LAgricultural union pluralism has been officially recognized in our country since 1981. But this official recognition is not enough to keep it alive. We still need to provide fair and equitable means to the various unions.
Today, in France, 95% of chambers of agriculture are managed by the majority agricultural unions [FNSEA, Jeunes agriculteurs (JA)]. Yet they only obtained 55% of the votes in the last elections, in 2019, where the participation rate was only 46%. This over-representation is the result of the majority bonus proportional voting system, which automatically grants 50% of the seats to the list that comes first and distributes the rest proportionally to the number of votes. The lack of pluralism within the governance of chambers of agriculture is the subject of recurring criticism, in particular from the Court of Auditors, which has noted in several reports the need to consolidate union pluralism.
The over-representation of majority unionism has cascading consequences on numerous structures in the agricultural world. Thus, the unions with a majority in professional elections also obtain the majority of seats in inter-professional associations, in agricultural technical institutes, or even on the board of directors of Vivea, the training insurance fund for farmers.
In total, 25% of the profession imposes its vision within all agricultural institutions: support, training, structuring of sectors, research and experimentation, etc. The time should therefore be to rethink the democratic question within these institutions, and not to further weaken minority voices.
A democratic regression
Strengthening pluralism would require integrating more proportional representation into the voting system and guaranteeing unions consistent public funding in relation to their election results. Currently, the distribution of funds, being carried out at 75% on votes and 25% on seats, already favors the majority.
While equitable financing would imply moving towards a distribution strictly proportional to the number of votes obtained, some would on the contrary want to accentuate the imbalance by turning towards financing distributed 50% on votes and 50% on seats. In other words, minority unions, already under-represented in the chambers due to the voting method, will see their funding, and therefore their capacity for action, decrease significantly. This would go against the grain of progress towards more democracy.
You have 60% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.