DEMOSCIOCRACY/ DEMOSCIOCRATIE

France and Europe face choices that will shape their future for a long time. In this context, one question stands out: how can we ensure that those who govern us are held accountable? In public finance, diplomacy and democracy, citizens have the right to demand answers. Their role cannot be limited to voting and then bearing the consequences of decisions made in their name.

Debt: nearly a decade in power calls for an accounting

And that is not all: the heirs of all those who have put us in debt since Giscard must repay it, because their elders treated us with contempt. And now the PEOPLE are supposed to pay? NO!

In the debate I watched on LCI last night, Emmanuel Macron’s political responsibility was challenged over approximately €1.8 trillion in debt, out of a total of around €3.5 trillion, for a period described as nine and a half years in power. I am reporting the figure mentioned in that discussion: the calculation behind it and the precise dates it covers need to be clarified.

The official INSEE figure, however, is established: in the first quarter of 2026, French public debt stood at €3,536.1 billion, or 117.5% of gross domestic product. Source: INSEE.

We must distinguish between debt accumulated during a presidency and the share directly attributable to that president’s decisions. But this distinction cannot absolve Emmanuel Macron, his successive governments and the parliamentary majorities that approved their budgets of responsibility for their choices.

What spending was undertaken? What revenues were reduced? With what objectives, for whose benefit and with what results? How much of the debt helped protect the population or prepare for the future? How much reflects ineffective programmes or inadequately funded decisions?

Not all public spending is wasteful. Schools, hospitals, the justice system, research and infrastructure need resources. Responsible policy must therefore examine the usefulness of spending as well as its amount, and scrutinise revenues just as closely.

The crises the country has faced must be taken into account. They cannot, however, become a blanket justification that shuts down debate. Governing for nearly a decade means accepting responsibility for one’s record.

What I criticise in the “princes of the Republic” is this habit of claiming successes while spreading responsibility for failures so widely that nobody answers for them. We must demand independent evaluations, public monitoring of commitments and corrections when results fall short. Where wrongdoing is established, it must lead to the consequences provided for by law.

Ukraine: personal relationships do not amount to a strategy

Emmanuel Macron received Vladimir Putin at Versailles on 29 May 2017. The subsequent meeting bringing together Macron, Putin, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Angela Merkel took place in Paris on 9 December 2019. These were separate events. Sources: Versailles in 2017 and Paris summit in 2019.

Dialogue with other leaders is part of diplomatic work. But prestigious receptions, handshakes and displays of closeness must be judged by their results. What did they achieve? Which commitments were honoured? What lessons were learned from failures?

This requirement applies to Vladimir Putin as much as to Donald Trump. A publicly displayed personal relationship does not guarantee that French and European interests will be respected. Sound diplomacy requires clear objectives, credible resources and the ability to respond when commitments are broken.

Russia’s capabilities must also be assessed realistically. Portraying Russia as militarily “out of action” would be a mistake. SIPRI estimates its military expenditure at around US$190 billion in 2025, the third highest in the world. That figure does not demonstrate the effectiveness of all its weapons, but it rules out treating its military power as negligible. Source: SIPRI.

Countering propaganda requires precisely this discipline: examining facts, acknowledging uncertainty and rejecting narratives that reassure us at the expense of reality.

Europe must be able to influence its own future

I am concerned about the risk of Europeans having to accept decisions negotiated between major powers without being able to influence them meaningfully. This concern deserves serious debate; it does not need to rest on the unproven assertion of a joint American–Russian plan to destroy Europe.

The interests of the United States, Russia and European countries are not identical. Europe must be able to defend its choices and, to do so, have sufficient industrial, energy, economic and military resources.

This requires concrete answers. Which areas of production do we want to control? Which dependencies must we reduce? What investments are we prepared to fund? How can we ensure that citizens can scrutinise these policies?

Sovereignty is built through decisions pursued consistently over time. Speeches are not enough: we need a strategy, resources and clearly accepted accountability to the public.

Journalists: pursue the questions to the end

Journalists have an essential role to play. We expect them to confront those in authority with their past statements, check their figures and examine their results with the same rigour, regardless of political affiliation.

The links between the media, economic interests and those in power deserve scrutiny. Media ownership, funding and potential conflicts of interest must be transparent. But criticism is stronger when it addresses specific, documented facts rather than attributing the same intentions to an entire profession.

When a figure as large as €1.8 trillion is put forward, the public must be able to understand how it was calculated. When budget choices are defended, their costs and beneficiaries must be examined. When a diplomatic strategy is presented as a success, its results must be demonstrated.

It is this insistence on follow-through, beyond the statement of the day, that enables citizens to form their own judgements.

2027: turn anger into democratic oversight

Fellow citizens of France, we criticise, we protest and sometimes we lose our temper. But what do we then do with that anger? Look into DEMOSCIOCRACY and decide whether or not to support it.

Wanting to protect one’s family, standard of living and peace of mind is legitimate. Yet fear of change can also lead us to perpetuate practices whose consequences we condemn. We must examine this contradiction without belittling anyone’s concerns.

As 2027 approaches, no candidate should receive a blank cheque. Let us demand costed programmes, understandable commitments and precise arrangements for evaluation. Let us ask how proposals will be financed, who will benefit and what trade-offs they will require.

It would be excessive to announce as a certainty that the French people will be ruined by the first quarter of 2027. We must, however, discuss now the risks to our future and the ways to reduce them. Democratic urgency does not need a date for catastrophe to be real.

Our responsibility as citizens continues between elections. It involves staying informed, taking part in debate, monitoring commitments and being willing to demand explanations, even from leaders we have supported.

The principle I defend is simple: anyone entrusted with public power must explain their decisions, present the results and accept the political consequences.

Let us give this principle practical substance: greater transparency, effective checks and balances, and citizen participation that genuinely influences decisions.

LONG LIVE DEMOSCIOCRACY: THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE THROUGH REAL KNOWLEDGE AND INTELLIGENCE, NOT MERELY BOOK LEARNING!

You MUST CHOOSE now and make a decision about your future.

It is in this spirit that I make this appeal: citizens, let us reclaim our place in public life. Let us turn our anger into a force for proposing solutions and exercising oversight. And let us not leave politicians and their administration to make us do everything while they take responsibility for nothing: NEITHER THEY NOR THEIR ADMINISTRATION.

LONG LIVE DEMOSCIOCRACY!