The publications of the High Authority for the transparency of public life are now of interest to the Café du Commerce. The government has 19 millionaires out of 43 members? The public debate has therefore focused on Amélie Oudéa-Castéra’s pendant worth more than 12,000 euros, Franck Riester’s 10.6 million euros in assets, or even Elisabeth Borne’s modest Citroën, valued at €10,780. “They are disconnected from the daily life of the French”, we repeated on a loop in the media bubble. Admittedly, 19 millionaires – the 2017 record is broken – is a lot, especially if one has the absurd idea of wanting political representation to be a faithful reflection of society.
This is perhaps the first deep political problem raised by this heritage debate: what is a good elected official? Do you have to be a worker to properly represent the people of France? Poor to properly defend the interests of the poorest? Does being well off make you blind to difficult end of the month or unemployment? Is the incompetence of our politicians indexed to their bank account or their fortune? I do not believe that. This idea is deeply foreign to our political culture, just like those which consist in thinking – with part of the left – that only a “racialized” person could fight racism, or that a white man over 50 cannot be truly feminist.
Discarded apartments
The second problem raised by the High Authority after a decade of existence has been clearly identified – and the politicians do not dare to denounce it, so great is our hatred towards them: it is the tyranny of transparency. Far be it from me to defend opacity: the surprise resignation of Minister Caroline Cayeux, suspected of having undervalued her assets, demonstrates once again how necessary it is to verify that there is neither conflict of interest or personal enrichment of elected officials in their functions. However, do we citizens really need to know in detail, thrown into the public domain, the price of the apartments and cars of those who govern us, or to know how much everyone has enriched themselves in their previous jobs? ? How does this great unpacking tell us about their skills and values? And why the hell always think that reaching 1 million euros in assets at 50 or 60 would turn them into ugly capitalists?
The debate on the taxation of heritage is necessary. But, under the guise of denouncing the privileges of their elected officials, often meager in truth, the French are only bracing themselves even more on the defense of what they themselves hope to bequeath to their descendants, without having to go through the “redistribution” box and be fleeced in the process. The great unpacking on the supposed enrichment of our elected officials prevents to look at that of the true fortunes of this country. Remaining in a punitive logic vis-à-vis public figures, instead of posing the equation in terms of justice on the scale of the whole of society, only fuels resentment, without progressing one iota towards more of social justice.
Obsession with inventories
And this is indeed the third and final problem raised by these heritages agitated before our eyes like so many red rags: our relationship to money and success. Is it abnormal that those who have occupied fine positions in the private sector or within the senior public service, on leaving the Grandes Ecoles, have acquired higher assets than the others? Artists, footballers, business leaders who have risen are not vilified for the millions they make. So why do we consider politics to be the only place where success should not result in more pay? Why are we never proud to see a personality temporarily give up a big salary to put themselves at the service of the community, at our service?
Finally, have we really wondered how much these ugly millionaires paid in taxes each year, to pay a little for our schools, our hospitals, our roads? The High Authority for Transparency, so quick to draw up inventories, could also mention it.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon himself, slayer of social injustice and of the rich, has set the threshold at 12 million euros in assets beyond which “he takes everything”. Rejoice: not one of the ministers of this government reaches this sum.