T H E U S E R S ’ C O M M I T T E E O F A " C E N T R E C O M M U N A L D ’ A C T I O N S O C I A L E " ( C C A S )

REPRODUCING INEQUALITIES IN A DEVICE OF PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

Julie Voldoire – PhD in political science, Research Associate at the Centre Emile Durkheim (Sciences Po Bordeaux).

INTRODUCTION. THREE STRUCTURING CONTRADICTIONS OF THE USER’S COMMITTEE.

• Case study dealing with :• a "Communal Center for Social Action" ( in a town of 283 000 inhabitants in

the region Pays de la Loire) ; • and more specifically a device of participatory democracy created by the

CCAS and called Users’ Committee (CU).

Formerly, welfare offices, the CCAS got in 1986 (decentralization laws) global competence in social and medico-social assistance. They are an important tool for local social action.

• The analysis will show how the device of participatory democracy established by the institution is endangered by the institution itself.

• Genesis of this work :• A Postdoctoral research conducted within the OUEST project (Offre, Usage

et Expertise des Services au profit du Territoire) which focused on the "non take-up" of social benefits and services.

• Axis # 3 of the project: "Access to emergency municipal benefits" or voluntary benefits.

• Short description of the Users’ Committee :

• Referring to the 1998 orientation law on "prevention and the fight against exclusion", the CCAS creates the Users’ Committee in 2002.

• Extract of the Charter of the Users’ Committee : "It means, collects the needs, problems, social realities from which it can implement experimental activities. The results of these actions may lead to changes in social intervention".

• Mandate of 2 years during which working groups are setting up around specific themes.

Example of created group : "Facilitating the access to social benefits and services" also called "non take-up group".

• "Non take- up group" is composed of : 20 members (beneficiaries, volunteers and leaders of local associations), 2 professionnals and 1 town councillor.

• Central questions :• How do participants consider the Users’ Committee and more

particularly the issue of access to social benefits and services (or "non-take-up")?

• How far it provides an understanding of the device of participatory democracy that the Users’ Committee represents?

• Which are the constraints of the participation?

• Hypothesis :• The role of "representative" which is given to the participants and the

shape of social requalification conveniently attached to this role is jeopardized by the institution itself and reproduces :• the previous inequalities ; • and more generally the social but also political and administrative order.

• Empirical material :• 6 sessions (2 hours) of focus groups ; • 8 individual interviews with participants ; • 2 participative observations during the plenary of the Users’ Committee.

• Plan - 3 parts, 3 contradictions which question the initial aims of the device and particularly the implication of citizens in the discussion of local public affairs.

1. MOTIVATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION CONTRADICTED BY THE INSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION

• Justifications of participants• Only 3 justifications are accepted** or tolereted* by the

institution.

5

Monetary incomes obtained by the multiplication of social benefits

** Attachment to the place of life and sense of belonging

** Sense of duty and sense of being invested of a "mission"

*Improve social relationships and break isolation

Individualism

Holism

Instrumental or purposive rationality

Value or belief oriented rationality

• The course of the Users’ Committee

• The "coaching" - The case of the working groups of the Users’ Committee

Three parameters define the "coaching" : • Location : solemn character conferred by the "big rooms of the former city

hall building", waiting in the marriage hall etc.• Time : at regular intervals, upon notice, necessity to justify the absences etc.• Purposes : sessions dealing with common themes and serving the public interest.

• The "scripting" (Loïc Blondiaux, 2007) - The case of plenaries sessions• Establishing a code of conduct, modeling the individuals, infantilization, controling

public speeches etc.• Staging can generate humiliation for participants.

 "Coaching " and "scripting" endanger the initial motivations of participants resulting in disappointment and progressive divestments despite of material and symbolic rewards.

If the Users’ Committee is a system of participatory democracy and not a deliberative much less a decision-making public body, professionals and town councillors play on the ambiguity.

2. THE NON TAKE-UP ISSUE : A FREE OR UNDER DURESS REFLECTION

• Reasons of "non take-up" of optional benefits which are lived, perceived or supposed by the participants: lack of awareness, fear of stigmatization, discouraging steps etc.

• According to the participants: "Ideally we should get benefits without being required to claim them".

• But this proposal is dissonant with the principles of delivering benefits in France:

• Access to the benefits must be requested by the person,• and results from the collaboration between beneficiaries and professionnals.

Administrative violence appears when this implicit contract is broken or aborted.

• The institution considers the reasons mentioned about "non

take-up" but the "solutions" are blacklisted.

• Indeed, these proposals challenge the basis of access to social benefits and services :

• The benefit necessarily proceeds from a voluntary act ;• the granting of social benefits is based on eligibility criteria ; • Regulation of social benefits does not follow invariant mathematical

rules.

• The CCAS created a "non take-up group" within the CU to obtain the consent of participants to legitimize the agenda setting of a public policy called "fight against non take-up".

The contradiction between the proposals of the participants and the basis of the welfare endangers the device of participatory democracy. Therefore this initiative appears as a "government strategy" (John Clarke, 2013).

3. POLITICAL SUBJECTS VERSUS HOMO ADMINISTRATICUS

• If participants claim the possibility of being political subjects the institution reduces them to the role of homo administraticus.

• In this way, we observ a process of an institutional acculturation which can be defined as the internalization by all participants of the values and patterns promoted by the institution.

• Two seemingly contradictory ways:• Domestication • Empowerment - Example: Promoting the principles of popular

education.

The main objective of the Users’ Committee would not be to gather the profane’s speak about non take-up but to publicize the norms and the rules of the institution. However, the institution promotes the ordinary speech and considers it as being depoliticized.

CONCLUSION. DENIAL OF CITIZENSHIP SKILLS.

• If taking part in the Users’ Committee is the result of a multiplicity of motivations, ideally the aim is to transcend individual interests, to prove their goodwill and finally to serve the public interest.

• However, the institution itself hinders the ideal functioning of the Users’ Committee.

• Despite of the empowerment (mobilization of principles of popular education for example), the User’s Committee reproduces the inequalities.

• Example of the reproduction of inequalities : the "ability to politically consent" (Yves Déloye, 2007) of the participants is not estimated.

• In this way, the User’s Committe is a simulacrum of participative democracy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY• BAILLERGEAU E., 2008, "Intention formative, éducation populaire et intervention

sociale au Québec", Savoirs, 18, 3, 11-35. • BLONDIAUX L., 2007, "La démocratie participative sous conditions et malgré tout. Un

plaidoyer paradoxal en faveur de l’innovation démocratique", Mouvements, 50, 2, 2007, 118-129.

• CLARKE J., 2013, "L’enrôlement des gens ordinaires. L’évitement du politique au cœur des nouvelles stratégies gouvernementales ? ", Participations, 2, 6, 167-189.

• DÉLOYE Y., 2007, "Pour une sociologie historique de la compétence à opiner politiquement. Quelques hypothèses de travail à partir de l’histoire électorale française", Revue Française de Science Politique, 6, 57, 775-788.

• DUCHESNE S. Et HAEGEL F., 2008 (2004), L’entretien collectif, Armand Colin, Paris. • SIMMEL G., 1999 (1908), Sociologie. Études sur les formes de socialisation, Paris,

Presses Universitaires de France, 404-452 (Chapter 6 : « Le croisement des cercles sociaux »).

• WARIN P., 1999, "Les ressortissants dans l’analyse des politiques publiques", Revue Française de Science Politique, 49, 1, 103-121.

• WARIN P., "Le non-recours : définitions et typologies », June 2010, URL : https://odenore.Msh-alpes.Fr/documents/wp1definition_typologies_non_recours.Pdf (accessed May 3, 2014).

• WEBER M., L’éthique protestante ou l’esprit du capitalisme, URL: http://classiques.Uqac.Ca/classiques/weber/ethique_protestante/ethique_protestante.Pdf, (accessed June 25, 2014).

Thank you for your attention!