Representatives in the eyes of their constituents A qualitative analysis of French citizens’ views

1. Dr. Pierre LEFÉBURE p.lefebure@sciencespobordeaux.fr Sciences Po Bordeaux Centre Emile Durkheim (CNRS) Representatives in the eyes of their constituentsA qualitative analysis of French citizens’ views Dr. Olivier ROZENBERG olivier.rozenberg@sciences-po.fr Centre d’études européennes (Sciences Po) IPSA-ECPR Joint Conference – February 16th-19th 2011 – Sao Paulo Section “Comparative approaches to the qualities of democracies” Panel “Representational Roles in Multi-Layered Democracies” Work in progress - part of the LEGIPAR project: www.legipar.sciencespobordeaux.fr/Index.htm

2. Our question: to what extent does parliamentary representation look (ill)egitimate to citizens? • High level of distrust towards politicians (survey research) • Hierarchical distrust: ministers and MPs are more disliked than local representatives (mayor as the most trusted political figure) • The principle of political representation trough elected bodies is challenged: rise of independent and non-elected agencies, primacy of supranational norms (EU, WTO)… Question: is citizens’ distrust towards elected institutions broad and at once outward or is it specified and deeply rooted ? • What is specially disliked or contended about parliament? • Is distrust about parliament absolute or may it combine with some recognition of legitimizing features?

3. The research design:collective interviews with lay citizens in France • Within the LEGIPAR project, one of the work packages is devoted to the study of how citizens perceive and assess MPs and Parliament in order to better understand political representation as a process involving both connectedness and accountability. • This task is implemented through an unprecedented interpretive research design using focus groups’ interviews. The strategy for this methodological approach is intended to complement: • - results provided by ethnographic studies or in depth interviews about representatives’ behaviors (Fenno 1978, Cain et. al. 1987) • results repeatedly provided by survey research about citizens’s discontent and distrust (Nye et. al. 1997, Norris 1999, Dalton 2004, Carman 2007) The French context: mixed expectations (high level of distrust vs. closeness through parliamentary and local offices held together)

4. Assumption & outline of the presentation • Assumption: beyond the high and increasing distrust towards parliamentary representation documented by survey trend questions, we know little about citizens’ reasoning. As far as our interpretive research strategy helps us to make up for this lack of substantiation of negative as well as positive views, our results show that the latter, which are often kept in the shadow of the former, follow a twofold way: • the critical playful citizen • the assistance seeking citizen Outline of the presentation: • The research design • Distrust... as usual ! • The critical playful citizen: parliament as a common place • The assistance seeking citizen : the conditional recognition of an institutional legitimacy

5. 1. The research design: the sampling • Our sample includes six constituencies which are selected according to three “MP career” status (2 cases for each), allowing us to compare citizens’ reasoning about Parliament, MPs as a whole, and their own MP depending on how their status is varying (status = independent variable): • - MP holding multiple offices including a mayor position + elected as MP at least three times in a row (1997-2002-2007) • - MP holding multiple offices including a mayor position + never been elected as MP prior to the 2007 general election • - MP holding no other office + never been elected as MP prior to the 2007 general election • 2 interviews are conducted in each constituency (2x6 = 12 groups) • Groups’ members are selected according to such criteria as age (25-65 years old), for how long they live in the constituency (at least 5 years), their link to politics (not being member of a party)

6. 1. The research design: the questions • The semi-structured interview guide is divided in three parts: • - general discussion about news and public affairs • - specific discussion about the French National assembly and MPs as a whole (what do they do ? what is their job about ?) • - specific discussion about the constituency’s MP (do you know / what do you think about her/him ?), including comments about a TV excerpt of a Question to the government (ie. Ministers). This TV Question excerpt is purposely chosen as a “constituency service” display since the involved MP raises the issue of giving governmental support to her/his constituency in order to make up for the crisis (job losses, plant closure…) • This presentation is mainly about how groups react to such a stimulus as they discuss what the function of a MP should be.

7. 2. Distrust... as usual: general perceptions of Parliament & MPs • All our groups are very critical both towards Parliament as a remote institution and towards MPs taken altogether as an anonymous body of privileged recipients of public funds who do not feel committed to hard working. • There is no difference regarding the kind and the degree of criticism depending on the constituency’s MP status, thus suggesting that citizens’ views of Parliament and MPs are largely shared overall meanings. • Some unprompted comments point out the unacceptable level of non-attendance as the hemicycle looks empty while bills are passed. Most refer to MPs booing each other, sleeping or reading their newspaper while colleagues speak. Both kind of comments are related to media coverage, thus suggesting the very influential part played by television for generating citizens’ perceptions of Parliament.

8. 2. Distrust... as usual:perceptions of the Question Time sessions • The Question Time live broadcasting twice a week (up to 1,5 million viewers a day) accounts for the most commonly known activity of MPs to such an extent that very few groups’ members, sometimes none, are able to spontaneously mention any other kind of work at the National assembly. • Citizens sustain their distrust through commenting on what television provides them with. The Question Time sessions actually look like a stage as MPs’ behavior is frequently compared to theater or role playing. • Citizens are highly critical of the lack of authenticity of the procedure regarding two aspects: • 1. MPs are perceived as over-emphasizing disagreement, which is pitiful and divert them from good work. • 2. At the same time, MPs are suspected to share drinks once cameras are off, which is related to a lazy Parliament.

9. Quotes: criticizing the Question time Nathalie : When I see them reading their newspaper, I think that it’s just unbelievable. Eric : Their job is exhausting, you know. That’s why they sleep sometimes too. Nathalie : Sleeping, reading their newspaper... Françoise : You have to wait 10 minutes before you get the answer. Emilie : Right ! Questions last too long. They’re not focused. They go with their 30 lines but it’s just a waste of time. The others don’t listen to them. Eric : Yes, the others don’t listen. Nathalie : You feel... well, I’m not very aware of all that but, still, you feel that we’re not represented. (49-07-1) • Olivier :They spend two hours to talk and argue and to say non-sense but they never address the important things! (33-06-a)

10. 3. The critical citizen paradigm:the parliament as a common place • Since the group discussion are sometimes flat yet most of the time rather lively even though members admit not being very aware collective animation of the focus group can be regarded a sign of the citizens’ interest toward a given topic and therefore of the authenticity of their beliefs (Duchesne et al. 2010). • Our groups are actually animated after viewing the question time. Two frames of the debate can be distinguished: • The performance. Citizens evaluate if their MP was “good” or “bad” in terms of inspired speech, consistent statements, and genuine attitude. They also argue whether MPs should make a performance in such occasion. • The decrypting. Citizens like to explain the hidden reasons for the choice of questions & questioners. They do not appear as alienated but rather as amateur political scientist. And they seemingly like it.

11. Quotes: Decrypting the Question time procedure • Pierre: I am not sure but I think that the questions are prepared beforehand, that they are communicated in advance. I think that cabinet members know them because I have often seen ministers bringing documents in order to elaborate their answer. [...] All is prepared before and indeed, they play a show. They could have exchanged by mails but no. There is a setting of the questions/answers game. […] I have the feeling that when the MPs ask the question, he already knows what the answer will be. Then, it’s just setting. And as he knows what the answer will be, it allows him to over-play, to play with emotions and feelings, to behave as an actor. (33-06-b)

12. Quotes: Decrypting the MP own interests • Sylvia: I think he [the MP] benefits from asking his question. […] It is obvious: he is on TV, he takes the opportunity to defend his ideas. I think it is totally legitimate to do so. It is also his job as an MP to take all the opportunities to communicate in order to… • Donald: Then it may be said that he is also campaigning. With an issue as important as employment, he is in a way campaigning. • Anne: Ho yes, absolutely. It is a way of being candidate again. It is sure. He is working for his future. • Donald: Well, he is not only defending the workers interests. (33-06-1)

13. 3. The critical citizen paradigm • Even if they are highly critical of the Question time procedure, citizens are interested, divided and animated when talking about it. • This indicates that behind the common place of the parliamentary critics, the Parliament is a common place in citizens’ minds. That is: an institution that develops shared perceptions between them, an institution for which they feel at ease as analysts, an institution that can split them during collective discussion. • > Ambiguity of citizens attitudes: critical towards the artificiality of the procedure, and simultaneously, interested by the parliament as a spectacle.

14. 4. The protected citizen paradigm:the recognition of an institutional legitimacy • Even though our groups sustain a generic criticism towards both the National assembly and MPs as a whole, there is still place in their mind for a rather balance view of what the legislative branch is about within the institutional framework of the political system, at least as they read it. • This favorable as well as demanding approach is organized by the connectedness expectations of citizens towards their own MP who, according to their view of how the political system functions should be able to: • provide the constituency with resources he/she obtains through various kind of requests and involvements; • let know to ministers what are the needs of the constituency so that national policies are matching people’s claims and needs.

15. 4. The protected citizen paradigm • To the extent the MP complies to this connectedness approach of his/her job, he/she can reasonably expect a rather supportive attitude of his/her constituents wherever he stands in the left-right political spectrum, as show groups’ members statements as they react after watching the Question time TV excerpt. • Indeed, beyond the diversity of the groups organized, the same expression is repeated (often in English): “he/she is doing the job”. The consensus is huge within the groups on that point. When observing the groups, the contrast is striking between the consensual critics against the MPs (often alleged) privileges and the consensual recognition that MPs do have a legitimate role to play. • > Remarkable adequacy between citizens views on representation and the parliamentary roles of constituency member (Searing 1994)

16. 4. The protected citizen paradigm: the consequence on the perception of holding multiple offices • Consequence 1: MP as a mayor > MPs’ job is to pass the law while MP’s job is to serve the constituency as community • Consequence 2: in so far as the individual MP’s job is focused on the constituency, he/she looks like a kind of duplicate of mayor at an extended scale what, in turns, direct our groups to moderate their generic criticism of holding multiple offices. • > groups whose MP is also their city mayor systematically tend to intertwine their expectations and satisfactions between both elected positions. This is particularly clear when we can compare, in the same constituency, one group including only members from the city whose mayor is the MP to the second group including only members whose MP is not their mayor.

17. Quote: the percpetion of hodling multiple offices Yolande : A mayor should deal only with his city. Then there is the MP. Patrick : No, if he can do well both things, let’s him doing both. Michelle : Eh, a city gives a huge load of work. [...] Martine : That’s the reason why, Michelle. He’s at the heart of the city […] so that he can also speak of our concerns at the upper level. In that respect I think that it’s pretty good to hold multiple offices. Michelle : As the MP of our constituency, yes, he can go at the upper level but, as a mayor, he won’t be there any more. Martine : There are the deputy mayors. Michelle : Hmm, the deputies. Patrick : Like the captain and the other players. (59-09-1)