Double Legitimacy, Double Challenges? Current Redesigning of the French Economic, Social and Environmental Council

An instance of intermediary bodies par excellence, the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (ESEC) brings together 233 representatives of France’s “organised civil society” (employers, labour unions, associations, etc.). Heir to the National Economic Council (created in 1924), enshrined in the 1958 Constitution, the Council main role is to advise public authorities on economic, social and environmental matters. However, in the last two years, amidst rumours of its potential abolition by President Macron, the Council has increasingly turned towards new deliberative processes, even trying to recast itself as a “Chamber of citizens’ participation”. This paper will analyse this on-going development, and focus on the potential conflicts between the historical legitimacy of the ESEC as the representation of organized interests and its new-found authority based on a broader participation. In examining this case, we will also illustrate how an institution can implement new deliberative procedures in an impromptu and instrumental manner. While in the last few decades, citizens’ involvement in deliberative processes has multiplied throughout the world, the Council’s experiments seem to be rather inventive. Indeed, in a typical case, citizens are usually present only in a consultative role, with a strong tripartite differentiation between citizens, experts and elected representatives. Yet, on two separate occasions, in the springs of 2019 and 2020 respectively, the ESEC innovated by associating a Temporary Commission of 23 councillors and a Citizen Group of 28 randomly selected people to draft an opinion to the government. The rationale was to integrate the two groups (citizens and councillors), in order for each group to contribute to the other deliberations and reflections. Yet, they also remain independent, each producing its own report. This integration was done collectively, through joint hearings and working sessions, as well as the agreement on a plan. But also, individually, by the participation of citizens in the Temporary Commission, or conversely the presence of councillors during the citizens’ debates. Based on systematic observations of the activities of the Citizens’ Group and the Temporary Commission, surveys at multiple points in time (n=355) and semi-structured interviews (n=20) with different stakeholders (citizens, councillors, consultants), this paper will highlight how the legitimacy of the ESEC councillors, based on a combination of their own expertise and their role as spokespersons for organized interests, risks of conflicting with the legitimacy of citizens drawn by lot, usually grounded in their humility as representatives for the general population. Indeed, the influence of councillors (due to their higher cultural and symbolic capital) on the Citizens’ Group discussions appears to be hard to curb, even with more horizontal deliberative procedures favoured by the private consultants. In parallel, this study of the ESEC’s changes enables us to grasp the spontaneous and instrumental nature of these reforms. In a difficult institutional context, the Council is seeking to ensure its existence and to find a new legitimacy in the French institutional landscape. It does so principally with the help of private consultants and without any reference to previous established guidelines (notably those of National Commission of Public Debate).