WP PDF - Gredeg

GROUPE DE RECHERCHE EN ECONOMIE, DROIT ET GESTION
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Université de Nice – Sophia Antipolis
Public Consultation practices at the Local Level:
From Monologic to Dialogic. The Case of Transport
Projects
Marlène Thomassian
Avril 2005
Document de travail n° 2005 - 1
G.R.E.D.E.G.
250, rue Albert Einstein.
06560 Valbonne – Sophia Antipolis, France.
Public Consultation practices at the Local Level:
From Monologic to Dialogic. The Case of Transport
Projects
Marlène Thomassian, University of Nice – Sophia Antipolis
([email protected])
Abstract:
This research aims to understand the evolution of practices in matter of public consultation.
In the first part, we will treat of the public action’s democratization process, on the one hand,
by identifying the barriers of participative logic deployment and on the other hand, by
showing different consultation’s devices as markers of contrary logics (representative versus
participative). From this analysis in terms of impediments to participative logic and tools that
in contrary support it, we will suggest a conceptual framework that we will use in the second
part to grasp the consultation’s practices at the local level within four transport projects.
Key words: local public action, participative democracy, transport project, Prior Consultation,
Public Enquiry.
Résumé :
Cette recherche vise à comprendre l’évolution des pratiques en matière de concertation du
public.
Nous traiterons dans une première partie du processus de démocratisation de l’action publique
en identifiant d’une part, les obstacles au déploiement d’une logique participative et d’autre
part, en exposant différents dispositifs de concertation en tant que marqueurs de logiques
contraires (représentative versus participative). A partir de cette analyse en termes de freins à
la logique participative et de dispositifs qui, au contraire, favorisent son intégration, nous
proposons un cadre conceptuel dont nous ferons usage dans la deuxième partie pour
appréhender les pratiques de la concertation du public au niveau local à l’œuvre dans le cadre
de quatre projets de transport.
Mots clés : action publique locale, démocratie participative, projet de transport, concertation
préalable, enquête publique.
1
Introduction
The reference to one of the most famous thinkers as regards democracy seems convenient to
introduce the research topic, namely the public consultation at the local level. Tocqueville, in
his work entitled “De la démocratie en Amérique”, while underlining citizens’ disaffection for
public affairs, also puts forth proposals to stop it by the development of associations. The
thought of Tocqueville is still very contemporary since some people see in associativeness an
essential tool in learning citizenship. Thus, Keslassy (2003) specifies that the local democracy
must be participative in the sense that it must assist citizens’ participation by creating local
institutions. By extolling a better recognition and increased means for associations, Keslassy,
or even Barthélemy (2003), reintroduce a key idea present in Tocqueville’s writings.
However, others, as Le Bart (2003), question themselves on the role of associations in
proximity democracy’s development.
Tocqueville, as an enthusiastic partisan of decentralization, considers it as a favourable seed
to interest citizens for the public thing again, since it concedes them a share of political
responsibilities. However, the State, in the approach of decentralization engaged in France
since 1982, certainly transferred competences to local authorities, reinforcing at the same time
their roles and capacities, but these last at their turn did not decentralize to the population’s
benefit, as Thoenig (1999) very accurately underlines it. One of the objectives of
decentralization aims at bringing citizens closer to decision-making process; paradoxically it
did not grant them any power. However, the ex-minister delegated to the city reaffirms the
idea of the citizens’ participation to the public decisions in specifying that the local
democracy must not only allow the citizen to say, but also to do. Thus, local and national
elected officials confront us more and more with spellbinding speeches for further public
consultation and participation. Nevertheless, is the simple formulation of these two magic
words enough to reveal a participative and proximity local democracy? With no intention to
provide an exhaustive answer to this question, which is rather an incentive, we will lean in a
first part on the public action’s democratization, which takes place in France with the
implementation of public consultation and participation tools. We will treat of the obstacles
that slow down the deployment of a participative logic. While also stating the devices as
regards consultation, at local and national level and in particular in the field of transport
projects, which falls under contrary logics (representative versus participative). We will see
from this analysis showing on the one hand, the resistances to participative logic, and on the
other hand, the devices, which on the contrary, promote it, the emergence of a conceptual
framework allowing the appreciation of the degree of participation according to the
2
instruments of consultation employed. We will use this conceptual grid in a second part
dedicated to the case study, to understand the practices in matter of public consultation at the
local level through four transport projects. In conclusion, we will suggest tracks of reflection
on levers to encourage the integration of participative logic, or in other words, a dialogical
approach of consultation.
1. Public action’s democratisation: myth or reality?
Financial markets are not undergoing alone a crisis of confidence and wondering on suitable
forms of governance, public action has its own crisis, but the analogy stops there. Public
action’s crisis appears through various indicators. Here are some exposed higgledy-piggledy.
On the one hand, the administrations adapt difficulty to the accelerated transformation of
environment (Crozier, 1984), which results for example in inappropriate answers to citizens’
expectations. Indeed, the public opinion evolved, and the reasons of this evolution were not
taken into account (Réocreux, Dron, 1996). On the other hand, the citizens’ lack of
confidence towards the politicians increases. Besides, without putting representative
democracy into question, the citizens want to reconsider the idea according to which they
grant on Election Day full power to the politicians, valid during the entire electoral mandate.
One can finally note that citizens strongly contest the pre-eminence, in the name of general
interest or public utility, of technical rationality in projects. These different indicators took
part in the awareness of citizens on the politicians’ failure and the serious insufficiencies of
public action, and made emerge the idea that it is necessary to involve more the citizens in the
life of the city (Bevort, 2002). Let us now examine the obstacles slowing down the public’s
participation?
1.1. Obstacles to the deployment of a participative logic
We have identified three obstacles. First, the institutional framework that privileges
representative democracy, in the local or national level because of the French specificity
concerning plurality of offices. Secondly, the civil services culture not inclined to dialogue
with the public, and the technical experts restive to laymen-citizens’ participation in the
elaboration of projects. Lastly, the development of an indifference culture to the public thing
formerly identified and designated by Tocqueville under the term of individualism.
1.1.1. An institutional framework where representative logic prevails
France has several tools as regards public consultation (prior consultation, public enquiry,
“référendum local”, “Commission Nationale du Débat Public (CNDP)”, etc.), which are
implemented by various legislative dispositions (“Démocratie de Proximité” law,
3
Constitutional law, “Barnier” law, “Bianco” circular, etc.). These dispositions are certainly
the compost necessary to the rooting of participative democracy, but some consider it as a
series of endless measures that patch an old system up without changing the fundamentals
(Thoenig, 2000). Indeed, the procedure of public enquiry holds the sad record to be held
without public, because this procedure is neutralized by a representative logic (Baltrix, 1999).
In the theory of representative democracy, developed by Schumpeter (1963), the elected
officials, lit and advised by technicians and experts receive the power. According to this
theory, once that he has elected his representatives, the ordinary citizen has nothing else to do
than let himself govern. This way of apprehending the citizen results from the historical
formation of our political institutions built on a constant refusal of citizens’ participation in
the local affairs out of election time (Blondiaux, Marcou, Rangeon, 1999). It also corresponds
to a certain idea of the human nature where the citizen is considered as ignorant and
incompetent. Thus, citizens, conscious that the devices set up leave them only “crumbs” of
responsibilities, do not take part.
Certain elected officials see in participative democracy a threat that would weaken their
power. For example, Senator Daniel Hoeffel [ 1 ] concerning the final bill as regards local
referendum (cf. infra), points out that the two devices that are the local referendum and the
right of petition do not have to question the decision-making power of the elected officials.
Generally, laws whit a section on participative democracy always go with a reinforcement or
extension of local authorities privileges and competences [ 2 ].
1.1.2. The administrative and technical culture not disposed to dialogue with the public
Civil servants and technical experts must become aware that subjects, even complex, can
benefit from the lights of the citizens. The objective is not to question their knowledge and
competences, but to widen the field of considerations. Particularly by integrating social,
political and even ethical dimensions that can occur in any project, and on which the citizens
are entitled to deliver their opinions (Bevort, 2002). The remarks of CNDP’s President,
emitted within the framework of the public debate’s evaluation carried out on Bordeaux’s
motorway bypass project (cf. infra) relatively to the citizens’ contribution, are eloquent. He
points out that the public debate “a fait apparaître des arguments nouveaux, ce qui montre
bien l’apport que peut représenter la consultation d’une population qui connaît parfaitement
la région où elle habite et qui pense, en tant qu’usager quotidien, à des conséquences
possibles de l’ouvrage que le technicien le plus compétent n’imagine pas nécessairement ”
[3].
4
1.1.3. Citizens lack of interest for public affairs: passing from the mass individual to the
social individual
Citizens have a “political sense” that gives them the possibility to have their word on public
affairs. Why do they then show so little interest for the public thing? This situation can partly
be explained by long decades of “one best way” personified by the expertise, sometimes
perceived as arrogant (Tenzer, 2000), of civil servants skipping the debate with the ordinary
citizen, qualified of incompetent. Or even by politicians perpetuating the tradition of political
institutions, built on a constant rejection of citizens involvement out of electoral times
(Blondiaux, Marcou, Rangeon, 1999). Nevertheless, the public decision, formerly a sovereign
act, made by a quasi-monarch in the person of the mayor is out of date. Today, the decision
refers more to a negotiation process that requires from civil servants and politicians an
evolution of their respective cultures and the acquisition of new know-how’s since they must
build the conditions making the decision possible - thus legitimating their actions - and not
satisfying themselves by simply taking the decision (Landrieu, 2000).
A share of responsibility is due to the individuals, with their “individualism”. How to pass
from the mass individual to the social individual? It is a question of developing the “political
sense” of the individual, a kind of innate capacity that everyone has for politics. This potential
needs to grow by a suitable instruction in order to pass from the state of “political sense” to
that of “political art” [ 4 ]. For some (Keslassy, 2003; Barthélemy, 2003) the implication in
associations appears to be “a good” school to learn citizenship.
The introduction of devices promoting participative logic requires an appropriate change of
the techniques of government, granting the possibility to citizens to take part in the public
affairs. This change cannot be done without a tough implication of the elected official and the
civil servant. The latter must modify their professional practices trough training, because they
will be more involved in functions of mediation, negotiation (Hamel, 1997).
The citizen’s entry in the public action’s field requires going beyond a public management
anchored on the partnership “politician/civil servant” in order to tend towards an integrative
management associating the citizen to the decision-making process (Lamarzelle, 2001). The
“citizen/politician/civil servant” partnership requires learning for all the actors, because
participation is not innate.
We have seen the obstacles to participative logic. Nevertheless, the democratization of public
action materializes in France through a plurality of consultation devices, some of which allow
the participation of public. We will first present two traditional legal procedures of
5
consultation - the prior consultation and the public enquiry -, which rather fit in a
representative logic. Then, we will focus on recent instruments of consultation, rather
innovative, at the local and national level, in particular in the field of projects of transport,
which seem better disposed to integrate a participative logic.
1.2. Consultation devices: markers of a representative versus participative logic
We will expose in the first point two classical procedures in matter of consultation that are
generally anchored in a representative logic, and in the second point, we will show the
cohabitation of two logics (representative and participative) in new and innovative tools.
1.2.1. Inventory of two traditional procedures as regards consultation
The prior consultation and the public enquiry are two French legal procedures in matter of
consultation that frame projects of country planning and transport infrastructure. They often
are citizens’ only occasion to be informed.
1.2.1.1.Prior Consultation: history, field and modality of use
The law of July 18, 1985, relative to the definition and the implementation of planning
principles, makes the prior consultation compulsory, for which the responsibility is assigned
to the local community. The Town Planning Code’s articles L.300-2 and R.300-1 makes an
obligation for the officials having the initiative of country planning operations, to organize,
upstream, a consultation in order to associate throughout all project’s development period
local politicians, inhabitants, associations and other people concerned.
The procedure’s opening, as well as its methods (timing, means, etc.) must be the object of a
deliberation taken by the deliberative assembly, for example the town council in the case of a
communal project.
The prior consultation’s implementation conditions are rather fuzzy in the way that the law
does not specify them. Jurisprudence however clarified the minimal form that it must take,
that is to say the deposit in the town hall of a file regarding the project accompanied by a
register on which the public can deposit observations. However, the means dedicated to the
prior consultation must be adapted to the project’s importance. Thus, expositions and public
meetings can be organized.
At the end of the prior consultation, in accordance with the law, an evaluation must be made
and submitted to the deliberative assembly. If the local community is not bound by the results
of the consultation, a lack of consultation can however put in danger the realization of the
project [ 5 ].
Perceived until recently like a restrain by the elected officials, consultation tends today to give
them a source of legitimacy in their decisions (Peyretti, Prost, 2000). Thus, in order to see
6
their project happen as expected, the public decision makers allocate increasingly substantial
means in communication, in particular by engaging professionals broken with the techniques
to make public adhere. The consultation resembles then more to an instrumentalized process.
Consultation’s organization is also further structured. Indeed, the civil servants are better
prepared to carry out the consultation. Today, it is completely integrated to the projects’
development process, and it is managed by the recourse to different working methods and
tools [ 6 ].
The prior consultation is an advisory tool with that still remains essentially informative in the
way that it does not invite citizens to dialogue and take part effectively. For some public
decision makers, the consultation takes more the form of an advertisement effect than that of a
real determination to engage the citizens and to consider their opinions. Nevertheless,
interesting experiments, like the creation of the Associations Forum presented in the case
study, translate the determination of certain elected officials to make prior consultation a
favourable moment for a public debate on the project.
1.2.1.2.Public Enquiry: history, field and modality of practice
The public enquiry is an old procedure of the Town Planning Code conceived in 1810 with
the objective of protecting the ownership’s right during expropriations. Nearly one century
and half ran out before the first reform into 1959 aiming to simplify the procedure while
pursuing the same goal: to defend the owners’ rights of and to validate the administration’s
projects. It is in fact under the impulsion of the Bouchardeau law of July 12, 1983, relative to
the “démocratisation des enquêtes publiques et à la protection de l’environnement” (public
enquiry’s democratisation and environment protection), that this procedure went beyond a
simple role of protecting the ownership’s rights, to become a tool of information and
collection of the public’s opinion. The Bouchardeau law opens the application field of the
public enquiry that includes, in addition to the operations requiring expropriation, the
documents of town planning and any project having an environmental impact.
The Bouchardeau type public enquiry is led by one, even several enquiry commissioners (it is
then a commission of enquiry), appointed by the Administrative Court’s President.
At the end of the enquiry, the commissioner or the commission establishes a report supposed
to reflect the public’s opinion. This report also delivers an opinion on the project’s public
utility. The opinion can be of three types: favourable, favourable with reserves, or
unfavourable. In the case of a favourable opinion with reserves, the deliberative assembly can
either lift them, or try to cancel them by appealing to the “Conseil d’Etat” (State Council).
7
The procedure’s goal is to allow the public to get information on the project, and to be able to
deposit their observations either on a register, or directly to the enquiry commissioner.
But criticisms, as much on behalf of the citizen, than of the civil servant or the politician, did
not cease being increasingly bitter against the public enquiry considered non adapted by the
latter. It does not satisfy the public’s expectations that wish through this procedure to take part
in the decision making process. However, the 1983 reform did not settle the question of the
decision making’s democratisation, it only invites citizens to take part in the discussion and
not in the decision making (Romi, 1999). The civil servants, and more precisely the technical
experts, regard the procedure of public enquiry as an information device of the public, and not
as a participative tool, because they are the only ones to possess the necessary knowledge to
develop the projects. For the elected officials, the public enquiry is lived like a deferment of
their prerogatives, which can ruin the realization of their projects (Raséra, 2002). Indeed,
several transport operations [ 7 ] who had received an unfavourable report from the enquiries
commissioners for their public utility were finally authorized after appeal to State Council.
Then, Quid of the public enquiry’s utility, and the enquiry commissioners’ legitimacy?
Ten years after the Bouchardeau law, the Minister of Environment financed a report. The
report, written by Mrs. Bouchardeau in December 1993, identifies three causes likely to
explain the dysfunctions of the public enquiry.
First, this procedure faces the administration’s resistance since it is not accustomed to
dialogue and report to the public.
She also notes an ambiguity in the role of the enquiry commissioner, sometimes shown to be
the administration’s instrument; one also reproaches him a lack of technical skills. Let us here
indicate that the law of February 27, 2002 relative to Proximity Democracy made
improvements on this point in implementing the revalorization of the enquiry commissioner’s
function, by increasing their allowance, and improving their formation.
Lastly, the public enquiry proceeds too downstream from the project’s development process,
making thus illusory any substantial modification.
The report’s conclusions point out that the procedure is perceived by the administration like a
simple unpleasant formality and underline the minimalist character of its implementation in
the strictest respect of the law, while occulting the original philosophy of the public enquiry
based on the introduction of a dialogue to inform and collect the observations of the public.
Facing this situation, the Prime Minister seized in 1998 the State Council for the improvement
of the appreciation of the great projects’ public enquiry. A study group was created, headed
by Nicole Questiaux, who returned her report at the end of 1999. The report contained three
8
axes: First, the redefinition of the public enquiry’s place and the appreciation of the general
interest. Second, information and dialogue with the public not only upstream but all over the
decision making process. Finally, the evolution of the “Commission National du Débat Public
(CNDP)” (National Commission of the Public debate) towards an authority guarantying the
public debate.
Some proposals formulated in the Questiaux report found a place in title IV of the Proximity
Democracy law under the headline “De la participation du public à l’élaboration des grands
projets” (Of the public’s participation in the development of great projects).
Several reforms of the public enquiry, as well as the various reports relative to its
dysfunctions support the idea that the public’s participation is rarely effective during public
enquiries (Marcou, 1999; Romi, 1999; Baltrix, 1999).
One of the reasons of the citizens’ disaffection to the public enquiry is its inclusion in a
representative logic.
1.2.2. Recent and innovative devices: or two logics cohabitation difficulties
At the local level, we will see the “conseils de quartier” (district council) and the “référendum
local” (local referendum). At the national level, we will present the “Commission National du
Débat Public (CNDP)” (National Commission of Public Debates) [ 8 ], and we will illustrate,
through the motorway project skirting Bordeaux, its implementation’s difficulties because of
its enshrining in two logics (representative versus participative).
Then, we will report of the transport projects role as initiators of participative devices and
developers of the consultation practices evolution.
1.2.2.1. The district council (“conseil de quartier”): between autonomy and governance
instrument
The district councils, set up in France by the law “Démocratie de Proximité”, are in fact
representative authorities of districts that existed in some large cities like Bordeaux, Grenoble
or Marseilles in the beginning of the century, but under the appellation of “syndicats de
quartier ” (district trade unions), “comités de quartier ”(district committees), name that, with
time evolved to become “conseils de quartier” (district councils).The Sueur report of 1998 on
the “politique de la ville” (city’s politics) proposes particularly in large cities the
generalization of district councils, whose consultation would impose itself to the city council
on the questions interesting the district. This proposal was included in the Mauroy report of
2000, entitled “Refonder l’action public local”, and found a positive echo by the government
that registered it in the bill “Démocratie de Proximité”. After several debates at the national
assembly, the bill went to a radical reshuffling, and the district councils, which constituted a
9
major innovation in terms of participation, where finally deprived of their autonomy. Indeed,
the mayor decides of the district councils’ composition, and they are required only for cities
of more than 80 000 inhabitants. France contrasts on this point with a large number of
countries, where the inhabitants organize the district councils in total autonomy. To illustrate
this point, Bevort (2002) takes the example of two district councils, one in a Dutch city, and
the other one in a French city. The “Dutch” district council is an authority complementary and
autonomous as regards the city council, it has means and a role regarding information,
whereas the “French” district council tends to be a governance instrument.
1.2.2.2. The local referendum (“référendum local”): a consultation with a largely framed
decisional value
The constitutional law of March 28, 2003 relative to the decentralized organization of the
French Republic aims, among other things, to intensify local democracy through three
mechanisms. On the one hand, institution of a right of petition to local voters allowing them
to obtain the inscription on the agenda of the assembly deliberating on their community of a
question concerned with its competence. On the other hand, local consultation [ 9 ] that will
make it possible to the legislator to consult the voters it is for example planned to create or to
modify a territorial community equipped with a particular statute, or even when territorial
modifications are considered for all the territorial communities of common right or particular
statute. And finally, the local referendum whose methods of organization are laid down by the
organic law of August 1st 2003 [ 10 ]. The organization of the local referendum is extremely
framed and does not question local executive power. Nevertheless, the local referendum
incarnates real advanced in term of direct democracy since the law confers a capacity to him
decisional. The communal referendum, "twin brother" of the local referendum, present in
many European countries has, in the majority of the cases, only an advisory value [ 11 ].
1.2.2.3. The National Commission of Public Debates (CNDP): which latitude considering the
National Interest pressure?
After a quick historical review, we will detail the role and the functioning of the CNDP and
relate a public debate showing the limits of the CNDP, even though it is not representative of
public debates in general.
The Bianco circular of December 15, 1992 in the field of infrastructures, or even the Billardon
circular of January 14, 1993 relative to high and very high voltage electric station projects,
largely contributed to the recognition of the public debates contributions. They also inspired
the legislator towards the creation of the CNDP. Thus, the Barnier law of February 2, 1995
relative to the environment’s protection instituted the CNDP’s creation. Legislative
10
disposition strongly inspired by the Carrère report [ 12 ] (1992) that recommended in
particular the foundation of a national college of experts. The CNDP also fits in the direct line
of the Bianco circular (“Bianco” debate) and of the Quebecois procedures of the “Bureau des
Audiences Publiques sur l’Environement (BAPE)”. The May 10, 1996 decree defined the
CNDP’s application modalities, but it was effective only in September 1997 [ 13 ].
CNDP’s functioning, version Barnier law, very hierarchical and extremely framed by the
authorities seemed to reflect the political leaders’ fear to give away any deliberative power to
the citizens (Bevort, 2002). But, the “Démocratie de Proximité” law has, since February 27
2002, allowed the status of the CNDP to evolve to an Independent Administrative Authority
and widened its prerogatives. The CNDP must guarantee, according to the law, on the one
hand, the public’s participation to the elaboration of country planning or national interest
equipment projects, and on the other hand, the public’s information during the phase of
project realization. However, the CNDP is not entitled to have an opinion on the projects.
Let us now see an experiment of public consultation: confrontation of participative and
representative logic.
Box 1. Bordeaux’s skirting motorway or the skirted public debate!
The Minister of Equipment, Transport, Housing, Tourism and Sea seized the CNDP in January 2003,
concerning Bordeaux’s skirting motorway project. The Minister wished a briefing on the one hand, on
the opportunity of a skirting motorway, and on the other hand, on the choice of a layout by the west or
by the east, and on the project’s schedule of conditions aiming at specifying particular functionalities
and constraints. In March 2003, the CNDP decides the organization of a public discussion through a
“Commission Particulière de Débat Public (CPDP)”. The CPDP, made up of eight members [ 14 ],
planned the public discussion from October 2003 to January 2004. The CPDP did not carry to term the
public debate. Indeed, in December 18, 2003, the “Comité Interministériel d’Aménagement et de
Développement du Territoire (CIADT)” announces its decisions concerning the great transport
infrastructure projects that will be realized or engaged from here to 2012, of which Bordeaux’s bypass project. In reaction, the members of the CPDP resigned on December 31, 2003 since “ils
s’estiment fondés à cesser l’animation du débat public qu’ils jugent n’avoir plus de raison d’être"
[15]. Nevertheless, at the request of CPDP’s members, the President remained in exercise in order to
establish the public debate’s report. Thus, CPDP’s President underlines in his report that “la question
de l’opportunité du contournement n’était pas tranchée (…) du moins jusqu’au 18 décembre. Après
cette date, du point de vue de la CPDP, elle n’était plus une question ” [ 16 ]. The public debate was
unquestionably cut short, but it took place. It brought detailed proposals to the Minister’s three
questions, and even generated a fourth on the “contents and practical methods of a multimodal,
11
evolutive and participative policy of transport in Aquitaine and Gironde, from now to 2020”. This
fourth question emerging “des échanges et de contributions en provenance d’opposants comme de
partisans du contournement, a occupé une grande partie du débat. Ce dernier est devenu une occasion
de création et de convergence de points de vues” [ 17 ].
1.2.2.4. The transport Projects: initiators of participative devices and developers of
consultation practices evolution
We assisted in France, in the beginning of the Nineties, to abundant conflicts emanating from
great national transport infrastructure projects, particularly railway projects, which revealed a
crisis in democracy (Fourniau, 1997) and initiated participative devices. The Mediterranean
“TGV” (Great Speed Train) project is a good example since it gave place to the Bianco
circular in December 15, 1992 (De Carlo, 2002). The different conflicts brought the
authorities to start a fundamental study on the question of decisional space in public projects,
thus generating the promulgation of various circulars in the vein of the Bianco circular. The
Bianco circular puts into practice a public debate before the project’s study stage, on the
prefect’s initiative, in order to appreciate the infrastructure’s economic and social interest, and
continuously consult the public until the realization of the transport project. The Barnier law
of February 2, 1995 relative to the reinforcement of environmental protection generalized the
public’s consultation procedure all the great projects. These legislative arrangements seem to
play a part in a more general movement of opening the decisional space of public politics.
Phenomenon lately reaffirmed through title IV of the law on Proximity Democracy that deals
with the “participation du public à l’élaboration des grands projets ” (participation of the
public in the development of important projects) and whose principles are a direct application
of the International Convention Aarhus [ 18 ].
This consultation devices fast panorama, from the most traditional to the most innovative,
testifies the numerous changes in the public action’s practices, as the latter tends to integrate
participative logic further. However, we saw that the implementation of a participative logic is
slowed down by a whole set of factors, and how a device rather based on a participative logic
(ex: the Public debate on Bordeaux’s skirting motorway) is caught up by a representative
logic.
From this analysis, highlighting the obstacles to participative logic while also evoking the
consultation devices more or less favourable to its integration, we propose a conceptual
framework aiming to appreciate the degree of participation according to the devices used by
12
the practicians, and more generally, to understand the practices as regards participative
democracy.
1.3. Consultation and participation levels: a conceptual framework proposal
The consultation devices presented can be tools of participative democracy if those using
them have a certain understanding of the consultation concept and that the means
implemented promote exchanges (Callon, Lascoumes and Barthe, 2001; Raséra, 2002).
Arnstein (1969) worked out a scale including various degrees of participation that we can
gather in three levels:
-
the absence of participation, the consultation is then synonymous to a unilateral
information,
-
the symbolic participation, when the decision takes place in public instead of being
made by the public,
-
the effective power, where citizens are associated to the decision making.
The correlation of Arnstein’s different degrees of participation with the consultation devices
exposed previously based on opposite logics, makes emerge a plurality of meanings of the
consultation concept that we propose to place gradually on a five degrees scale, which
oscillate along a continuum made of 2 poles: monologic and dialogic.
Table 1. Various degrees of consultation: from monologic to dialogic
Monologic
Degree 0
“Autocratic Decision”
Degree 1
“Unilateral Information”
Degree 2
“Consultation”
Degree 3
“Concerted Action”
Degree 4
“Participation” [ 32]
Dialogic
Local Administration studies and decides alone of a
project without informing the public.
Local Administration informs the public of a project,
without feedback. Information is unidirectional and can
intervene at the various stages of the project’s progress and
in diverse forms.
Local Administration consults the public on a project to
collect its opinion by the means of an obligatory procedure
(public enquiry type) or volunteer (referendum type).
Local Administration co-operates with the public to realize
the project. The public’s opinion is collected in order to
amend the project.
Thus, citizens can make counter-proposals.
Local Administration invites the public to take part in the
collective development of a project. A space of
participation and dialogue is created. This space requires
the development of tools susceptible to allow all
participants (elected officials, technicians, citizens...) to
imply themselves in the project.
However, what do we hear by monologic and dialogic consultation?
1.3.1. The monologic consultation: devices anchored in a representative logic
13
The monologic consultation rests on a single (mono) and central rationality (logos)
incarnating the elected official’s will and/or the civil servants’ technical rationality.
The monologic consultation takes the form of a unilateral and downward communication,
from elected official and/or civil servant to citizen. Although the information of the citizens is
an essential and obligatory step, it remains insufficient. It must be a prerequisite before the
consultation’s opening, so that the various parties discussing have full knowledge of the facts.
The citizens often perceive the monologic consultation like a “manipulation” attempt
orchestrated by the elected officials and the civil servants, in order to make them adhere to a
project already defined. Often qualified of a sham, the monologic view of the consultation can
induce mistrust reactions from the public or even the rejection of the project.
Generally, the monologic consultation reveals a cultural problem. We have on one side
elected officials attached to the exclusive legitimacy of the elective representative democracy,
and on another, civil servants uncommunicative with the non-professional estimating that the
level of complexity of the projects implies a technicality they are the only ones to have.
1.3.2. The dialogic consultation: devices tending to participative logic
The concept of dialogism results from Bakhtine’s [19] work. In this approach, the
consultation rests on the dialogue that will contribute to the emergence of a true “public
space” in the habermassien sense. Indeed, the public debate’s issue, and in a more general
manner, the citizens’ participation to the decision making processes is in the heart of the
habermassien’s public space theory (Bachir, 1999).
The dialogical consultation makes possible the establishment of a public space of deliberation,
i.e. a place where the elected officials, the civil servants and the citizens discuss local public
choices (Chevallier, 1999). However, the creation of such a “space” requires specific tools,
able to accompany and support the participation of all the actors, which we will develop in the
second part devoted to the case study.
Both consultation conceptions, monologic and dialogic, are in a certain extent complementary
rather than divergent, the first being necessary to the second. Indeed, it is fundamental in a
first step to inform the citizens, in order to invite them afterwards to take part in the project’s
development. Moreover, nothing excludes the coexistence of several meanings since the
monologic and dialogic consultations are two typical-ideal poles. For this reason, Fourniau
(1997) underlines that various modes of public action cohabit in decision-making process:
command, planning, and pragmatic. In the command mode, only the politicians intervene in
the decision-making process, as a hegemonic decision maker. As for the planning mode, it
14
emerged following the numerous conflicts particularly in transport projects, and caused
reforms like the one relative to the public enquiry’s democratization. This is how, the word of
“concertation” (consultation) emerged in the French public space at the end of the sixties
(Worms, Gremion, 1968) as a contradictory response to the contestation notion (Bratosin,
2001). Lastly, the pragmatic mode consists in implementing a marketing policy in order to stir
up the public’s adhesion, and to legitimate the decisions made by the elected officials.
We will now exploit this conceptual framework to relate the consultation practices used in
transport projects.
2.
Consultation practices at the local level: four transport projects
Our research, undertaken a posteriori, was realized in an exploratory process’s frame. It
principally rest on interviews and a documentary analysis. We carried out this case study
(Yin, 1994) in order to understand the practices as regards consultation at the local level
through devices used by the professionals: from the more conventional with the procedures of
prior consultation and public enquiry, to the most promising in term of dialogic consultation
like for example the “working group” tool. In this perspective, we appealed to the conceptual
grid presented in the first part that proposes a range of meanings of the consultation concept.
First, we will present four transport projects. Then, we will see that the legal consultation
procedures (prior consultation and public enquiry) are rather gathered around the monologic
pole, except when they introduce innovative devices such as the “Forum des Associations”
(Associations Forum). As for the consultation devices that tend to the dialogic pole, they are
generally implemented out of the law’s consultation procedures. We will illustrate it through
the “working group” tool that is similar to the “public space of deliberation” concept. Lastly,
we will treat of management implications resulting from the implementation of dialogic
consultation devices.
2.1. Presentation of the projects
The projects concern a specific category of collective transport called “Transport Collectif en
Site Propre (TCSP)” (Collective Transport running in its own lane) [20] and particularly
tramways. These tramway projects are carried out in four French agglomerations of more than
100 000 inhabitants.
Table 2. Four transport projects
Projects
Description (owners, provisional costs, etc.)
In this agglomeration, the first reflections on the necessity to realize a collective
15
Project n° 1
North-East
Agglomeration
Project n° 2
South-East
Agglomeration
Project n° 3
South-East
Agglomeration
Project n° 4
South-West
Agglomeration
transport go back to the Nineties, for the development of “the Urban Transport Plan”
[33]. In May 1998, the Syndicat Intercommunal des Transports (Inter Council Union
of Transport), gathering 16 communes, decided to realize a tram-train project, which
includes two types of trams:
- a urban tram of 20 kilometres which will pass through 5 communes, and will be
operational in 2005. The project’s cost is evaluated to 340,2 million euros (value
2001).
- a suburban tramway of 37 kilometres which should run in 2007. The provisional
budget allocated includes an infrastructures cost estimated at 69 million euros (value
January 1999), in addition to 46 million euros of equipment.
The realization of the 3rd line in an existing tramway network.
This project was adopted by the Comité Syndical du Syndicat Mixte des Transports en
Commun de l’Agglomération (Mixed Council Union of Collective Transports) in July
1999. This line, about 13,5 kilometres, will probably serve 5 communes as well as the
University Campus, at the end of the year 2005.
The cost: 335,8 million euros (value November 2000).
Agglomeration Community, who gathers 22 communes, decided to schedule on the
one hand, a line of tramway of 8,7 kilometres, and on the other hand, a bus service in
“own lane” (i.e. bus running in its own lane) of 9,9 kilometres, which will be later
transformed in a tram line. Running is fixed for 2006. The project’s amount is 335
million euros.
Since the Seventies, the Urban Community launched several studies relative to
different means of transport (subway, etc.), but none succeeded. The Council of
Community confirmed, in 1997, the tramway project. This transport network will be
the biggest in France with about 40 kilometres, cost 1,0611 billion euros. It will be
operational in 2007.
After this brief presentation of the projects, we will try to apprehend the dialogism degree of
the consultation devices implemented by the practitioners.
2.2. The consultation devices: which degree of dialogism?
In a first point, we will see that the legal consultation devices are anchored on the monologic
pole. However, we will moderate this point of view thanks to the introduction of the “Forum
des Associations” device in the prior consultation procedure. We will also present a singular
consultation device, the “working group” (“groupe de travail”), set up in the project n°1
before the beginning of the prior consultation procedure. We will show the high degree of
dialogism that this tool contains, as well as the advantages that the elected officials can get
from it.
2.2.1. Legal consultation procedures: a monologic polarization
The cases analysis enabled us to discern two types of behaviours of the public decision
makers as regards legal consultation procedures. The first behaviour shows the elected
officials will of a minimal consultation, as permitted by legal consultation procedures. The
consultation is then avoided as testified by the deputy director of project n° 3: “the
consultation was as light as possible (...) The population wanted a debate to which the elected
officials did not follow up (...) I made reports pointing out that we needed to communicate, we
16
do not go towards people (...) but “upstairs” they did not get the message, and it is a delayedaction bomb, everywhere else they did better than us”. As for the second, it is relative to the
consultation’s instrumentalisation and corresponds to media supports excess [ 21 ] in order to
convince and sell the project to the public. These two behaviours maintain a representative
logic to the public’s participation detriment. Nevertheless, this report, which seems to
corroborate the proposal, put forth in the first part, according to which legal consultation
procedures fall under a representative logic, is to be attenuated as the tool “Forum des
Associations” introduced in the prior consultation procedure testifies on the possibility of
introducing dialogism in an apparently monologic instrument.
Box 2. “Forum des Associations (FA)” (Associations Forum): or two logics promising
coexistence
The FA (project n° 4) was created at the image of the “Charte de la Concertation” (Consultation
Charter) [ 22 ] in order to inform the public on the transport project, and to enable his participation
during the prior consultation procedure.
The creation of this FA is a unique experiment in France within the frame of transport project’s
consultation. FA was launched at the end of June 1997. During the FA, 67 meetings were organized, as
well as a visit of Nantes operational transport project. The meetings were recorded, and written down.
This structure’s purpose was to organize in a permanent way relations between on the one hand,
elected officials, technicians of the “Communauté Urbaine (CU)” (Urban Community), the
operation’s Engineer, and on the other hand, the associations, according to the principles of the
“Charte de la Concertation” accepted by all the participants. FA was organized in three levels.
The first consisted of a permanent follow-up committee, composed of associations’ delegates, and
representatives, elected officials and technicians of the CU. This authority, counting twenty-one full
members (among whom seven CU representatives, and fourteen delegates of fourteen full member
associations), met at least once a month.
As for the second level, it was composed of “working groups” gathered by topics and geographical
areas: city planning and transports group, modes, layout and intermodality of the network group, and
finally handicapped people and people with limited range of behaviour group.
Finally, the last level consisted in the organization of full sessions presenting the permanent follow-up
committee’s and the “working groups’” work.
“Forum des Associations”: which outcome?
According to one interviewee, “the FA forced the technicians to explain and to justify theirs
choice. Thus, occasionally showing that they were not inevitably the best ones and that other
solutions could be considered to improve the project”.
17
FA was the occasion to study a range of alternatives of the project’s basic layout. It was also
positive for constructive exchanges between technicians on the one hand, handicapped people
and people with limited range of behaviour on the other hand, so that the future equipment
takes into account their specific needs.
The “Communauté Urbaine” invited the different associations having taken part in the Forum
to give their written opinions on its development. In May 1998, the compilation of the mails
produced a report. In spite of chronic criticism on the elected officials’ lack of assiduity and
even their weak implication, the report leaves a rather positive feeling on this consultation
experiment. It is also a pity that this type of tool occults a part of the population not
represented by associations.
Finally, the FA device showed that the emergence of a participative logic is possible or said in
a different way, it is possible to introduce dialogism in the prior consultation procedure
commonly anchored in a representative logic. In this circumstance, the cohabitation of these
two logics joins our point of view relative to monologic and dialogic approach’s
complementarity.
Let us now examine the illustration of a singular device, the “working group” tool,
implemented by the “Syndicat Intercommunal des Transports (SIT)” (Inter Council of
Transport) implemented formerly to the prior consultation procedure (project n° 1).
2.2.2. Creation of a working group: or how to amend a transport project with the residents’
participation?
The working group’s emergence circumstance and running methods
An agglomeration district, among the most important in term of population (10 000
inhabitants), presented a strong demand in term of collective transport, and its servicing by
the future TCSP network required a comprehensive attention. Thus, the servicing of this
district fell under a global town planning launched in 1997. From 1997 to 1999, the residents
of this district were engaged in a consultation process concerning the town planning of their
district and the TCSP’s servicing. At the beginning of 2000, the SIT proposed on the one
hand, the organization of a in situ network visit comparable to the projected one, and on the
other hand, the creation of a working group (gathering the district’s residents, downtown’s
representatives, SIT’s members and the Engineer of the project) in order to determine the
layout which will offer the best characteristics in terms of servicing, urban insertion and
itinerary time. This working group was created in June 2000, and included 20 to 25 people,
counting 15 district’s residents, principal residents associations’ representatives or members
18
of The District Council. It was created to undertake a reflection, questioning and choice as for
the layout and the servicing. The group held, from June to September 2000, three meetings
which were registered in a summarised document. The working group required from the
Engineer of the project other alternatives of the project’s layout, retained by the SIT following
the 1998 feasibility study, in order to judge its pertinence. The project’s Engineer produced
two studies that finally highlighted an alternative superior to the original layout.
The owner’s project director had specified at the beginning the working group’s methodology
and objectives: “At each meeting the technicians will give documented answers to the
residents’ questions in order to improve, during the three meetings, a concerted proposal of
district servicing. The whole district will be informed of this proposal before being validated
by the SIT in the “avant-projet” (preliminary draft)”.
The working group: characteristics and results in term of participation?
The creation of the “working group” device translates a strong political bearing, and
incarnates will of the agglomeration’s central city “député-maire” (deputy-mayor): “the
project’s success is linked to the implementation of a continuous and regular consultation
throughout project. (...) A tight consultation with the citizens will make them adhere, as far as
their wishes are considered in order to optimize the project”.
The “working group” device is a management tool to drive the consultation, i.e. a “dispositif
formalilsé” allowing organized action (David, 1998). It is more directed towards exploration
(Moisdon, 1997) as it authorizes the search of new solutions such as the studies of alternative
layouts. It falls under a simultaneous engineering process in the sense where the design field
is widened to other actors such as the futures users. The latter are brought, from the
beginning, to give their opinions, to formulate their interrogations on the design of a “section”
of the future tram network layout. The participation of the residents in the “working group”
pushed the designers to explore new layout alternatives, and allowed in fine the project’s
improvement.
The residents’ implication materializes in various forms. It is interesting to lean more
particularly on their comments regarding the layouts choices proposed by the Engineers.
Indeed, the remarks of the residents contain local and ordinary knowledge [ 23 ], i.e.
knowledge accumulated in the course of time, on the urban environment in which they live.
This ordinary knowledge is priceless for the designers because they are impregnated of the
local context and of its specificities. Moreover, taking into account the ordinary knowledge
avoids technocratic choices.
19
The “working group” is a consultation tool promoting the debate, a common support of
communication (Benghozi, 1995), which allowed actors belonging to various circles [ 24 ]
(citizens, elected officials, technicians, designers) to conceive collectively a portion of the
tram network layout.
The “working group”, authorized a close co-operation between “recherche confinée et
recherche de plein air” (confined research and field research) using the terminology of the
authors of the paper on technical democracy (Callon, Lascoumes and Barthes, 2001), i.e.
between specialists and nonprofessionals. More particularly, this device brought us to
examine the role of the Owners project Director. He is at the same time mediator and
translator between the residents on the one hand, and the designers (the Engineer of the
project), on the other hand. Indeed, not only does he collect the users’ wishes and opinions,
but he transforms them into prescriptions before transmitting them to the Engineer of the
project. Conversely, when the Engineer must present plans at the users, the project Director
tries to make them more accessible, comprehensible. For this reason, Callon (1998) underlines
the expertise’s necessary “plasticity”, because the role of the expert changes, he becomes a
mediator who, in our case, connects the designers and the users. In the same vein, Godier
(2001) specifies that the Engineer must “play the consultation with the users during public
meetings and above all use procedures, competence registers more focussed towards
negotiation” (p. 83). This author proposes an interesting actor’s profile, the “facilitator”,
whose main role is to constantly tie bonds between experts and laymen.
Moreover, it is necessary to notice the politicians’ presence within the “working group”,
which shows the return of politics in the sense where the “deficit (of the politic), obvious in
the Sixties and Seventies, given that the public decision makers and the elected officials where
dispossessed of the projects’ responsibility and piloting by a myriad of actors, who
technicians, who engineers, who architects or who property developers. The “MOP” Law[ 25
] is the affirmation of a rupture to restore the politicians’ place, role and influence that had
gradually been withdrawn...” (Callon, 2001, p. 61). In the case of the “working group”
experiment, the public decision makers were effectively present, but more in a listener’s
posture.
Lastly, this device puts in evidence the project’s legitimacy collective and progressive
construction. For this reason, Bourdin (2001) specifies that the elected officials are not any
more legitimacy’s only holders, another logic must be committed where “social and political
legitimacy is the result of a construction where many actors can take part (designers, civil
20
servants, citizens, political leaders) (…) (where) the politics’ role is less “to bear” than to
organize the process” (p. 241).
In short, the “working group” proves to be a relevant tool as regards decision-making aid for
the public decision makers. Moreover, beyond the fact that it fits in a consultation’s dialogic
approach (cf. table 3), this tool is also extremely useful to prevent and defuse the
disagreements, even the conflicts which could arise during the legal consultation procedures.
It allowed the prior consultation’s and the public enquiry’s procession in a more serene
climate, thus leaving small doubts on the enquiry commissioners’ conclusions on the project’s
public utility. The favourable opinion with no reserves emitted by the enquiry commission
testifies of this success, which had never arrived for a project of this type. The deputy-mayor
knew how to take advantage of this opinion by underlining that it was “the reward of
information, listening, and exchanges efforts implemented around the project since 1998”.
Thanks to the “working group” device, the politician consolidated his decision’s legitimacy
on the need for implementing a tramway in the agglomeration.
Table 3. The “working group” device degree of dialogism
Criteria
•
Intensity
•
•
Opening
Quality
•
•
•
Implementation
criteria
the debates
access
condition’s
equality
Debates’
Transparency
and traceability
Rules’ clearness
organising the
debates
-
-
Under-criteria
laymen’s engagement periodicity degree
in the possible worlds exploration
composition concern intensity degree of
the collective
consulted groups’ diversity degree and
their independence from constituted
action groups
control
degree
of
spokesman’s
representativeness of the groups implied
in the debate
speeches seriousness degree
speeches continuity degree
Tool’s evaluation
- the consultation was engaged very upstream
- 3 meetings were held during the 4 months
consultation
- creation of an assorted collective with the
citizens’ (association’s representative, district
council, and residents), the Owner’s (elected
officials, civil servants) and the Engineer’s
presence
the
residents
presented
layout’s
counterproposals, which were submitted to
discussion (new solutions exploration,
layout’s new alternatives, finally a layout’s
concerted choice)
The tool’s evaluation
all participants have access to the necessary information concerning the project.
An information file was diffused, and commented by the project director
all the participants could ask questions to the technicians (revealing problems wellknown only of residents)
Reports drafting after each meeting, diffused for information and observation to all the
participants
the rules were specified at the process’s starting. Working method adopted:
questions/answers
Source: from Callon, Lascoumes, Barthe (2001, p. 219 ; p. 223)
21
We assisted through the cases studied, in the installation of local devices invented by the
practitioners, such as the “working group” of which we evaluated the degree of dialogism, or
the FA. These tools, genuine organisational innovations aiming at promoting participative
logic, were source of new knowledge, and vector of changes in the various actors’
consultation practices.
Let us now examine the managerial implications generated by the dialogic consultation tools.
2.3. Dialogic tools: what managerial implications?
The citizens intervention in the projects leads to many changes, in particular knowledge
(Prost, 2003), but also in design processes (Callon, 1998).
The dialogic tools implementation requires from the practitioners, the acquisition of new
knowledges, and a reflexive work on their consultation practices. It also is a question of
accompanying the citizens to pass from the “political sense” to the “political art”. Lastly, the
transport projects’ design from the dialogic point of view is similar to the negotiated model.
2.3.1. Managing new knowledges’ acquisition: On the way to a communicational
competence of the expert
Chosing “working group” type tools contribute to the experts’ knowledge enrichment. Indeed,
technicians, at the citizens’ request, must seek new solutions, which generate new
knowledges. Nevertheless, they do not only acquire new technical knowledges. While
clarifying, arguing their choices, the experts also develop communicational competences
based on negotiation and rhetoric. By passing the traditional model called “balistique”
(ballistic) in which the expert designs an object without the implication of other actors in the
process, the expert then tends towards the “maïeutique” (meiotic) model that promotes the
dialog (Berry, 1998). The communication is not any more apprehended in a “balistique”
vision, i.e. like a mean “to sell” the project and thus to manipulate the citizens. At the
opposite, it falls under a “maieutique” vision that promotes negotiation, building a common
sense (Giordano, 1994). However, the possession of this competence requires time, and
sometimes as an informant puts it the assistance of a “popularizer” is desirable to
communicate between technicians and citizens: “Professionals who translate the technical
language into a popularized one are compulsory; you cannot make a good consultation if the
technician is not helped by communication specialists. We need a “popularizer” rather than
“Publicis” to translate technique into a language understandable by everyone”.
2.3.2. Encouraging the expert’s reflexive work
The expert must be able to operate a reflexive work, in Donald Schön’s sense (1983), i.e. to
question his own consultation’s practice. This reflexive work can be carried out in meetings
22
when the experts not only convert their production (plans, drawings, etc.) in less technical
terms, accessible and understandable by the citizens, but also provide the most complete
information to allow the debate. To illustrate our remarks, we provide below a conversation
between two technicians with different logics (monologic versus dialogic). Indeed,
Technician n° 1 (T1) wants to state the impacts and constraints produced by the realization of
a Relay Park [ 26 ], whereas Technician n° 2 (T2) does not want to mention them because it
does not “sell”
Box 3. A technician’s reflexive transfer on the consultation’s practice [ 27 ] :
T1: the Relay Park’s impacts should be written down
T2: we won’t write the Relay Park’s impact, which is to remove the woody park to put a Relay Park
which will generate more cars
T1: I would put the impacts with the solutions brought (...) I persist on the impacts, it is important
T2: (...) the constraints, I don’t want to speak about the constraints; that bothers me, it’s not necessary
to put them
T1: of course not, (...) we must put the constraints
T2: I would not put them
T1: you don’t like to speak about the constraints, all is not wonderful
T2: OK, let’s go on
T1: I prefer to state that there are constraints and that we’ll bring solutions
T2: it is necessary to sell our project, thus we mustn’t state the constraints
2.3.3. Accompanying the passage from political “sense” to political “art”
Users learn how to be detached from the NIMBY[ 28 ] syndrome that is often reproached to
them. They then give to the technicians in charge of the design their local knowledge proper
to the site that will be crossed by the TCSP. And their interrogations are rather relative to
people’s safety, the sharing of the roadway system between pedestrians, cyclists, and
motorists brought to cohabit with a new transport mode, or even to problems related with
environmental respect.
2.3.4. Changing of design model: From hierarchical to negotiated
Callon (1998) specifies that in the hierarchical model, one consults, one allow people to
express themselves, but only to react to plans that were elaborated without them. Whereas the
representatives’ role is much more active and participative in the negotiation model.
Nevertheless, in both models, technicians and elected officials are confronted with the final
user who is increasingly present and active (Callon, 2001). The negotiated model seems more
adapted to the evolution and the current speeches where “the will to grant a new place to the
23
citizens is set up everywhere. (...) Integrating further upstream all aspects of what could be
called the social request” (Claude, 2001, p. 28).
Beyond the managerial implications that the implementation of a consultation’s dialogic
approach can generate, the enlightening testimony of a technician simply highlights human
qualities to have or to acquire in order to work better together “the problem of consultation as
much for the elected officials as for the technicians is to admit to be answerable. Moreover, it
isn’t very pleasant to be torn in pieces when one takes his job seriously. The law (i.e. prior
consultation procedures and public enquiry) won’t change the way of presenting a project, if
you don’t listen to people, if you consider that they have nothing to bring you it’s not going in
consultation and the law won’t change that”.
Through this research, we tried to show the emergence of new practices as regards
consultation, which testify in a certain extent on the adoption of new paradigms by the (local)
public action that contribute at their turn to reorganize the decision-making and design
processes (Evette, 2001). These emerging practices deserve an exhaustive examination
(Callon, Lascoumes, Barthe, 2001). However, that requires, and it is precisely one of the
limits to this research, an ethnographic and longitudinal type investigation aiming to observe
and understand the practices in context during the whole project, with observation as source
of collecting privileged data.
Conclusion: which levers to facilitate the dialogic consultation?
From our study’s results, we propose indications of levers likely to support a dialogic
approach of consultation.
•
Redistribution of powers: for a collective decisional power
As Romi (1999) underlines it, procedure of public enquiry cannot be a democratic tool in the
absence of collective decisional power. The individuals take part only when they have the
feeling that their word counts. “Forum des Associations” and “working group” devices go in
this direction by giving to citizens a portion of power. In his last book, Mendel (2003)
underlines that democracy is not out of order, although representative democracy is in crisis.
Mendel develops in particular an interesting concept the power-act, relative to the power on
our own acts. For the author, it is necessary to renew and reconsider the power concept, and to
allow the individuals to gain power on theirs acts.
24
•
The collective interest’s construction
In order not to sink in the individual interests pre-eminence highlighted by Schnapper (2002)
in his last work on the “providential democracy [ 29 ]”, the redistribution of the capacities
between elected officials, civil servants and citizens examined previously must contribute to
the construction of the collective interest. For this reason, the collective interest project
concept (Revat, 2003) offers interesting tracks of research because it consist in examining at
the same time public projects’ collective construction - projects where heterogeneous actors
(citizens, authorities, companies, etc.) cohabit - and collective interest’s concept. One also
can in the same vein, mobilize Norbert Elias’s “configuration” concept (1991) as an analysis
frame to report on the knowledge acquired regarding consultation practices. Indeed, the
configuration concept allows going beyond these two metaphors: that of men as individuals
and that of men as societies. Thus, individual interest and general interest concepts do not
have their place any more; it is at the contrary more about building collective interest
(Zimmermann, Toussaint, 2000).
•
Supporting the development of a “ Charte de la consultation” (consultation or
participation “charter”)
We saw the contribution in terms of participative democracy offered by the “Forum des
Associations” device inserted in the prior consultation procedure and strongly inspired of the
“Charte de la consultation”. The “Carrefour national des Associations d’”Habitants et
Comités de Quartier” (National crossroad of Residents’ Associations and District Comity) has
recently proposed a legal existence to a “Charte de la consultation” in each town or urban
community structure[ 30 ]. For this reason, the “Communauté Urbaine du Grand Lyon”
(Urban Community of Large Lyon) is, since May 19, 2003, the first French agglomeration to
obtain a participation charter aiming to “give the occasion, but also the desire, to all those
wishing to become actors and authors of their life framework, to exercise their citizen’s
responsibility, to take part in the public debate renewal [ 31 ]”.
The citizens’ participation is not only desirable, it also causes effectiveness (Putnam, 2000)
since it can contribute to amend the public projects. The “working group” device set in the
project n° 1, is the illustration. Does it not enrol in these experiments, these do it yourself,
serious attempts aiming at setting up new procedures and to build the bases of democracy?
(Callon, Lascoumes and Barthes, 2001).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25
[1] Rapporteur of the organic law concerning local referendum.
[2] Cf. The constitutional law of March 28, 2003.
[3] Yves Mansillon’s words, President of the CNDP, February 16 2004, p. 8. (“allows new arguments
to appear, which show the contribution that can bring the consultation of a population that knows
perfectly the area where it lives and that thinks, as a daily user, to possible consequences of the project
that the most qualified technician does not necessarily imagine”).
[4] Cf. Protagoras.
[5] Example: the administrative judge cancelled, in 1996, the “Communauté Urbaine de Bordeaux”
(Bordeaux’s Urban Community) decisions approving the preliminary draft of an automatic subway.
[6] Certu (Centre d’Etudes sur les Réseaux, les Transports, l’Urbanisme et les Constructions
Publiques), is an engineering department under the authority of the Minister of Equipment, Transport,
Housing, Tourism and Sea, which exposed the analysis tools allowing the reader to find suitable
methods as regards consultation in regard to a specific project. (Certu, 2000, La concertation en
aménagement. Eléments méthodologiques, Paris, Collections du Certu).
[7] Tramway Projects in Caen, Orleans and Strasbourg (source: Article published in “La Gazette des
communes, des departments, et des régions”, n° 1526 du 22/11/99).
[8] The CNDP evolved lately (law of “Démocratie de Proximité” 27/02/02).
[9] cf. local consultation in Corsica (July 7, 2003).
[10] The project submitted to local referendum is valid if at least fifty percent of the registers voters
took part in the poll and if it gathers the majority of the votes.
[11] Senator Daniel Hoeffel’s Report n° 315 concerning organic bill on the local referendum (Service
des Etudes Juridiques du Sénat, etude septembre 2002).
[12] The Carrère report, requested by the authorities following difficulties encountered on the
Mediterranean TGV.
[13] The CNDP is charged to organize a public debate on national interest project.
[14] CPDP President: “ingénieur des Mines”. A Secretary General and its assistant. A journalist. The
Deputy manager of University of Tours’s Polytechnic School. A magistrate. A general engineer of
“Génie Rural, des Eaux et Forêts”. A “agrégé” of Public law and Political Science.
[15] CNDP’s President words, February 16, 2004, p. 3 (“they feel founded to cease the animation of
the public debate that they judge has no more raison of existing”).
[16] CPDP’s President words, February 15, 2004, p. 6. (“the question of the opportunity of skirting
was not settled... at least until December 18. After this date, from the CPDP’s point of view, it was not
any more a question”).
[17] CPDP’s President words, in report, p. 8 (“from exchanges and contributions from skirting
opponents and partisans, mobilized a great part of the debate. The latter became an occasion of
creation and convergence of points of views”).
[18] Aarhus Convention was ratified on June 25, 1998 in Denmark. It is relative to access to
information, public’s participation in the decision-making process and access to justice as regards
environment.
[19] cf. Giroux, 1998.
[20] TCSP’s have the characteristic to circulate on a completely dedicated lane (ex: Tram, VAL, etc.).
Tramway networks projects come back in France since the beginning of the Eighties.
[21] Meetings, expositions, in situ visits of a tramway network, Web site, a film projection praising the
tramway’s benefits, etc.
[22] The “Charte de la concertation” (July 5, 1996), established by the Ministry of the Environment,
aims at proposing principles and recommendations in matter of consultation on projects relative to
planning.
[23] These ordinary knowledge (or invisible) are poorly known. However, they would deserve in this
precise case a detailed attention. (Cf. “revue Sciences Humaines du mois d’avril 2003, n° 137”).
[24] in the simmelien sense.
[25] Law on the “Maîtrise d’Ouvrage Publique” (loi MOP).
[26] A Relay Park is an essential and indissociable element of a tramway network. It is a car park
reserved to the tramway’s users which is guarded and especially whose payment exemption is ensured
in exchange of transport titles purchase.
[27] We participated to this meeting (project n° 4) concerning the prior consultation.
26
[28] Not In My Back Yard.
[29] For Schnapper the idea of the citizens’ community gathered by a general will is today substituted
by a juxtaposition of individual interests and of groups having specifics rights.
[30] In “revue Territories”, April 2000, “90 propositions pour plus de démocratie”: “tout maire ou
président de l'
Assemblée intercommunale devrait, après concertation publique avec les représentants
des principaux groupes de la vie locale, notamment des associations, élaborer une charte. Projet qui
précise les moyens et les méthodes que la municipalité, ou l'
institution intercommunale, mettra en
oeuvre pendant son mandat pour développer la participation des personnes et des groupes à la vie
communale et intercommunale. Et qui serait proposé à la discussion et à l'
approbation, amendée ou
non, de l'
assemblée compétente après une consultation publique sur le projet de charte”.
[31] Annual report 2003 of the Participation Charter, “Communauté Urbaine du Grand Lyon”, p. 4.
[32] Cf. Callon (2001, p. 67) and Ratouis & Segaud (2001) for more explanation on the term
“participation”.
[33] The “Plan de Déplacement Urbain” (PDU) is established within a global transport policy
ensuring a balance between the needs for mobility, environment protection and health. This document
(PDU) is obligatory since 1996 for agglomerations of more than 100 000 inhabitants.
Bibliography
Arnstein S.R., 1969, « A Ladder of Citizen Participation », The Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, n° 35, July, pp. 216-224.
Bachir M., 1999, « La consultation publique. Nouvel outil de gouvernabilité et transformation des
registres et répertoires d’action publique », in François B. et Neveu E., (dir.), Espaces publics
mosaïques. Acteurs, arènes et rhétoriques, des débats publics contemporains, Rennes, Presses
Universitaires de Rennes, pp. 167-184.
Baltrix C., 1999, « Le maire, le commissaire enquêteur et leur « public ». La pratique politique de
l’enquête publique », in Blondiaux L. & alii., La démocratie locale. Représentation, participation et
espace public, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 161-176.
Barthélemy M., 2003, « Vie associative et citoyenneté », in Tronquoy P., , (s/dir.), Les nouvelles
dimensions de la citoyenneté, Cahiers français, n° 316, septembre-octobre.
Benghozi P.J., 1995, « Les sentiers de la gloire : savoir gérer pour savoir créer », in Charue-Duboc F.,
(dir.), Des savoirs en Action, Paris, L’Harmattan, pp. 51-88.
Berry M., 1998, « Savoirs théoriques et gestion. De la balistique à la maïeutique », in Barbier J-M.,
(dir.), Savoirs théoriques et savoirs d’action, Paris, PUF, pp. 43-56.
Bevort A., 2002, Pour une démocratie participative, Paris, Presses de la Fondation Nationale des
Sciences Politiques.
Blondiaux L. & alii., 1999, La démocratie locale. Représentation, participation et espace public,
Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.
Bourdin A., 2001, « Projet urbain : vers une nouvelle modalité d’élaboration de la commande», in
Bonnet M., Claude V., Rubinstein M., La commande … de l’architecture à la ville, tome 2, CSTB, pp.
231-242.
Bratosin S., 2001, La concertation : Forme symbolique de l’action collective, Paris, L’Harmattan.
Logiques sociales.
Callon M., 1998, « Concevoir : modèle hiérarchique et modèle négocié», in Bonnet M., (dir.),
L’élaboration des grands projets architecturaux et urbains en Europe, volume 1, les acteurs du projet
architectural et urbain, Paris, CSTB.
Callon M., 2001, « Synthèse et évaluation des enseignements du programme de recherche », in
Bonnet M., Claude V., Rubinstein M., La commande … de l’architecture à la ville, tome 2, CSTB, pp.
55-72.
Callon M., Lascoumes P., Barthe Y., 2001, Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie
technique, Paris, Editions du Seuil.
Chevallier J., 1999, Article de synthèse, in Blondiaux L. & alii., La démocratie locale.
Représentation, participation et espace public, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 405-415.
Claude V., 2001, « Aux sources de la maîtrise d’ouvrage : le bâtiment », in Bonnet M., Claude V.,
Rubinstein M., La commande … de l’architecture à la ville, tomes 1 et 2, CSTB, pp. 21-29.
27
Crozier M., 1984, « Les problèmes du management public face à la transformation de
l’environnement », in Crozier M., 2000, A quoi sert la sociologie des organisations ?Vers un nouveau
raisonnement pour l’action, Tome 2, Paris, Editions Seli Arslan.
David A., 1998, « Outil de gestion et dynamique du changement », Revue Française de Gestion,
septembre-octobre, pp. 44-59.
De Carlo L., 1997 « Les procédures de consultation publique en aménagement au Québec, outils de
gouvernementalité ? », in Gariépy M., Marié M., 1997, Ces réseaux qui nous gouvernent ?, Paris,
L’Harmattan, pp.454-467.
De Carlo L., 2002, « The TGV Méditerranée Decision Process or the Emergence of Public
Consultation Procedures on Important Infrastructure Projects in France », Working Paper n° 02003,
February, Essec.
Elias N., 1991, Qu’est-ce que la sociologie, La Tour d’Aigues, Editions de l’Aube.
Evette T., 2001, « L’interprofessionnalité ? Un point de vue», in Cahiers Ramau 2,
Interprofessionnalité et action collective dans les métiers de la conception, Actes des rencontres du
Réseau Activités et Métiers de l’Architecture et de l’Urbanisme, 28-29 septembre 2000, Editions de la
Villette, Paris, pp. 9-13.
Fourniau J-M., 1997 « Figures de la concertation à la française », in Gariépy M., Marié M., 1997,
Ces réseaux qui nous gouvernent ?, Paris, L’Harmattan, pp.372- 401.
Giordano Y., 1994, « Communication d’entreprise : faut-il repenser les pratiques managériales ? »,
Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines, vol. 13, n° 14, pp. 49-61.
Giroux N., 1998, « La communication dans la mise en œuvre du changement », Management
International, vol. 3, n°1.
Godier P., 2001, « Les nouvelles logiques d’action de la maîtrise d’ouvrage : le cas du projet urbain
de Bordeaux », in Bonnet M., Claude V., Rubinstein M., La commande … de l’architecture à la ville,
tomes 1 et 2, CSTB, pp. 77-87.
Habermas J., 1987, Théorie de l’agir communicationnel, Paris, Fayard.
Hamel P., 1997 « Démocratie locale et gouvernementalité : portée et limites des innovations
institutionnelles en matière de débat public », in Gariépy M., Marié M., 1997, Ces réseaux qui nous
gouvernent ?, Paris, L’Harmattan, pp.404-423.
Heurgon E., Landrieu J., (coord.), 2000, Prospective pour une gouvernance démocratique, Colloque
de Cerisy, Editions de l’aube.
Keslassy E., 2003, Démocratie et égalité, Rosny s/Bois, Editions Bréal.
Lamarzelle D., 2001, Stratégie et démocratie territoriales, Montreuil, Editions du Papyrus.
Le Bart C., 2003, « La citoyenneté locale », in Tronquoy P., (s/dir.), Les nouvelles dimensions de la
citoyenneté, Cahiers français, n° 316, septembre-octobre.
Marcou G., 1999, « La démocratie locale en France : aspects juridiques », in Blondiaux L. & alii., La
démocratie locale. Représentation, participation et espace public, Paris, Presses Universitaires de
France, pp. 21-44.
Mendel G., 2003, Pourquoi la démocratie est en panne ? Construire la démocratie participative,
Paris, Editions La Découverte.
Moisdon J-C., 1997, (dir.), Du mode d’existence des outils de gestion, Paris, Editions Seli Arslan.
Peyretti G., Prost T., (dir.), 2000, Une décennie de génie urbain, Paris, Collections du Certu.
Prost R., 2003 (sous dir.), Projets architecturaux et urbains : mutation des savoirs dans la phase
amont, Paris, PUCA, coll. Recherches.
Putnam R.D., 2000, Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York,
Simon and Schuster.
Raséra M., 2002, La démocratie locale, Paris, Editions LGDJ.
Ratouis O., Segaud M., 2001, « Vers une maîtrise d’ouvrage territoriale ? Les projets urbains du
littoral Nord-Pas-de-Calais entre aménagement et développement», in Bonnet M., Claude V.,
Rubinstein M., La commande … de l’architecture à la ville, tome 2, CSTB, pp. 47-49.
Réocreux A., Dron D., 1996, Débat public et infrastructures de transport, Cellule de prospective et
stratégie, rapport au ministre de l’Environnement, Paris, La Documentation Française, Collection des
rapports officiels.
Revat R., 2003, « Le marketing des projets d’intérêt collectif : principes et démarches », Rencontres
Internationales Démocratie et Management Local, Québec, 20-23 mai.
28
Romi R., 1999, « Les pratiques de concertation en matière d’environnement », in CRAPS, CURAPP,
(coll.), La démocratie locale. Représentation, participation et espace public, Paris, Presses
Universitaires de France, pp. 149-159.
Schnapper D., 2002, La démocratie providentielle. Essai sur l’égalité contemporaine, Paris,
Gallimard.
Schön D., 1983, The Reflective Practitioner – How Professionals Think Action, London, Temple
Smith.
Schumpeter J.A., 1963, Capitalisme, socialisme et démocratie : la doctrine marxiste, le capitalisme
peut-il survivre ?, Paris, Payot.
Tenzer N., 2000, « De quelques paradoxes de l’action dans les démocraties modernes », in Heurgon
E., Landrieu J., (coord.), Prospective pour une gouvernance démocratique., Colloque de Cerisy,
Editions de l’aube, pp. 167-177.
Tocqueville A. de, 1981, (1840), De la démocratie en Amérique, Paris, Garnier-Flammarion.
Thoenig J-C., 1999, « L’action publique locale entre autonomie et coopération », in Caisse des
dépôts, Quel avenir pour l’autonomie des collectivités locales, Paris, Editions de l’Aube, pp. 103-128.
Thoenig J-C., 2000, « Elargir le débat public : les atouts du local », Colloque de l’AFIGESE-CT,
Besançon, 20 septembre.
Worms J.P, Gremion P., 1968, « la concertation régionale : innovation ou tradition », in
Aménagement du territoire et développement régional, Institut d’Etudes Politiques, Grenoble, t. 2, pp.
35-57.
Yin R.K., 1994, (2nd Ed.), Case Study Research. Design & Methods, Thousand Oaks, Sage
Publications.
Zimmermann M., Toussaint J-Y., 2000, « Projet urbain, technique et complexité », in Hayot A.,
Sauvage A., (s/dir.), Le projet urbain. Enjeux, expérimentations et professions, Paris, Editions de la
Villette, p. 183-200.
29