Alternatiba in Poitiers
In the 2020 municipal elections, the list led in Poitiers by Ms. Moncond'huy was elected in the second round with 43% of the votes cast and 14% of those registered. The municipal majority has 38 seats out of 53, or 72%. The elected list is called Poitiers Collectif, Écologie, Justice Sociale et Démocratie. It brings together local figures close to NUPES. Ms. Moncond'huy is a member of Europe Écologie Les Verts.
She made herself known from the beginning of her mandate by provocative statements, such as "the air souldn't no longer part of children's dreams today" to justify the reduction of municipal subsidies to the flying clubs of Poitiers. It is this same municipality that lobbied last October for the cancellation of the conference on inclusive writing by Nathalie Heinich, which was disrupted by agitators to the point of requiring police intervention (see La Nouvelle République of 30/11/2022).
Another conflict arose more recently, precisely in the allocation of subsidies to associations, in particular to the Alternatiba association of Poitiers. The municipality of Poitiers and the intercommunality of Grand-Poitiers granted it subsidies of €5 and €000 to organize "workshops for training in civil disobedience". The prefect of Vienne, considering that these workshops do not respect the contract of republican commitment appearing in the Separatism law, asked to the city and the intercommunality to withdraw these subsidies. Grand Poitiers and the Poitiers city council voted to maintain them, and the administrative court should rule in June 2024.
The Alternatiba group presents itself on its website as "a citizens' movement for climate and social justice [...] The Alternatiba are working to build a more humane and more united world. This objective is obviously totally incompatible with xenophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, exclusionary, discriminatory, anti-democratic or violent ideas and behaviors." This presentation is almost the same as those of the Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace, etc. movements. All these associations claim to act in the general interest in accordance with the principles of democracy. We cannot oppose such objectives.
The confrontation of the latter with their real practice, however, gives food for thought. These environmental associations condemn the administrative ban on Earth Uprisings and actively participate in banned demonstrations against investments that they consider contrary to their ideas: Notre Dame des Landes airfield, Sivens dam, mega-basins, etc. Everyone has been able to see the violence of these demonstrations. Alternatiba, financially supported by the city and the intercommunality of Poitiers, claims its freedom of expression, but prevents the MCEDD offshore oil summit in Pau from taking place, that is to say the exercise of that of others. Passive obstruction requires, as in the case of Nathalie Heinrich's conference, police intervention so that everyone's freedom of expression is respected and the conferences can take place normally. The violence provoked by these agitators is always attributed to the police. The members of these associations, not elected by the people, claim to know the general interest and want to impose it against the majority. This is completely contradictory to the foundations of democracy: the general interest is defined by the majority resulting from universal suffrage and implemented by elected deputies, with democratic controls (separation of powers, Constitutional Council, etc.) to avoid abuses of executive power.
The mayor and the ecologist deputy Lisa Belluco themselves participated in the demonstration against the mega-basin in Sainte Soline: this refusal to respect the law and regulations does not seem to them to be contradictory either with democracy or with the status of mayor and deputy. Lisa Belluco, interviewed by France Inter, declared that "civil disobedience is not a disturbance of public order when it demands the protection of the people against climate change or on subjects of general interest" (quoted by La Nouvelle République on 14/09/2022). In other words, for these two ecologists, a small minority convinced that they hold the truth, claiming to be responsible for the " security of the people" and defining itself general interests, can be exempted from the laws and regulations in force voted by the majority.
The other elected officials of the municipal majority, who all voted to maintain these subsidies, have the same opinion. This is worrying, and offers activist groups of all stripes the opportunity to do the same. We can also wonder how the Poitiers city hall will fight against the graffiti and tags that appear after each demonstration: it will have participated financially in the training in civil disobedience of their authors.
As for subsidies, public money is no more intended to finance activist associations than political parties. The latter risk very high fines if they have benefited from public subsidies (except in the case of an election). This non-intervention of the State in political opinions, as in religious beliefs, is essential to ensure democracy. This is the concept of extended secularism developed by Catherine Kintzler in her essay What is secularism?, Vrin, 2008.
Civil disobedience was actually invented to fight against totalitarianism and dictatorships that are not controlled by the separation of powers. In some cases, it has been positive, such as for the right to abortion (Gisèle Halimi), the fight against racism (Martin Luther King) or the status of conscientious objector. These actions wanted the recognition of a right to freedom, and not a limitation of freedoms. This does not open up the right not to apply the law, especially when you are an elected official of the Republic. As Ogien says [1] : "In a democracy, the validity of civil disobedience as a form of political action remains contested. It is not clear why the expression of disagreement should take on the appearance of a refusal to comply with the common rule in a regime where individual freedoms (of vote, opinion, demonstration, strike, conscience and association, sexual orientation) are guaranteed; where mechanisms of "social dialogue" have been established (in parliamentary work, joint management or collective negotiations); and where the defense of fundamental rights is a legal reality. Moreover, such a refusal is a behavior that contains a threat to democracy, in the sense that it calls into question its very principle, namely the fact that the minority undertakes to accept the decisions taken by a majority."
Freedom of expression guaranteed by democracy does not allow democracy to be challenged.
