14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
150<br />
3.2. Public debate: a tool to be improved to address<br />
regulatory frameworks for new technologies<br />
For more than two centuries — specifically since the<br />
French Revolution — French society has faced difficulties in<br />
inventing efficient relationships between popular sovereignty<br />
and the power of representative government. In his books,<br />
Pierre Rosanvallon shows how, through different times in its<br />
history, the French nation has tried to give a more accurate<br />
reality to the concept of popular sovereignty. Of course,<br />
the very essence of our democracy lies in the electoral<br />
vote: the fact remains, however, that “more active and more<br />
complex sovereignty” can lead to a government more<br />
faithful and attentive to the general will, without denying<br />
the tremendous ambiguity linked to that latter term. In a<br />
society increasingly disenchanted with politics, the question<br />
then arises of how to give shape to this “more active<br />
sovereignty”.<br />
In some areas, particularly the environment, comes the<br />
idea that the representative of the people must be informed,<br />
before making any decision, by a more direct link with<br />
citizens, a link that can take the form of a discussion among<br />
citizens.<br />
This view could be supported by Habermas’ early works,<br />
in particular the theory of communicative action, in which<br />
he considers the possible attainment of universality through<br />
discussion, or rather thanks to a real discussion among<br />
participants during which they should achieve impartiality<br />
through successive adjustments that require them gradually<br />
to adopt the perspective of all other participants. The<br />
decision on the rationality of a standard shall be suspended<br />
to obtain not only an agreement among the participants, but<br />
more precisely a unanimous consensus motivated by the<br />
recognition of the best arguments.<br />
This ‘discourse ethics’ is based on a number of conditions<br />
that must be respected, including inter alia:<br />
• The condition that everyone capable of speech and action<br />
is entitled to participate and to make a contribution, and<br />
everyone is equally entitled to introduce new topics or<br />
express attitudes, needs or desires.<br />
• The condition that no relevant argument is suppressed or<br />
excluded by the participants.<br />
• The condition that all the participants are motivated only<br />
by one concern: finding the best argument.<br />
• The condition that the debate must be free from any<br />
restrictions that may prevent the manifestation of a better<br />
argument that can determine the outcome of the discussion.<br />
It must, however, be noted, as Habermas often wrote,<br />
that the rules as stated in his discourse ethics can only<br />
be reached in a very approximate way, and that the rules<br />
followed by the participants in a public meeting of 1,000 to<br />
1,500 people are very far from those set out.<br />
Public meetings are therefore only an imperfect way<br />
forward. From the outset, the National Commission for<br />
Public Debate has dropped the goal of finding a consensus in<br />
its debates. More fundamentally, Rosanvallon emphasizes in<br />
his works the great difficulty of obtaining a given expression<br />
of the sovereign people: its expression (except in a<br />
referendum) is multiple and diverse, and it varies over time.<br />
One of the former vice-presidents of the CNDP, Georges<br />
Mercadal, also points out that “it is not possible to claim<br />
that the meeting attendance, by the number and mode<br />
of recruitment, may be representative of the French<br />
population”. He further states that “interventions [in public<br />
meetings] are overwhelmingly opposed to the projects” and<br />
that “projects are often of national interest, while the debate<br />
is confined to the areas of environmental impact”. In these<br />
circumstances, public debate is an imperfect object that<br />
cannot be a representative assessment of the acceptance<br />
of the project and cannot be a substitute for representative<br />
democracy.<br />
Georges Mercadal then proposed to “consider the<br />
public debate as a criticism of the project [coming from<br />
the society], presumably exhaustive because exercised by<br />
the most concerned people. The assessment remains the<br />
responsibility of the representative system, which must both<br />
consider that criticism and distance itself to preserve its<br />
judgment. This makes public debate the form of reflective<br />
dialogue … which may fill a gap often denounced in French<br />
democracy”. In that sense, the main function of a public<br />
debate is to enlighten the representative democracy on the<br />
meaning of the decision it must take, by providing it with all<br />
the arguments and suggestions expressed during the debate.<br />
It also allows the public to participate to some extent in the<br />
decision (even if the co-construction of the decision seems<br />
very difficult, if not impossible).<br />
The previous section, however, showed us that the current<br />
form of public debate, applied to new technologies, was<br />
facing a number of difficulties that could even result in<br />
making it impossible for a debate to be held. The staging<br />
of a national debate to decide the future of a technology<br />
constitutes a great opportunity for the most extreme<br />
opponents to gain the attention of the national media by<br />
preventing meetings from being held. A solution can possibly<br />
be found in retaining the benefits of public debate while<br />
trying to avoid its blockage by quite a few persons.<br />
The current form of public<br />
debate, applied to new<br />
technologies, was facing<br />
a number of difficulties<br />
that could even resultin<br />
making it impossible for a<br />
debate to be held.