What I don't appreciate at all is our share of idiots that think that blocking the country is a proper way of protesting (see "gilets jaunes"). That is not democratic, when a minority imposes their will to the silent majority.
Nothing personal, I'm talking about the interests of all the voters who freely elected the current president and parliament.
If you are not happy, it's our duty as a society to provide you a way to express your point. But the right to express your point does not involve the violence to get our attention. Most people just want to go on with their daily life, and putting obstacles to them will not gather any sympathy around you.
Furthermore, independently to our opinion about the Gilets Jaunes, the way this government use the police on the protest can be questioning for a democracy. Even the journalist of the right Figaro newspaper protested several times against police brutality against journalists.
Furthermore, independently to our opinion about the recent strikes (supported by 100% of the democratically elected trade unions), the fact that the government twisted the constitution to avoid a democratic vote of the democratically elected parliament on the legislative text is "puzzling"
Those in favour went from 70 to 50% over the course of 5 months, opposition tripled, strong support went from 50% to 20%.
And while not supporting the Gilet Jaune mode of action anymore, people still strongly supported and support the main ideas they pushed, like Citizens' initiative referendum, or the Solidarity tax on wealth
Imagine how successful they could have been if they had behaved as civilised people from the beginning! I personally like some of those ideas, but I'll never trust people who think that violence is justifiable.
1. We had a convention citoyenne pour le climat. Macron then mostly ignored it.
2. We have elected representatives who can vote on the laws for us. Macron then used article 49.3 to mostly ignore them.
3. Vote? For which candidate? None of them would cover all of the GJs' demands.
If you disqualify protests as a valid form of democratic expression, you also disqualify our famous revolution, the feminist protests that earned women the right to vote, the union strikes that earned us many worker rights, etc.
> I'll never trust people who think that violence is justifiable
Ah, that explains it. You only see violence in protesters who break windows, not in governments who enact laws on their people. Am I correct in assuming that you're ok with making people work 20 hours/week for the RSA as well?
A government trying to manage a country has a ton of compromises to make every day; I do not expect to be happy with every one of their choices, but I think the current government is doing OK.
On the other side, I fail to see how breaking a window can solve the problem of the protester.
> If you disqualify protests as a valid form of democratic expression
I'm afraid you confuse protest with violence. The ability to protest is fundamental for a democracy to stay a democracy, but protest must not imply violence and, especially, expressing your point does not make it automatically right.
When even journalists from le Figaro (right wing newspaper) have to protest brutality against journalists.... the violence is only coming from the protester ?
The reality is: talking about CO2 emissions is talking about economy. That is the main job of the government.
> 2. We have elected representatives who can vote on the laws for us. Macron then used article 49.3 to mostly ignore them.
Macron did not ignore them. 49.3 means: "I'm ready to go on this point; are you ready, too?". And, by the way, you do remember that Macron was elected, too, do you?
> 3. Vote? For which candidate? None of them would cover all of the GJs' demands.
So what? This is democracy! If you can't, or don't want to, found your political movement, then you have to choose among the available candidates. Do you think Macron's program matched exactly my desires?
The revolution, the feminism and the union strikes were expressions of people who were oppressed and on the receiving side of violence. Gilets Jaunes was none of this.
- peaceful protest or "convention citoyenne" are not and should not be efficient
- We don't care what the vast majority of people want, and we don't care about the parliament.
- The only thing we should care is what think the President. The one who got the support of barely 20% of the French population on the first round, and them got elected on the second round because people voted against the far right... In a "presidential Monarchy"
What a nice conception of "democracy"
In France the only way firefighter got heard the last few times, after month of peaceful protestation, is by doing violent protest, including throwing heavy thing on the policeman. Then the government accepted to negociate with them. If you don't use violence in France, in many case you don't get heard at all.
Gilets Jaunes, aslo because of their violence did manage to get the government to made some concession.
Millions of French people (more than Gilets Jaunes at their peak) marched several times peacefully against the recent Pension Law, supported by all the trade union democratically elected, supported by more than 70% of the population and more than 90% of the workers. Nothing happen. No concession. Not even a vote in the parliament.
For sure sometimes violence is efficient, sometimes violence in counter-productive. Justifiable ? that is something else...
The only polls that matter are elections. Apart from elections, people have the right to avoid any poll without risking any policy change.
2) Democracy is not just voting every 5 year for a president and a parliament
And to be clear, I'm not saying pure polling driven policy is the solution, but saying politician should outright ignore them because not legally binding is a very weird stance.
What can anyone do about a president that abuses its power ? This is a basic democratic issue and I am pessimistic because a lot of people like you just don't seem to get it, so we won't address that and when it is going to be too late it will be too late.
You might like or trust the current government but what about the next one ?
France is big enough. Having to avoid a few square kilometres around the president will leave you plenty of space to organize your protest.
And that's why the public space must be made available for protesters, it's part of the life of a sane democracy. Public space and free press are sufficient if you have a point that matters to other people.
But if you feel the need to hijack another event in order to get people's attention, maybe you don't have a valid point to start with?
After all, they broke the law and since it's the law then clearly the government had full legitimacy... right?
Next, you should be defending the "Code Noir" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir That was also the law at some point and only affecting a minitority of the population. The suffering of anyone in society shouldn't interrupt your daily life as any act of revolt is illegal and therefore illegitimate.
Are you even French? "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" unless it inconveniences my day-to-day.
There is more to democracy than a vote every 5 years.
Consent of the governed: "Government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is justified and lawful only when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised."
The founders of the United States believed that the government of Great Britain should rest on the principle that government depended on the consent of the governed and that any government not based on that consent could be justifiably overthrown and replaced.
Pretty sure revolutionary France abides by the same principles.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...