Seminar "The legitimacy of political power in the light of environmental transition programs".

Analysis of environmental problems such as climate change, biodiversity loss, air, water and soil pollution, and resource scarcity, calls for profound mutations and major changes in the energy, transport and agricultural sectors, etc. These "global" changes imply fundamental political choices on the social, economic, industrial, territorial, etc. levels, as well as the development of political programs and public measures necessary for "the joint transformation of societies and the environment on a globalscale" to aim for sustainable modes of development.

Or, the legitimacy of the political actors who make these choices, as well as the decision-making procedures put in place to achieve them, are the subject of reflection and sometimes criticism from citizens, researchers or even political actors, particularly in democratic regimes.

The question of the legitimacy of power is not new; indeed, it is inherent to the existence of a given political power. Power based solely on brute force is too costly socially and too unsustainable. All political power aspires to be perceived as acceptable. Legitimacy makes it possible to justify power relationships and, in so doing, guarantee the voluntary obedience of subjects, which is essential to the continuity of the power in place. It is therefore necessary for both the governed and the rulers: it enables the rulers to consolidate their power, and it gives meaning to the submission of the governed.

Many authors have attempted to define the concept of legitimacy, not without difficulty given the richness and importance of the concept. Thus, according to Lipset, the legitimacy of a political power rests on its capacity "to engender and maintain the belief that the current political institutions are the most appropriate for society". David Easton, for his part, defines legitimacy as the "conviction that it is right and proper to accept the authorities, obey them and submit to the prescriptions of the political regime". Finally, how can we not mention Max Weber's famous typology and his three ideal-types of legitimacy, each relating to a specific source of authority: rational-legal legitimacy, of which the state is the most accomplished expression, traditional legitimacy and charismatic legitimacy. From these definitions emerges the idea that legitimacy refers less to the political regime as such than to individuals' belief in it: it is from individuals' belief in the legitimacy of a power relationship, and not from the specific features of this relationship, that legitimacy emanates. One consequence of this is that a power considered legitimate at a given moment t, may no longer be so if this belief were to be shaken. In other words, legitimacy metamorphoses, consolidates or weakens, as people's beliefs about what constitutes legitimate power evolve.

The environmental question illustrates - perhaps on some points renews ? - reflections on the legitimacy of political power, as transitions erect the democratic question as a central issue. These transitions have the power to bring about a reassessment of belief in the legitimacy of the power relationship in place, and thereby give rise to new demands, both in terms of decision-making processes and the means of action surrounding them.

First of all, transitions lie at the heart of issues linked to differentrent scales of political power. Environmental issues involve the elaboration of political programs and their implementation at local, state, regional (such as the European Union) and international levels. This requires us to reflect not only on the legitimacy of powers at each of these levels, but also on the existing interactions between these different levels of power, which can sometimes legitimize them (as demonstrated, for example, by political discourse and the analysis of "multi-level governance"), but also delegitimize them (we think, among others, of the question of the imputabilityof policies). Thus, transition processes question existing modes of governance and their consequence on the legitimacy of political power.How are decisions relating to transitions elaborated, how do citizens perceive this governance? Do the latter evolve in contact with transition processes? These are just some of the issues that can be addressed in this seminar.

Then, because transition processes create and require the management of "conflicts of democratic legitimacies". These appear at the stage of identifying issues, drawing up political programs and implementing them. These conflicts pit political power against other sources of legitimacy. This is the case when "autonomous political practices" emerge, pitting groups such as NGOs, think-tanks and activist groups, each claiming to protect the general interest, against each other. To take just a few examples, the controversy surrounding megabasins or the construction of the Lyon-Turin rail line pits elected officials on one side against activists and NGOs on the other. These conflicts give rise to discourses, processes or actions that delegitimize or, on the contrary, legitimize political power. This may be the case for the use of new "legitimizing actors", such as experts and scientists, whose growing role could be a focus of study. This can also be the case for the use of political (decision-making procedures), legal (climate litigation, for example), administrative or police means, which can legitimize or, on the contrary, delegitimize political power, without this question necessarily being linked to that of the legality of the latter's action.

Finally, the political programs of transitions have consequences for the balance of democratic regimes.This seminar proposes to reflect on the new institutional balances underway or to come between the actors of power and on what this implies for the democratic character of regimes. Indeed, on the one hand, certain discourses or actions advocate the implementation of regimes restricting freedoms, which constitute forms of authoritarianism presented as necessary to achieve transitions. On the other, a contrario, are preconised forms of democratic radicalization, notably through an extension of public debate, its actors, its functions, and even through the institutionalization of citizen deliberation. This seminar proposes to study these discourses and the reality of what transition processes do to democratic regimes.