From Lenin to Makroni ?

There's a sentence that every French policy observer has heard: We need <x0...pedagogi”. The same direction, repeated by the president to the president, from the ministry to the ministry. At first glance, the reason is clear. To properly clarify policy objectives, to explain why and how measures are undertaken, and to insist on their benefits and importance, that is the least politicians can do.

After all, this is the only way to ensure success. Or so we were told.

Because after every failure, the error is always attributed to a “malnoge of professors”. If things don't work, it's because we haven't been able to explain them properly!

However, such statements are based on a profound misunderstanding about the nature of the teacher, on the one hand, and politics in a democracy on the other. Pedagog is an essential figure but still a modest figure. His or her role is to direct people to knowledge, not to produce it.

The professor leads, provides access, facilitates the way for what already exists. His very name means nothing else. The word professor first refers to the person carrying (agogein, in ancient Greek) the children (Paido) to school. Pedagog is accompanying, nothing more.

It's a modest but crucial role for all those who are children, which means, at one point or another, to all of us. It opens the door to scientific truths, and existing discipline recognizes us by methods and gives us the keys to their use.

Pedagog makes us discover the literary, aesthetic, or conceptual heritage and know how to make it loving. This is of great importance. But this has nothing to do with “pedogia”, which constantly mentions politicians. Because a Republic has no children, but only citizens.

A policy that is well explained can always be rejected. Measures that have been explained and perfectly argued could lead to continuing disagreement.

Everyone agrees, that it is desirable to avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretations. But in politics, no professor, no matter how good it is, cannot overcome controversy and tensions.

Because the latter ones are so relevant to the amount of projects and their competitiveness. Therefore, hoping to win through the teaching work is a benefit. French President Emmanuel Makron has launched a major nationwide debate in response to long-standing Yelekverd protests.

But while it has been promoted as an opportunity for the government to listen to citizens, the daily “Libération” reported last week that some see the danger that public meetings will turn into another attempt for “pedagogy government”. At the root of this illusion, there is confusion between political and mathematical truths.

It is wrong to think of them as analogs. It's supposed to be that both scientific truths and political truths just can't convince everyone. It's this confusion that made Lenin say: ” Marxist doctrine is all-powerful, because it's true”.

Following his steps, Communist activist Rosa Luxembourg boldly declared:” If everyone knew that the capitalist regime would not last more than 24 hours!” Perhaps the same is true of Communism. But what matters most is the following prejudice Once the only truth is learned and revealed... everyone must agree inevitably with it.

In general, this is true of scientific truths but not of political decisions! The latter are reliable hypothesiss, not universal statements. Political projects are proposals to implement, not theorems to demonstrate. For each project, there are other possible choices that compete with each other.

Truths of knowledge can wait and reach a consensus. The political ones, by definition, are subject to deep disputes and endless clashes in democracy more than in any other system. A good explanation does not mean that it is necessarily convincing. Justification of your choice is not the same as supporting the winner.

That's why political professors, they're kind of insulated. However, this is no reason to conclude that it is unnecessary. On the contrary. If you don't create an agreement, it enables us to know as accurately as possible what we are at odds with, and what people are opposing.

It would be wrong to underestimate the benefit of such clarification. In that sense, her virtue is greater than we realize. Because the better we know what separates us, the clearer our conflicts are, and even more can the debates on democracy, transparency, insight and clarity benefit.

Agreeing on our differences is the real merit of good teaching. Because democracy has nothing to do with rooting out differences. Its goal is not to calm conflict. Rather, she tries to get them to live together to fix the collisions.

“Les Echos” World.al