There are times or circumstances in which any decision taken on a matter, which became particularly burdensome, will no longer satisfy anyone. And yet, a decision must be taken. Generally, in these circumstances, we do everything in order to delay and not decide for as long as possible. Then we find ourselves deadlocked.
Indeed, it is what just happened regarding the Notre Dame des Landes airport. This project is over 20 years old. Following constant retreating and violent occupations that turned into a regional referendum, we have reached a stalemate, from which a committee of last resort could not get us out.
It is actually linked to an infinitely broader problem: how can democratic institutions, which are accountable in the short term, take decisions that have a very long-term impact? I also call these types of decisions, “positive decisions.”
If the institutions of the Republic are not perceived as legitimate to take these types of decision, other mechanisms will fill that void and impose their decisions first, either by an authoritarian power or by lobbies. A democratic power that is too weak to take responsibility will then be relegated in the decision-making process.
The occupation of the airport area paves the way for this kind of abuse. Indeed, allowing the “Zadists” (current occupiers of the designated parcel of land for the airport construction project) to impose their point of view, even if it were justified, would be an extremely serious setback for democracy because it would give the impression that green terrorism is legitimate. Therefore, as a first step, it is essential to not allow anyone to permanently occupy the so-called Zone to Defend (“ZAD”, French acronym, is the parcel of land designated for the airport construction project). Without a doubt, it will be necessary to use very important means of democratic policing to achieve this, both in the ZAD itself and in neighbouring cities. This must be accomplished with care in order to avoid any blunders, and to organize a quick evacuation of the occupied areas before a substantial decision is announced on the matter.
If there were still time available and if it were possible to further delay the decision, surely the decision would have to be sent to a “House of Future Generations,” democratically constituted, which would take its decision according to the interests of future generations. If it were not too late to rethink this, after having evacuated the ZAD, the government could take any of these decisions without risks because it would have established that the rule of law must be respected. Personally, my decision would be to not build the airport, but only after clearing out the area. And not before.
If we do not act, if we let the streets impose their point of view, we will see this sort of green terrorism impose their law in many areas, such as, nuclear power plants, TGV (high speed rail) railway routes, and the construction of waste management facilities. And one day, green terrorism will evolve into a green dictatorship.
This question is also pertinent to companies, which must satisfy their shareholders by quickly turning a profit, and also serve the long-term interests of their consumers, employees, and other stakeholders, including future generations.
Being positive, that is to say, working in the interest of future generations is what is at stake for what lies ahead.