In our democracy, all elected officials have one thing in common: during a campaign, they were able to convince their fellow citizens of the relevance of the changes they promise to bring. Under no circumstances, however, are they subjected to a skills test or a technical validation of their real ability to manage these changes.
The question of the competence of elected officials is a blind spot. No doubt it is thought that the people’s representatives exercise their mandate under double supervision: on the one hand, they must respect the major legal principles protected by the Council of State and the Constitutional Council; on the other hand, they are surrounded by experts and technocrats whose job it is precisely to shed light on them so that political decisions are taken with full knowledge of the facts. Unfortunately, what the parliamentary committee on energy sovereignty reveals is that the organization of our institutions and our senior administration does not save us from incompetence.
Is it then necessary to give mandate only to personalities reputed to be competent? The French perhaps do this empirically by electing to the presidency of the Republic personalities whose background seems to have prepared them for political decisions informed by technical competence. From there the series of enarques having reached the supreme magistracy (with nevertheless various fortunes as for the reality of the supposed competence). For the other elected officials, diversity prevails, and that’s a good thing. No democracy could survive the suffrage of the diploma.
On the other hand, it is certain that no elected representative can be like a fish in water with all the subjects now subject to political decision-making. There are real skills among many, but it is hard to see how the same person would be so knowledgeable on the issues of armaments, the construction of nuclear power plants, the apprenticeship of young people, agricultural policy, etc. Especially since all these areas have for some time taken an absolutely formidable technical turn.
What if elected officials continue to train?
Faced with the growing specialization and technical nature of the issues, any private sector employee or civil servant is asked to follow continuing education to keep up to date with the knowledge necessary for the proper exercise of their missions. However, the elected officials are not concerned, as if they too did not need to learn and train. Bringing up this subject of competence seems taboo in certain respects, as if competence curbed the freedom of thought and expression. Yet it is a basic expectation that underpins the confidence pact of representative democracy.
Let’s be clear: no training system exists within the executive. On the other hand, this is planned for the Parliament, but in a very incomplete way. The training credits made available to MPs are little or badly used. A large part is devoted to media training. Another to the acquisition of diplomas which will be useful once the mandate is over. But on the structuring subjects, it is necessary to rely on limited initiatives – thus, an “awareness of climate issues” built in a hurry. What about the challenges of technological innovation? From the maquis of our social system? Mysteries of contemporary agriculture? Complexities of energy production? On all of this, inquiring minds educate themselves, sometimes by auditioning experts. The others, numerous, so little helped by teams that are too small, sometimes completely overwhelmed, are only trying to deceive them – in Parliament as well as in the government.
In the past, the accumulation of mandates made the National Assembly and the government the point of arrival of an elected official’s course which had gradually learned to understand the most complex subjects, in particular in local elected mandates, so intense and so instructive. The political parties multiplied the evening courses. This course no longer exists. The parties have ceased to function as training bodies. I don’t know whether to regret it, but certainly we must fill the void it leaves. For isn’t it strange that the only ones who are not obliged to systematically and methodically acquire positive and precise knowledge on the subjects that make up our society are those who precisely have the power to decide on its future?