Extract
[...] This regulatory density, far from being purely formal, deeply affects the intelligibility of rights: access to public social services becomes a path of obstacles, dominated by mastery of legal language and procedural subtleties. The rule of law cannot tolerate that the recognition of social rights depends on the degree of technicality of the one who invokes them. In this sense, rethinking the RDAS does not mean simply refounding an administrative document, but restoring an equity of access to the law, based on clarity, coherence, and simplicity49. [...]
[...] The administration, on the other hand, no longer exercises discretionary power without guarantee or control: it is bound by what it has prescribed. The contentious procedure does not arise as an anomaly, but as a normal condition of institutional balance, where the local norm must confront its own effects and account, legally, for its claim to organize solidarity16. The RDAS constitutes an instrument for implementing the right to autonomy at the local level. Autonomy, in the field of social action, cannot be reduced to a simple psychological or medical category. [...]
[...] On the contrary, in the Bas-Rhin, social practices prioritize inter-institutional dialogue and the mobilization of associative and family partners. The departmental services collaborate closely with home care structures, associations of people with disabilities or elderly people, and community social action centers. This openness allows for a better consideration of individual contexts, a finer orientation, and sometimes a faster response. But it also generates a dependence on the variable efficiency of these relays: access to law then becomes dependent on the density of the local tissue, and therefore unequal according to the territories. [...]
[...] Their involvement in the reform of the RDAS cannot be peripheral. It must be thought of as structural, from the conception of the texts to their deployment. Because these actors participate in a double mediation: they translate the expectations of users towards the administration, and make the law intelligible and practicable for vulnerable publics. This requires a shared governance, based on sincere consultation, formalized dialogue instances, and a fluid circulation of information.53. The simplification of the RDAS should not be a burden transferred to the actors on the ground, but a lever to strengthen their action. [...]
[...] It anchors the norm in social reality, making it habitable. The RDAS is then no longer written only " for » for the beneficiaries: it is partially developed with » with them. It is there, perhaps, that its most profound political value is played out: in this ability to formalize a shared legal governance, where the law ceases to be an imposed norm to become a pluralistic construction of solidarity. This dynamic finds a particularly enlightening translation in the autonomy devices, as they are declined in the RDAS of Haut-Rhin and Bas-Rhin, at the crossroads of law, territorial practices and social needs. [...]
