Every year, it’s almost a ritual. Comment frantically on the subjects of the philosophy baccalaureate and try to establish a parallel with current events. And what does our pitiful results matter the day we had to work on a subject or our more than approximate memories of Socrates and Hegel. So obviously, when we discovered this Tuesday that the candidates had notably worked on “does the State owe us something?” “, difficult not to make a connection with the political situation we are going through.
Can we analyze the dissolution and the legislative elections from this angle? And if the State owes us something, we citizens, do we owe it something in return? As our memories on the subject are as nebulous as this campaign, we went to ask Claire Lebrethon, dean of the faculty of philosophy from the Catholic Institute of Toulouse.
Is it relevant to consider this baccalaureate subject from a current affairs perspective?
Totally. This question brings us back to what we expect from the State: a promise of growth, the guarantee of fundamental rights, security, etc. But the important word in this question is “we”. What we expect from the State, is it a superposition of personal demands or are we included in a Nation, does the collective interest take precedence over the individual? And it is this dilemma that dissolution brings us back to. We must choose what we put behind this “us”. Do we vote for a particular party because it responds better to our individual demands, or another out of concern for the common good?
But this dissolution destabilizes us, both on a personal scale and that of France. Now, if the State owes us one thing, isn’t it stability?
This brings us back to our chronic dissatisfaction with the State. We would like him to be at our service, to provide all the solutions. The dissolution destabilizes us so we are not happy. But at the same time, we take satisfaction in the fact that the upcoming elections destabilize the authority of the state. We thus have the promise to make our voice heard. The fact that the regime is increasingly divisive forces us to make a choice which generates ever greater dissatisfaction. Hence the desire to regularly put power in its place.
Was dissolving the assembly a duty towards the citizens, particularly in terms of representativeness?
No, it was a strategic decision, not a moral or ethical duty. There are different ways of giving the people a voice. In this case, this decision is part of a strategy with an element of unpredictability, which therefore raises the question of the common good.
Many French people say they no longer expect anything from the State…
In the State, there must be the possibility of citizens having their say, for them to be promoters of the decisions which will then be taken. To accept the authority of the State, one must have the feeling of being listened to and heard. The problem is that political debate becomes an object with its own codes, cut off from the search for meaning. And that’s where the feeling of frustration and therefore the abstention comes from.
Was it necessary to say all this to ensure that you got 18 for the baccalaureate?
No ! It’s never a bad thing to cite current events in an assignment, as long as it doesn’t replace an argument. This must be an example serving the purpose of demonstration. The risk is to slide towards taking a position. But what was interesting about this subject was to ask young people the question of “we” within the nation. This allows us to think about our identity in a more fundamental way, to leave behind the excitement of divisive debate.