They have benefited to some than to others

For now, they have nothing said. Voters have cashed the shock of the most serious financial crisis since a century without overthrow their Governments. But they will now begin to disburse the money to pay the Bill. We are entering an era of radical political uncertainty.

Indeed, voters have begun to speak last year, there where they had the opportunity to vote. In the United Kingdom, labour lost power in the spring. In France, the UMP in power retained the Presidency of a single metropolitan region, Alsace, in the regional. In the United States, the Americans sent a squad of "tea party" that would pass Ronald Reagan to a dangerous colbertiste in the House of representatives. And in Germany, it was not until that the vote passed in North Rhine-Westphalia to finally mobilize billions of euros to the rescue of the Greece.

But it is there for warning signs. Because until now, the cost of the crisis has particularly weighed on public finances, with deficits that exploded in 2009-2010. This was obviously not tenable - public debt will exceed one year of production (100 of GDP) in the developed in 2011. Rulers thus begin to submit the invoice with VAT increases, wages in the public service gels and other also bitter. As a result, voters take a slogan of "alter" old media for two years: "we do not pay your crisis." In Ireland, hard hit by the crisis, the Labour opposition leads campaign for the legislative elections of March on a simple program: not issue to the Fund to repay! He need to restructure the debt, that Europe and the IMF decrease the rate of their loans. Dare to imagine, in France, the score that would be the next year a Le Pen or this this if they succeeded to articulate a program around this kind of ideas. Arnaud Montebourg, which is the run of the Socialists, is already beginning to explain to "pay the banks". Forgetting a little fast that French bankers have been much more cautious than their American counterparts, Swiss, British, Spanish or German.

To this temptation, the right-thinking people will naturally explain that this is not possible. That everything was done best in the crisis. That many voters took before the boom of the credit and the wave of growth that accompanied him, what is not false. But the rest is not necessarily true. At the height of the fire, in the fall of 2008, it had to act quickly. Global finance might collapse, and the collapse would have been a disaster, including the poorest. In the rescue, the rulers of the major countries watered the system with thousands of billions of euros or dollars. And they did so in consultation with the financiers, who were certainly the incendiary, but also most likely fly their action - in the flames, firefighters are more effective if they have at their side someone who knows the house fire. In the Emergency Department, it was not possible to consult elected officials. End of September 2008, American officials have vilified across the globe for refusing initially to a plan of $ 700 billion (amount invented and not calculated, as acknowledged then one operation key players).

The problem is that these fortunes in the emergency were not neutral. They have benefited to some than to others. It will give just two examples. First, the return of the crazy bonus is one indication among others that finance has undoubtedly not paid its share (unless new regulations are radically changing the equation in the years to come, what remains to prove). Then, the Irish Government made a clear choice: save saver, and they do pay this rescue to the taxpayer. Transfers involve huge amounts. The elector is perfectly entitled to these choices in question. There is political debate, in the noblest sense of the term. It must be remembered Control of public expenditure by the people, through its elected representatives in Parliament, is the origin of representative democracy.