In 2020, it was on horseback that Gaspard Kœnig decided to follow in the footsteps of Montaigne. Like his illustrious predecessor, he traveled from Bordeaux to Rome via Bavaria, sleeping with locals. A way for this atypical philosopher to deepen his reflection on French centralism and liberalism.
L’Express: The strengthening of metropolises is encouraged in the name of “trickle down” theory. A theory that you dispute…
Gaspard Koenig : I indeed think that we must ask ourselves this simple question: without metropolises, where would growth be located? During my horseback trip, I crossed the Creuse, where it is difficult to find a grocery store. I also traveled through Bavaria, a rural state where villages are flourishing. For what ? Because in Germany, a decentralized country, company headquarters are located in the countryside.
But the French countryside is not all like the Creuse. Most of them gain residents…
That’s right. But back home, rural people are often content to sleep in their village while working in a metropolis. After having centralized the country for the benefit of the capital, we are in the process of rolling out this model at the regional level. Paris crushes France? Let Bordeaux crush New Aquitaine! However, there are other choices, our neighbors prove it.
Is this why you also contest the creation of large regions?
Of course, especially since these regions are disconnected from the historical identities of the inhabitants. When I crossed France, I systematically asked: “Where am I?” And I was told: “in Sologne”, “in Limousin”, “in Alsace”. In other words, in cultural regions which have nothing to do with administrative divisions and which continue to exist in mentalities, landscapes, the slope of roofs, accents, languages… But that scares some people.
For what ?
The State fears local autonomy. Wrongly! Take Alsace-Moselle. For historical reasons, it has specific rights in matters of secularism, insurance and inheritance. Are the Alsatians therefore separatists? No way ! This is why they are up against the Great East in which we want to drown them. I therefore plead for our political structures to be superimposed on the lived identities of residents and for local authorities to have powers adapted to the territories.
So you would be in favor of the autonomy demanded by the Corsicans?
But of course ! And not just for Corsica, by the way. It is time in France to reverse our reasoning. It is not up to the State to grant autonomy; it’s up to the base to decide. And I assure you: no one will want to secede. Even in Corsica, the majority of citizens demand autonomy, not independence!
Is this what you call “bottom-up subsidiarity”?
Exactly. It is up to the lowest level to choose the skills it wishes to take over, then to delegate what it does not want to the higher level.
Wouldn’t such differentiation threaten equality among the French?
We would certainly end up with a complex mosaic, but a complexity that comes from below resembles a natural organism, and it is a complexity that works because it constantly adapts to reality. Let us distinguish equality from fairness. Autonomy does not prevent the State from implementing redistribution from the rich to the poor. In any case, the solution does not consist of imposing the same system everywhere, but of giving everyone the means they need to succeed. See the Swiss Confederation. The cantons have different tax rates and this does not prevent the Swiss from forming a coherent nation.
According to you, such a model would also revive local democracy…
It’s obvious! It is first of all by discussing the diversion of the departmental road of one’s commune that one develops oneself as a citizen. I attended a landsgemeinde in Swiss. Everyone meets in a large square and votes by show of hands on the issues of the canton. Everyone can express themselves, propose and vote. And this in front of the children, who thus discover democracy. I assure you: such practice is much more effective than civics lessons at school.
The Republic has always been wary of particularisms regional…
For my part, I like democracy, but I am wary of the Republic when it is conceived as a homogeneous whole where everyone should look the same. I plead for the training of free men and women, not necessarily republicans. Moreover, the first Revolution, that of 1789, had as its goal democracy and freedom, not necessarily the Republic. I am not opposed to national groups, but the State should not necessarily have pre-eminence over municipalities and regions.
In France, we are wary of local identities, assimilated to conservatism…
It is not a question of closing oneself up, but of having the possibility of innovating because it is by being responsible for a territory that we take care of it. This is the opposite of conservatism! Like Tocqueville, I think on the contrary that it is in the territories that the most original experiences can be developed. Again, see Bavaria. Some of its inhabitants wear traditional leather pants, and yet it is one of the most exporting regions and the most connected to new technologies in the world. Let’s break away from clichés: we can obviously be attached to traditions and open to modernity.
Hence your desire to focus on rural mayors, whom you almost equate to modern-day heroes?
But of course ! French technocracy has always been obsessed with the merger of municipalities, or its current version, the large intercommunalities. Oh, certainly, it seems more efficient to jointly manage garbage collection or wastewater management. The problem is that we then lose something essential: the democratic breath. Whether we like it or not, the commune remains the carnal territory of the French. Perhaps, in fact, a “little mayor” will manage the drinking water network a little less well than a technician trained for that, but that doesn’t matter. It is better that, locally, citizens take ownership of the issues, feel responsible, debate the subjects and experiment. Instead, we favor large intercommunities. This is also what explains the disaffection with the office of mayor. However, the mayor is the last valve between the individual and the State. Without it, everyone will find themselves without an intermediary vis-à-vis the State. And it will be terrible.
This interview comes from our special section “These cities that make France move”, on newsstands on April 4.
.