Never since the creation of the citizen mechanism in 2019 has a petition mobilized so many people. The Duplomb law crystallizes all political, ecological, and democratic tensions. Behind this unprecedented mobilization lies the deep divide between citizens and institutions. Analysis of a movement that could reshape the contours of French democracy.
What is the Duplomb law?
As we explained in our previous article, the Duplomb law, adopted in 2025, includes several measures aimed at boosting agricultural productivity, at the cost of a significant rollback of environmental standards. Among them: expansion of cultivable areas, reduction of constraints on crop rotation, generalization of mega-basins, relaxation on chemical inputs…
But the most controversial provision remains the reintroduction of acetamiprid, a neonicotinoid pesticide known for its toxicity to bees and its impact on biodiversity.
A citizen and ecological tidal wave
The Duplomb law has been shaking the French political scene for several weeks.
On July 20, the petition initiated by Éléonore Pattery surpassed one million signatures on the official website of the National Assembly. Thus, this citizen mobilization reached a level never seen since the implementation of the mechanism in 2019.
This mobilization reflects a growing ecological awareness. Despite its authorization in Europe, the opposition to acetamiprid reveals a particularly marked environmental sensitivity in France. A country known for its art of living, culinary demands, and attachment to the quality of its terroir.
Moreover, the method used by the executive to adopt this law has caused an uproar. The government favored an accelerated procedure. This choice significantly limits parliamentary debates. Thus, popular anger finds fertile ground here.
On social networks, the petition circulates quickly. It receives notable support from political figures such as Manon Aubry or Dominique de Villepin.
According to Éléonore Pattery, the initiator of this petition, it was necessary to “give a voice to those who are competent.” She explicitly refers to scientists, lawyers, associations, and ordinary citizens. This attitude, refusing any personification, reinforces the image of a truly collective movement.
Institutional response: controlled openness, assumed lock-in
Faced with this historic mobilization, the president of the Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet, displays cautious openness. She proposes organizing a public debate. However, she clearly states that this discussion “will in no way call into question the adopted law.” According to her, this measure “is necessary to save a number of farmers.”
This assumed lock-in provokes a strong reaction in the opposition. The deputy Ugo Bernalicis (LFI) demands that the executive hear “the voice of the people opposed to the forced passage.” For her part, Marine Tondelier, leader of the Ecologists, explicitly requests a “second deliberation.” This procedure could be ordered directly by President Emmanuel Macron.
However, the Constitution remains very clear on this point. A petition exceeding 500,000 signatures can lead to a parliamentary debate but does not require a review of an adopted law. This mechanism thus preserves the primacy of representative democracy. Nevertheless, it clearly exposes the limits of participatory democracy.
Agricultural unions reflect the fracture in society. Emilie Deligny, representative of the Confédération paysanne, insists on “the health and environmental emergency.”
Conversely, Arnaud Rousseau of the FNSEA firmly defends the law. He fears that French agriculture will suffer more from stricter standards than those imposed on neighboring countries.
Éléonore Pattery: the paradoxical embodiment of engaged anonymity
Éléonore Pattery, at 23, symbolizes a politicized generation but one distrustful of media institutions. This student in risk and environmental management refuses to become a media figure. On LinkedIn, she specifies: “I do not wish to communicate publicly for now.” She also requests that her relatives not be solicited by the media.
Thus, she explicitly refuses any political and media recovery. According to her statements: “I am not indispensable to this debate. Public opinion already represents me perfectly.”
This posture of voluntary anonymity, however, questions the sustainability of the movement. Historically, citizen mobilizations such as L’Affaire du siècle or Nuit debout have shown their limits. Indeed, they struggle to exist sustainably without a clearly identified spokesperson.
Democratic fracture and institutional trust crisis
This affair reveals a growing gap between representative democracy and participatory democracy. The current legislative procedure, although respectful of constitutional rules, generates a deep feeling of citizen powerlessness. Petitioners thus demand a profound revision of the legislative process. They question the democratic legitimacy of a law adopted without real debate.
Political scientist Anne-Charlène Bezzina points out that “these mobilizations exert strong political pressure on elected officials.” Her colleague Benjamin Morel believes that “participatory democracy can indeed influence political life.” However, the absence of a clear institutional response leaves a deep doubt about the real effectiveness of these citizen initiatives.
Towards a reconciliation between citizens and institutions?
To emerge from this crisis, several avenues are being considered. Some advocate for the extension of participatory mechanisms, such as shared initiative referendums or citizens’ conventions. Others suggest greater involvement of experts and intermediary bodies. The Swiss or German examples show the relevance of a successful democratic hybridization.
Thus, the controversy over the Duplomb law goes far beyond the framework of pesticides. It reveals a fundamental question for modern democracy: how to articulate political representation and citizen participation? This answer will require a profound reform of the relationships between citizens and elected officials. Civil society now plays a key role in this necessary transformation.