Of Grievances
From BERTRAND DE JOUNENEL
PARIS
IN the language of bureaucracy, a Frenchman is un administre. The word, which came into use at the beginning of the last century, is not euphonious but has the merit of blunt honesty. We are, indeed, subject to administration, and ever more so. We know that it is for our good, and etymology tells us that it means 'being taken care of,' being served.' But we are also aware that it means being 'processed,' enjoined to comply. So we seek means whereby the personal injury which may be done to us by the administration can be redressed.
However important it is that we should be invited every four or five years to change the man and team who stand at the 'head of the vast public bureaucracy, this does not meet the case. What we need is a personal and current opportunity of recourse against what is done to us by acts of administration. Thus some years ago Professor Max Beloff suggested the setting up, in Britain, of an Ombudsman, on the Danish model, an idea which has recently been taken up by Mr. Wilson. If I rightly understand the idea, the mandate of the Ombudsman would be to investigate faults committed by civil ser- vants. His jurisdiction would then be much the same as that of our Conseil d'Etat, which has functioned admirably for several generations.
But misbehaviour—in the sense of a decision that is unlawful or biased—is extremely rare among such bodies of men as the British or the French civil servants. And the ,grievances we have against the administration do not usually fall into the pattern of 'cases' which prove that a fault has been committed. Most of the sub- ject's grievances imply no actual fault of the administration. Just as the tenement landlord of past hard times was within his rights when demanding immediate payment from a lodger, regardless of the man's circumstances, so are bureaucrats within their rights when they behave with the same inhumanity. They have the better justification: are they not doing their duty, as prescribed to them by the people's representa- tive? Moreover, they have less occasion to be moved, as they encounter people, not as faces but as files.
Thus the subject needs to have recourse to some individual. The individual must be accessible to him, and influential enough to stay the hand of the administration. Some forty years ago, I saw my father, who was a senator, playing this role. He took a prominent part in major debates, especially on foreign affairs, but he regarded attention to the personal complaints of his electors as his first obligation. His day's work began early with a thorough examination of an abundant correspondence from constitu- ents, requesting this or that. Every weekend, he was available to constituents to hear their indi- vidual demands. Out of his earnings as a news- paper editor, he financed assistants who went round the ministries taking up each worth-while case with the competent bureaucrat.
As an impatient youth, I thought that such practices took time away from the larger public interests. I now think otherwise. Such interven- tions were in fact extremely helpful to electors, and forced the administration to 'temper the rigour of principles by the sweetness of dis- cretion,' as Gregory VII put it nine centuries ago. They were also morally helpful, as the electors felt that the man they had sent to the capital in their name was ceaselessly attentive to them, and, in a very real sense, their man, whether they had voted for him or not.
The custom was also an education for the statesman. How can you know whether a law is a good law unless you keep under close ob- servation some proving ground? Social sciences were then in their infancy, and our Members of Parliament were unaware of 'sampling.' They would have rejected with horror the idea that the information to be drawn from a sample is that of an 'average' response or outcome. That mythical creature 'the average Frenchman,' so convenient to intellectual laziness, was yet un- born.
Such practices forged a very solid link be- tween the electors and their representative. I re- member that when I stood for Parliament in 1928, some electors told me that my ideas seemed all right, but that the man I wanted to displace had won their esteem and affection : a good point. It was essentially because that personal link was broken under the Fourth Republic that the deputes were swept aside so easily.
Since the last war, we have been far more heavily administered than before. This called for a great increase in the mediating role of the depute. Yet this role has fallen off sharply. I remember my first sharp realisation of it many years ago. A neighbour was uttering a grievance which I found well-grounded. I told him to take it up with his depute: 'I do not know him, or even his name,' was the answer, an unthinkable answer in past times.
As our increasing subjection to administration is an obvious trend of our times, a system of communicating specific grievances becomes far more necessary than in the past. Thinking out its adequate structure should be a major concern of political scientists, and making it operational a major concern of politicians who care for the people as persons. Some essentials are clear. First, there must be many 'advocates' available, so that any complainant can easily find someone to whom he may talk and who can talk for him 'in the right quarters.' Second, each such advo- cate must have easy access to any part of the administration, so that he can bring his point directly to the competent official, without inter- position of any shield. Third, such 'advocates' should have weight enough to be assured of a hearing, and last they should be free, in the per- toi mance of that function, from any fear or desire of embarrassing the government. Such people would be 'representatives' in a sense both narrower and more concrete than that accepted in political theory. It would be their function to represent the interests entrusted to them by any of their constituents. Who would deny that people, in our day, need that sort of personal service? The way it would be organised raises a host of questions, and may lead to different solutions in different countries. The simplest solution is that the role should be played by Members of Parliament. But is the present evolution in this direction?
Previous page
