Protecting the public sphere and restoring democratic citizenship

We should be able to maintain an autonomous public sphere, one where citizens have an equal influence on regulation, where a form of equality of participation in public decision is secured. If this is undermined, it’s the legitimacy of democracy itself which is undermined because equal citizenship is at the very core of our understanding of democracy. If there’s a sense that some economic forces have a bigger influence than civil societies’ actors, then it’s the legitimacy of government that is endangered and, of course, the willingness of citizens to obey to these very regulations made by these governments. So, it’s democracy which is at stake in our capacity to maintain a division between the public and the private and to protect the sphere of democracy.

The blurring of the private and the public divide is putting at risk our capacity to regulate, for example, the environment, and to engage the ecological transition. Why? Probably because the public agencies that are in charge of securing the standards, in terms of health, environmental standards and medicine, are under pressure from companies and lobbyists.

Lobbying today is very complex. It’s not just about having lunch with a regulator; it’s about investing in science and building a relationship with agencies that, of course, will be more favourable to the more polluting industries. The example that could be given is that of our failed capacity to lead the ecological transition in a situation where ecological, environmental and health regulation are under siege by many interests and, therefore, leaders are more reluctant to engage in a strong public intervention.

One of the levers is to try to restore a sense of separation between the public and the private, particularly in terms of the careers of top civil servants and regulators. It’s a matter of democratic interest, given its consequences on our capacity to regulate. It’s very important that we be strict with the modalities of going in and out of the State – not only moving from the State to work in a private company but also of coming back in a revolving door effect. This is one of the key mechanisms that is undermining the border between the public and the private.

One other element that could really strengthen our capacity to push for public interest is knowledge. It’s quite striking how little we know about these relationships, these peripheries of the State and the relationship between the private and public actors.

There is a role that citizens should be playing, through NGOs and public agencies, that could give them a stronger role as surveillants, as guardians of this border between the public and the private. This border is not social or professional: it’s a frontier of democracy itself. It’s a border that needs to be guarded not only by State actors or MPs but also by citizens and NGOs who should be caring for it because it’s a public good.

Citizenship is a notion that relates to the autonomy of the citizen and their equality with other citizens. One of the essential elements for the empowerment of citizens is their capacity to have an actual effect within the State. This means that we need a different understanding of the State, one that’s not exclusively geared towards the development of private markets. We need a State that’s cautious and caring about the participation of citizens in all points of the State – in each of its public policies, as a counter power inside the State. This is important because the issue is to bring representativeness and to diffuse citizens’ interests, especially those for the defence of the environment or social rights, which often have less representation.