Bernard Thibault was nothing of a pot of yogurt and it cannot be said that François Chérèque resembles closely or to a package of laundry. And yet, one and the other, or rather their respective stations as all of the other unions, have communicated these days through posters 4 metres by 3 on the walls of our cities and our campaigns. They are the evidence displayed the schizophrenia of our old France political and Trade Union bodies: what is allowed in each is prohibited in others. Name of the law antiquated and anti-democratic January 15, 1990 (the prohibition of the display during elections for political parties). Absurd and retrograde!
Our country encourages, with good reason, the trade unions to communicate to remobilise their electorate (this is not the luxury when turnout barely exceed the 30) but at the same time, prohibit political parties. They definitely destined to remain pariahs of modernity, the censored of the communication, the stragglers of the evolution of the walls and minds We are thus the only country in the world to deprive our elections of advertising and thus deprive the lesser-known candidates of accession to the reputation of their established competitors. The encouragement of the State for the trade unions is not simply verbal: he spends EUR 7 million in this campaign, without that person found nothing wrong. How not to brandish the banner of the two weights two measurements
Little reminder of the facts: in January 1990, the Parliament did pass a law to clean up political, and on the financial plan. It peaked campaign expenses, it controlled the revenue (companies being more allowed to finance political parties and citizens limit their contribution). Which way, against the excesses of the previous decades! But Parliament has, in his rush, threw the baby with the bath water and prohibits campaigns of political communication in view or in the newspapers three months before an election (to be more precise: during the three months preceding the first day of an election is, in fact, between three and four months). Political parties have the right to communicate at any time in the year, except the decisive of the election period. It is grotesque. To defend the indefensible Act, the chiefs argue that this prohibition protects the principle of Republican equality. Listening to, it protects smaller parties with the same resources as large. It is false and misleading. Because the only time where the political parties, whatever they are, can be reimbursed for their campaign costs, for that they have obtained a significant number of votes, it is precisely the electoral time. This pub is therefore free. And here's that are them private. We who are allegedly the Descartes country!
Only the Belgium oversees the political communication in such a way. With a detail that makes a difference of size: voting is compulsory!
But then, if everyone or almost agrees to recognize both the futility and the unfairness of the French, why legislation person does takes it subject to change, an amendment or a legislative proposal, article 51 of the Act of 15 January 1990 The fear of the advance. Or rather that of the return of the King money in politics. Then even a poster campaign is often less expensive than a meeting. Even one of these taboos franchouillards hard skin and long arm. But one day, and this should be a woman today, or a politician dares obviousness and propose to reform a text which deprives our Republic of one of the tools of communication to the proven effectiveness. Because democracy is good.
The proportion was 63 in the UMP supporters 1The big three will be not be accommodated in the same fashionBad habitSame dubious issue same perverseBut the new networks are not if fined the leaves appearIt is difficult to imagine that this profile to outlast himLilly France is working on the same projectAccording to the original quantificationsThe place has several encouraging factorsThe modern worker in many cases must be mobileThe second has lost more than 60 since the beginning of January
