. The programme of the National Council of the Resistance also highlighted the key role of trade unions and associations.

And this remains true today. During the Covid-19 crisis, intermediary organisations were called upon to distribute masks and support the most vulnerable. When the National Assembly was dissolved, they were mobilised once again to help society respond to the threat of a major electoral shift.

Every time, intermediary organisations are mobilised when they are needed, and then pushed aside afterwards.

Is this a form of political instrumentalisation of intermediary organisations?

C. T.: The real challenge is how different forms of legitimacy interact. There is, of course, electoral legitimacy, but it cannot be the only one. There is also citizen legitimacy, as demonstrated by the Citizens’ Convention on End-of-Life Issues, as well as the legitimacy of social and civic democracy. We need intermediary organisations. Otherwise, there is an enormous disconnect between political decisions and people’s lived experiences.

But do they still genuinely represent civil society?

C. T.: They represent organised civil society. Trade unions, for example, defend the interests of workers. Associations keep alive a whole range of essential functions: food assistance, local solidarity, community festivals, sports clubs, cultural spaces, and places for debate.

A society needs these spaces for discussion and encounters. This is where the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE) fully finds its purpose: it is the place where different representations of social realities can be brought together in order to build a shared voice.

The CESE is the Republic’s third consultative chamber. Does it suffer from a lack of recognition? What is your ambition for it?

C. T.: My objective is to establish the CESE’s role in both the long term and the short term. We need to stop being merely observers of public debate and take our rightful place within it. This means changing the way we work, accepting tighter deadlines, engaging with current affairs, and embracing disagreements more openly, provided that these disagreements are structured and do not fuel polarisation or humiliation.

More specifically, which issues will you seek to address?

C. T.: We need to take risks and address sensitive issues where people do not necessarily expect us to intervene. I am thinking in particular about public finances, debt, the social model, demographics, population ageing, youth employment, housing, education, access to public services, and waste management. We need to produce analyses, opinions, and proposals that are firmly rooted in reality and focused on the issues shaping current affairs.

How can this work influence public debate?

C. T.: We must not confuse political decision-making with public debate. They are not the same thing. During the presidential and legislative election periods, we will push these issues forward and ensure they become part of the debate. This is the role of organised civil society: to raise concrete questions about housing, employment, the social model, public finances and demographics.

Does this also require a stronger public presence and clearer representation?

C. T.: Yes, I believe there needs to be a stronger public voice. I want to speak about substance, to tell the story of what organised civil society has to say about the major issues facing our country. And behind debates about democracy lie very concrete questions: what do we say about the agricultural crisis, the social crisis, and the collective choices we must make?

Following next year’s elections, do you fear a move towards an illiberal political system that might seek to restrict the voice of these organisations?

C. T.: We are a democracy, so nothing is inevitable. Nothing is predetermined. Of course, a shift towards forms of illiberalism is possible, which is why we must remain extremely vigilant and mobilised. This is precisely why we need intermediate bodies, checks and balances, strong institutions, the rule of law and spaces where different viewpoints can confront one another.

Can the CESE contribute to this democratic resistance?

C. T.: Yes, because it defends a vision of democracy that is not limited to majority rule. A democracy in which only the winner gets to decide is not a healthy democracy. We need spaces where we can engage with people who do not think like us. I believe we must reject the temptation of taking the easy route, because it rarely leads to good outcomes. The media have a responsibility—and we all have a responsibility—to tell this story and help everyone understand that democracy is a shared space.

The CEVIPOF trust barometer shows that authoritarian tendencies are growing among young people in France, who are increasingly losing faith in democracy. Does this concern you?”

C. T.: Yes, it does. Two years ago, the CESE published a report on the state of France, focusing on the question of democracy. One of its findings was that 24% of people do not feel they belong to French society. That is an enormous figure.

What do they feel they belong to instead?

C. T.: That is precisely the question, and this is where the CESE, as the chamber representing organised civil society, has an enormous role to play. The deeper issue also concerns the French political model, which has historically been built around the State and has been wary of counter-powers, associations, trade unions and all forms of organised groups. This approach has strengths, but also limitations.
By constantly analysing society through broad trends, we sometimes miss concrete lived experiences: when we say that purchasing power is increasing, this is not true for everyone — not for a factory worker, not for someone living overseas, not for a young person, nor for a single-parent family.

And this creates a disconnect?

C. T.: People feel that their lived experiences are not represented, that reality does not match the narrative being presented. The wider this gap becomes, the more people withdraw from traditional forms of representation. We have fundamental work to do. It may not be spectacular, but I believe that is precisely the role of the CESE today. And it can contribute to addressing the democratic crisis.

Is this democratic crisis also a crisis of our collective narrative?

C. T.: Yes, and this is essential. Information bubbles create alternative narratives. The challenge is to rebuild a shared narrative based on reality. When we look at reality, we can see that society is holding together: people talk to each other, work together, meet, and mobilise, especially during important moments. But the narrative we hear sometimes gives the impression of a completely fractured society: as if everyone is constantly fighting, as if society is irreparably polarised, or as if the end of the world is approaching. I disagree with the theory of an “archipelago society.”

Why do you disagree with this interpretation of society?

C. T.: Because it is too pessimistic and suggests that we no longer share a common destiny. We can tell the story differently, with a more positive narrative that is more firmly grounded in reality. The worst outcome is when people eventually believe that nothing can be done. That is precisely when our role becomes even more important.