National Council for Refoundation: Macron wants a timetable and concrete results – France

The objective of the CNR, which brings together political forces, social partners, businesses and associations, is to “build national consensus”, insisted the President of the Republic when opening the second plenary session of this body at the Élysée, after a inaugural session at the beginning of September in Marcoussis (Essonne).

Problem for the Head of State, this CNR which he called for in order to reform otherwise, through consultation, remains for the time being boycotted by the oppositions as well as part of the unions, and it is not very visible in the eyes of the public.

“We need to clarify a little the framework of this discussion and the calendar and results objectives because otherwise people have the feeling that it cannot mature sufficiently cleanly”, conceded Emmanuel Macron.

About forty participants were gathered around the table, including the head of government Élisabeth Borne, several ministers, leaders of trade unions and employers’ organizations (Laurent Berger for the CFDT, Cyril Chabanier for the CFTC, Geoffroy Roux de Bézieux for the Medef ), representatives of associations of elected officials and associations. They will take stock of the work carried out over the past three months through 2,000 territorial CNRs on school, health and employment, and seven national thematic CNRs, from “Ageing well” to digital technology and housing. .

“Ideas Pump”

“The objective of the CNRs at the national level is to build a common framework for action and then to lead to legal texts, which to major plans, but really to transformations of our public policies”, said noted the Head of State. At the local level, the objective “is not simply to debate, it is to do”, “to also feed the pump of ideas and action”.

Projects coming from the field were thus presented such as the health prevention passport throughout schooling, the creation of an eco-responsible and united store in a vocational high school and a language laboratory from the end of kindergarten to fight against inequalities. .

“The idea is that we then build real roadmaps and territorial action plans”, with “a timetable, means and things that we put on the ground”, added Emmanuel Macron.

Just like in Marcoussis in September, the oppositions opted for a boycott, where the executive wants to believe that the “bouderie will quickly end” in the face of the first results. On the majority side, the former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, boss of Horizons, was also once again noted for his absence.

A “gadget” in the eyes of the opposition

“The country needs less debates and reiterated observations than concrete decisions which finally respond to the urgency of the situation”, asserted Annie Genevard (LR).

From the National Rally to La France Insoumise, everyone decries in chorus a “thing”, a “gadget” intended to “bypass Parliament” where Macronie no longer has an absolute majority.

False, retorts the Elysée: “It is neither an organization nor an institution so there is no competition with Parliament or any authority provided for by the Constitution”.

But, “in the eyes of the public, it absolutely does not take”, the CNR is perceived as a “communication exercise which has the aftertaste left by the Great National Debate”, notes political scientist Bruno Cautrès.

“Slow brew”

Launched by Emmanuel Macron in response to the Yellow Vests crisis, this Great Debate had given rise to more than 10,000 local meetings and nearly two million contributions on the internet.

With the CNR, “we wanted to appropriate the Gaullist symbolism of the post-Second World War, but we are not after the Second World War and Emmanuel Macron is not General de Gaulle”, adds Bruno Cautrès. who deems the desired parallel with the National Resistance Council (CNR) of 1943 daring.

At the Élysée, we prefer to note that the elected representatives of the opposition are present in local meetings, and that the CNR defends “a method of slow infusion of transformation”, not a “sensationalist communication”.

The historian Jean Garrigues, much more skeptical, sees in it “the utopia of a participatory democracy” in an “increasingly hyperindividualistic, hyperfractured society”.