“I want to give a voice to what organised civil society has to say about the major issues”

Elected on 20 May as President of the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE), she is the first woman to hold this position. This is also her first participation in the Aix-en-Provence Economic Meetings. A sociologist by training and former President of the Mouvement associatif, she specialises in issues related to civic engagement and wants the CESE to fully assume its role as the Republic’s third (advisory) chamber. Her ambition is to ensure that its voice is heard on public finances, the social model, housing and education all areas where the institution is still not widely expected to intervene. Her assessment is unequivocal: part of the population no longer feels represented in its everyday experiences and perceives a growing gap between the reality of daily life and the narratives conveyed by politicians and the media.

---

Intermediate bodies are an essential link between civil society and public authorities, but they appear to suffer from a lack of recognition among citizens and political actors, while trade unions sometimes face questions regarding their legitimacy. Caught between a centralised state and a growing desire for direct relationships with citizens, they are often described as “the great forgotten actors”. Do you share this assessment, or do you think it is exaggerated?

Claire Thoury: I am not sure that the issue is really a crisis of intermediate bodies. I think there is a broader crisis affecting democracy, the place of each individual within society, the way we live together and build meaningful connections. Saying that intermediate bodies are generally in crisis seems too simplistic to me. The voluntary sector, for example, includes 1.4 million associations in France, with 70,000 new organisations created every year. On 1 July, we celebrated the 125th anniversary of the 1901 law governing 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, we are witnessing a reshaping of forms of civic engagement, which are changing significantly and continuing to evolve.

Yet there is frequent talk of a crisis of social cohesion…

C. T.: I challenge that idea. People are still engaging, people are still building collective initiatives. The issue is not the absence of collective action, but rather how we connect the different forms of engagement and representation that exist today.

Is it at least a crisis of listening?

C. T.: Absolutely. I believe we do not know how to properly build a structured relationship between the political sphere 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 there was a belief that social democracy had to support political democracy. In 1946, in his Bayeux speech, General de Gaulle emphasised the role of established bodies. The programme of the National Council of the Resistance also recognised the key role of trade unions and associations.
This remains true today: during the health crisis, intermediate bodies were called upon to distribute masks and assist the most vulnerable; during the dissolution of the National Assembly, they were mobilised to engage society in the face of the risk of a major electoral shift. Each time, we rely on intermediate bodies when we need them, and then push them aside afterwards.

Is this a form of political instrumentalisation of these intermediate bodies?

C. T.: The real challenge lies in balancing different forms of legitimacy. There is electoral legitimacy, of course, 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 civil democracy. We need intermediate bodies; otherwise, there is a huge disconnect between decisions being made and people’s lived experiences.

But do they still genuinely represent civil society?

C. T.: They represent organised civil society. Trade unions, for instance, defend workers’ interests. Associations fulfil a whole range of essential functions: food assistance, local solidarity initiatives, community events, sports clubs, cultural spaces and places for public debate. A society needs these spaces for confrontation, dialogue and encounter. This is precisely where the Economic, Social and Environmental Council finds its purpose: it is the place where different perspectives on social realities can be confronted in order to build a shared voice.

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

C. T.: My objective is to position the CESE both within the long term and the immediate present. We must stop being merely observers of public debate and fully play our part in shaping it. This means rethinking the way we work, accepting tighter deadlines, addressing current issues and embracing disagreements more openly provided that these disagreements are structured and do not fuel polarisation or humiliation.

More specifically, what issues will you focus on?

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

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 stronger public visibility?

C. T.: Yes, I believe it requires a stronger public presence. I want to speak about substance and give a voice to what organised civil society has to say about the major issues. Behind democratic debates lie very concrete questions: what do we say about the agricultural crisis, the social crisis, and our collective choices?

Do you fear that, following next year’s elections, France could move towards an illiberal system that might seek to restrict the voice of these bodies?

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 for contradictory debate.

Can the CESE contribute to this democratic resistance?

C. T.: Yes. Two years ago, the CESE published a report on the state of France focusing on democratic issues. It showed that 24% of people do not feel they belong to French society. That is a huge figure.C. T.: Yes, because it defends a vision of democracy that cannot be reduced solely to majority rule. A democracy where only the winner decides is not a healthy system. We need spaces where we engage with those who do not think like us. I believe we must reject the temptation of simplicity, because it rarely leads to good outcomes. The media have a responsibility we all have a responsibility to tell this story and help everyone understand that democracy is a shared space.

The Cevipof’s trust barometer shows that authoritarian tendencies are growing among French youth, alongside declining faith in democracy. Does this worry you?

C. T.: Yes. Two years ago, the CESE published a report on the state of France focusing on democratic issues. It showed that 24% of people do not feel they belong to French society. That is a huge 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 does this create a disconnect?

C. T.: People feel that they are not represented in their lived experiences, that reality does not match the narrative being presented. The greater this gap becomes, the further they move away from traditional forms of representation. We have fundamental work to do, which may not always be spectacular, but I believe this is precisely the role of the CESE today. It can contribute to addressing the democratic crisis.

Is this crisis also a crisis of collective narratives?

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 major moments.
The narrative, however, sometimes gives the impression of a completely fragmented society: as if everyone is fighting with everyone else, society is entirely polarised, or the end of the world is approaching. I disagree with the theory of “archipelisation”.

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.