Posted On December 18, 2024
The participatory budget, launched with great communication by the municipality of Grenoble since 2015, was intended to be a model of local democracy. However, after eight editions, the facts speak for themselves: this system, touted as a citizen “empowerment” tool, is massively shunned and has become a lever for political exploitation, disconnected from the realities and expectations of Grenoble residents.
THE DEVICE NEVER FOUND ITS AUDIENCE
Despite costly awareness campaigns, participatory budgeting has never taken off. Between 2016 and 2023, the trend is downward. The peak participation was 6,000 voters in 2019, or… less than 5% of the eligible population. Usually, rates tend to hover around 3%. This massive disavowal illustrates the rupture between the Greens/LFI majority and the citizens, who do not believe in this charade of democratic participation.
THE LACK OF DIVERSITY OF PARTICIPANTS
An internal report to the “participation and associative life” department, produced by a doctoral student, confirms this operation in isolation. He highlights a glaring lack of diversity among the participants, largely from privileged backgrounds with strong social capital, while working-class neighborhoods remain marginalized. In short: an instrument for CSP + beautiful neighborhoods. He also points out the obstacles encountered by residents in submitting or voting on projects.
UNREPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
Corollary of this homogeneity of participants: the selection of projects clearly over-represents the ideological priorities of the Greens. In 2023, 50% of the envelope was allocated to a project linked to the installation of solar panels (which even planned to install them in the Saint-Roch cemetery…), moreover carried by an employee of a structure directly affiliated with the municipality, ALEC, of which Grenoble is a shareholder. We also find the whole range dear to the “bobos”: projects of dry toilets or wind turbines, bicycle workshops, scooters (note that two of them purchased via the participatory budget for 20,000 euros (!) were stolen this year: when the Grenoble of little flowers meets the obscure Grenoble…)…
A TOOL FOR TROUBLESHOOTING MUNICIPAL POLICIES
The participatory budget is also more like a lever complementary to the skills of city services than a real democratic tool. In addition to the example of the ALEC employee and the solar panels, we had “rehabilitated” fountains thanks to a participatory budget project submitted by… a municipal employee. In 2022, we also had a tree planting project submitted by an agent from the city nature service (led by deputy Gilles Namur). What should be a gateway to original citizen initiatives becomes a way for services to carry out the tasks that fall to them in normal times.
ATTEMPT TO RUSTINE IN THE FACE OF THE CITY’S (IN)SKILLS
The tasks incumbent upon them, but only those which are a political priority of the Greens/LFI. Grenoble residents have often been tempted to use participatory budgeting in the hope that everyday problems royally ignored by elected officials who have no interest in these subjects will be taken up. Some citizens have, for example, submitted projects for the “fight against noise”, the “right to calm”, or even to request a park-and-ride facility at the esplanade in the face of a lack of parking. Projects obviously never accepted because they go against Piollesque dogmas.
GADGET DEMOCRACY
The municipal majority has in fact set up a real gadget democracy. We refuse to take into account the comments of Grenoble residents for the most impactful projects in their daily lives (the closure of Agutte Sembat which contributed to the development of delinquency in Hoche, the removal of parking which will kill traders, etc.), but to console them we let them decide on micro gadgets that only amuse those who have no other problems in mind. Lock in the essential, allow the unnecessary.
THE EXAMPLE OF LAKE DE LA VILLENEUVE
This lock-in is vividly illustrated by the municipal Lac de la Villeneuve project. Strongly contested by the residents, they came together as a collective and submitted a counter-proposal to the next participatory budget. This has passed the first stages of selection but the municipality is already warning that participatory budgets are only accepted on the condition “ that the City does not already have a project planned on the targeted implementation site “. Very clear: elected officials have planned something else, so residents’ opinions will not be listened to even if they win the participatory budget.
THE HIGH BIDDING IN THE PRE-ELECTION PERIOD
Faced with the impossible to deny failure of the participatory budget since 2015, and with the elections approaching, the Greens/LFI have pulled one last trick out of their bag: there will no longer be one edition per year as there was. cases until now, but only once every two years. And the budget allocated will be extended accordingly: from 800,000 euros per edition to 1.8 million euros. The opportunity to increase their electoral clientele a little more and boost their communications in the run-up to the 2026 municipal elections…
RETHINKING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Not sure that this umpteenth smoke ploy will work. The participatory budget in Grenoble has had a really bad time. The gadget is less and less illusionary as we see the rising, neighborhood by neighborhood, the revolt of residents, associations, collectives against important projects which are themselves imposed without leaving any choice. True citizen participation would involve respecting the number 1 commitment of the piollists in 2014: “co-build projects with residents“. Not by gas factory devices which allow you to choose the color of street furniture.
