While the National Assembly examines the bill on the end of life, Emmanuel Macron must speak, Friday April 26, at 6 p.m., before the citizens’ convention on the end of life, gathered for a final session at the Economic and Social Council and environmental (CESE). More than a year after the submission of the work of the citizen members of the convention, the Head of State will return to them to “explain the path leading to the definition of a “French end-of-life model””. The opportunity for Mr. Macron to discuss with the participants and above all to clarify to them what the government has decided to keep – or not – in the proposals. Four years after the failure of the Citizens’ Climate Convention, Emmanuel Macron wants to be able to demonstrate that this “democratic innovation”, imagined in 2019 following the “yellow vest” crisis, can help find an outlet on certain social issues. Thierry Beaudet, president of the CESE since 2021, explains how this second citizens’ convention, “successful” in his eyes, opened the way to parliamentary debate.
What was the contribution of the citizens’ convention to the “French end-of-life model”, to use the words of Emmanuel Macron?
Inviting the CESE to form a citizens’ convention, Emmanuel Macron said: “The citizens’ convention will in some way be the cornerstone of the national debate on the end of life. » I think she really played this role as a cornerstone of the national debate on end of life. And that she set the tone. She showed that we can discuss divisive subjects in a peaceful manner. What citizens have shown is that democracy is not just a combat sport. Even if there is conflict, we can look for common ground.
The citizens’ convention had a clear majority position. However, there was no univocal vision. They expressed a range of opinions, minority positions were not obscured. On the aspect of active assistance in dying, for example, 76% of conventional members were in favor of a change in legislation. Which means there were 24% who were unfavorable. However, 92% of them formally adopted the report. I find this quite extraordinary.
However, some saw in this convention the democratic endorsement of a controversial campaign commitment. What do you answer them?
I don’t think this is the case. The citizens’ convention now allows parliamentary debate, because there has been a journey by citizens, therefore a journey in society. Some participants, at the opening of the work, had not necessarily thought about the subject, and formed a point of view. Others had an a priori position, and they were reinforced. Finally, others arrived being in favor of the evolution of the legal framework and were no longer so at the end of the work, and vice versa. The debates showed that the lines can move. The convention also made it possible to verify, through this work of deliberation, that we could in a certain way cool burning passions.
You have 66.8% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.