BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The stereotype that the French are resistant to English and Anglophone influences is nothing but Francophobic scaremongering driven by British tabloids.

The French are not closed to the English language as much as anti-EU press would have the British believe. M. Nicolas Sarkozy, the French Prime Minister, wants France to be a bilingual nation with the ability to speak both French and English and to change between the two at will. It is impossible for the French to have this level of respect for the English language and to be anti-Franglais. Franglais is to be expected as a hangover, a residue from the platform and welcome given to the English language in France.
Voters have a right to know the background of their would-be representatives, including financial background

So long as politicians do their duty by representing the interests of those that elected them, they are fulfilling their end of the covenant with the people. To demand the financial records of candidates will not offer more than crude snapshot of one aspect of their lives, not giving the desired insight into their character, while massively intruding on the politician’s personal life. As is often the case here the right to know conflicts with the candidates right to privacy. Of course it is right to know if a candidate pays his taxes, but do they need to know every expense he has incurred over the last few years or how much a candidate earned years ago?
Financial dealings can indicate candidates’ willingness to circumvent the system/play by the rules

Tax avoidance is not illegal, and it should not be treated as if it were by the prying media and would-be class-warriors. Even if one might think it unpleasant to look for loopholes to protect private wealth, it is really only natural for people to wish to pay no more than they have to in tax. Mitt Romney was simply using the skills that allowed him to be a great business success to keep his costs as low as possible. Trying to make a political issue out of these sorts of dealings only serves to obscure from the real policy issues, and to focus the debate on divisive and unhelpful issues of class war.
This information offers valuable texture to the financial proposals candidates offer as potential policy

Personal finances mean little when it comes to financial policy. Trying to glean any sort of financial acumen on the macro scale from private dealings is extremely misguided. Successful business leaders often make poor political leaders, as the world of business is very different from the horse-trading of politics.[1] In terms of leading others as one leads one’s own life, there is no reason to assume that a candidate who has used the system to his or her advantage would use the additional power of office to enrich themselves or their friends further. Mitt Romney was an effective governor of Massachusetts, and was willing to increase taxes that were personally costly to him. [1] Jenkins, H. “Good Businessman, Bad President?”. Wall Street Journal. 23 October 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203406404578074620655476826.html
Individuals have a right to privacy, including to their own financial records

Privacy is a right but it is not sacrosanct, and certainly should not be for people who serve the public. Freedom of speech is considered sacred in a free society, but anyone reasonable would agree that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is not given such protection, showing that even the most treasured rights are curtailed in the public interest. Both the special position of politicians as the effective embodiment of the people’s will, and the special power they wield, which is far vaster than that of any private agent, demands a higher level of scrutiny into their backgrounds, which means looking into their financial records, which can divulge much about their competence and character.
Fixating on candidates’ financial records fuels the fire of class war

Firstly, personal wealth may not be indicative of political belief. Wealthy people can be advocates for higher taxes and workers’ rights. Secondly, maybe creating class awareness is not such a bad thing. The revelation of candidates’ personal finances will help show average voters what their leaders are actually like, that they have acquired great wealth and seek to protect it. Consciousness about these things can only help to galvanize political participation and to stoke real discourse about things like the proper distribution of wealth, issues that often fall foul of the political mainstream of party politics.
The focus of elections should be on policy, not personal issues like financial records

While elections should of course focus a great deal of attention on policy, it is also critical that voters understand who exactly it is they are voting for. That means looking beyond the manifesto and getting an understanding of the candidate’s character and private dealings. Having access to their private financial records can go a long way toward revealing this information, as they provide valuable insight into both the candidate’s financial abilities, and his or her attitude toward the state.
Voters have a right to know the background of their would-be representatives, including financial background

In any society, no matter how liberal, rights of every kind have limitations. Rights are general statements of principles that are then caveated and curtailed to fit the public interest across a range of circumstances. When an individual seeks elevation to public office, he or she must accept that the role they are applying for requires extra transparency. As the representative of the people, the politician is more than just the holder of a job appointed by the people, but is the elected servant, whose duty is to lead, including by example. It is a strange relationship, and it is one that demands the utmost confidence in the holder. This political power will often involve power over the public purse so it is essential for the public to know if the candidate is financially honest and not going to use his election for corrupt purposes.[1] Thus, when citizens place their political power in the hands of an elected representative, they gain the reciprocal right over that representative to have his or her life and character laid bare for their approval. This is done generally through political campaigns that focus on candidates’ character and life story. But often candidates prove reticent to share some details, particularly financial details. But if citizens are to make a good decision about what sort of person they wish to lead them, they require information about the financial background of their representatives, to see that they comport themselves in business in a way that is fitting to the character of a leader. [1] Rossi, I., and Blackburn, T., “Why do financial disclosure systems matter for corruption?” blogs.worldbank.org, 8 November 2012, http://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/why-do-financial-disclosure-systems-matter-for-corruption
Financial dealings can indicate candidates’ willingness to circumvent the system/play by the rules

A lot of politicians come from positions of prestige and power before seeking public office. Many politicians have wealth in their own right, or a base of wealthy supporters. Understanding where that wealth came from and how they used their privileged position is very important to citizens when choosing their leaders. Access to candidates’ financial information allows good candidates to show their honesty and financial uprightness, and sometimes even to display their talent and acumen that allowed them to succeed. More importantly, it allows people to scrutinize the dealings of politicians who used their often privileged position to avoid paying high taxes and to shield their wealth from the public taking its legal due. What these insights provide is a valuable snapshot of what candidates are willing to do to promote their own interests versus those of the state and society. It shows if there is a propensity to engage in morally dubious practices, and such behavior could well be extrapolated to be a potential incentive to corrupt practice. While tax avoidance is not illegal, it can well be considered unjust when rigorously applied, especially considered that the special knowledge necessary to profit from it belongs only to those of wealth and privilege. The value of this knowledge was made particularly clear in the case of Mitt Romney’s presidential bid. When Romney released his tax returns it became painfully clear that he was using the system to his advantage, at the expense of the taxpayer.[1] Citizens deserve to know to what lengths, if any, those who wish to represent them are willing to game the system they would be elected to lead. [1] Drucker, J. “Romney Avoids Taxes Via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations”. Bloomberg. 29 October 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html
This information offers valuable texture to the financial proposals candidates offer as potential policy

When candidates make proposals for public spending they often seek to use their own financial stories as evidence of their credibility. Without public knowledge of their actual financial record, besides what can be gleaned from secondary sources and their words, these claims cannot be evaluated fully by the voting public. Publishing their financial records allows the citizens to get a genuine grasp of their –would-be representatives abilities. More importantly, the proposals of candidates can be scrutinized in relation to how the candidate, and those of the same financial stratum as the candidate, would benefit from them. When Mitt Romney proposed new tax and spending reforms in the last US presidential election, it was clear that his policies inordinately favored the rich and increased the tax burden of the middle class.[1] Understanding Romney’s personal position of great wealth served confirm to the public their suspicions that his policies were designed to favor the financial elite of which he was a part. It is in the public’s interest to elect representatives who serve their interests, not those of moneyed elites. [1] Dwyer, P. “Surprise! Romney Tax Plan Favors the Rich”. Bloomberg. 1 August 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-01/surprise-romney-tax-plan-favors-the-rich.html
Individuals have a right to privacy, including to their own financial records

Privacy is a fundamental human right, one that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us.[1] What people do with their own finances is their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect for privacy. Politicians don’t owe the electorate any special privileges like their financial history. A politician is effectively an employee of his constituents and the citizens of the polity. His or her duty is not so special as to demand the handing over of all information on one of the most critical aspects of their private life. Financial affairs like income and taxes are a private matter, and should be treated as such by voters and governments. This is even more the case when it comes to financial history, much of which may have happened long before the individual decided to become a politician. Making politicians’ financial affairs fair game for reporters and others who would exploit the information only serves to undermine the rights that all citizens rightly enjoy. [1] Privacy International. 2010. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 39(1): 58-68. https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/privacy-as-a-political-right
Fixating on candidates’ financial records fuels the fire of class war

More and more the financial dealings of candidates are used against them in politics. In past decades, politicians in many countries were proud to run on the basis of their successes in the private sector. Today, however, that success has often become a liability. One only need look at the paradigmatic example of this occurrence, Mitt Romney. When running for governor in Massachusetts, his strong record in business was touted as a quality favoring him. Yet in the presidential election, Romney’s wealth was touted as an example of capitalist excess, of often ill-gotten gains.[1] The change in rhetoric has indicated marked shift in politics in a number of countries, most visibly the United States, but also places like France, where the development of wealth and success are deemed to be the marks of greed and unfairness. These trends would only be compounded with the release of candidates’ financial records. People with records of wealth and financial ability will be further demonized as being anti-poor. These sorts of political tactics obscure from the realities of politics and seeks to separate people along class, rather than political ideological, lines. Such divisions are exceptionally dangerous to the functioning of a democratic society, which demands buy-in and willing participation from all classes and groups in order to function. [1] Erb, K. “Why Romney’s ‘Tax Avoidance’ Strategies Don’t Deserve Criticism”. Forbes. 30 October 2012. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/10/30/why-romneys-tax-avoidance-strategies-dont-deserve-criticism/
The focus of elections should be on policy, not personal issues like financial records

Discussion of candidates’ personal finances serves only to obscure the real issues facing society. When the focus becomes on how much tax Candidate X paid and what loopholes he or she exploited, the media tends to latch onto it. It sells more newspapers and gets more hits online to make a salacious story about the financial “misdeeds” of a candidate than to actually discuss what he or she stands for. It fuels the growing tendency of the media to attach itself to petty commentary rather than real investigation and analysis. Ultimately, an examination of the personal finances of a candidate tells voters little about what he or she stands for on the issue of state finances. Throughout history, personal financial success has been shown to not necessarily correlate with political acumen. For example, William Pitt became the young, and one of the longest-serving Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, yet he was in extreme debt when he died.[1] Narrow attention paid to personal finances takes up people’s limited time available to consume useful information to direct their voting, and the news media have limited air time to discuss issues. It is best that both use their time to maximum effect, and not be sidetracked by distractions. [1] Reilly, Robin (1978). Pitt the Younger 1759–1806. Cassell Publishers.
Participatory Democracy Produces Better Decisions

Professional politicians know that they will be held accountable if they pass policies that are ineffective or damaging. This gives them a big incentive to carefully research all the options before making an important decision, and they have the time and the resources to do so (making decisions is their only job). Ordinary citizens do not have a big incentive to get a policy right unless they can directly see how it affects them, and even if they had the inclination to make an informed decision, they will lack the time and resources. Participatory democracy is therefore much more likely to lead to a muddle of contradictory legislation as different groups focus on different legislation without an overarching vision that advances the nation’s interests.
Referenda Produce Snap Decisions

That is just a case for having a cooling-off period in between the proposal of a new law and the referendum on it. There is no reason why referendums cannot have a lengthy public debate before the vote takes place. It is not clear that the voters will only look at the short-term consequences: in the 2010 UK General Election the British voters backed the Conservative Party and their long-term deficit reduction plan, for example.[1] Furthermore, professional politicians may also take decisions thinking in the short term in order to raise their popularity. In such case, referenda would not be worse than the representative system. [1] Glover, J. (21 June 2010) “Budget 2010: Three quarters of voters back spending cuts not tax rises – Guardian/ICM poll” guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/21/budget-2010-guardian-icm-poll
Representative Democracy Prevents Domination by Special Interests

This point assumes that there will be no organisations capable of campaigning against special interests, and this is plainly false. Political parties, taxpayer’s organisations and even rival special interest groups already run counter campaigns against perceived special interest lobbying. Furthermore, special interest groups are naturally disadvantaged in the battle for public opinion because it is very easy to paint them as selfish or greedy. A good example of this is the hostility with which the public usually greets strikes and industrial action.[1] In addition, governments in liberal democracies might pay special attention to particular issues precisely because of the existence of powerful lobbies. In such case, they would be under-representing other groups or individual citizens becoming, then, the cause of the domination of the public decision-making by special interests. [1] Smithson M. (21 June 2011) “ComRes finds little support for public sector strikes”, PoliticalBetting.com. http://www6.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/06/21/comres-finds-little-support-for-public-sector-strikes/
Participatory Democracy Preserves our Natural Liberty

Representative democracy is oppressive because it takes more power away from the people than is strictly necessary. Whilst a completely direct democracy is impractical, we should nevertheless recognise that there is no reason not to have as much direct democracy as possible. In the words of Herbert Marcuse, “Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves”.[1] The key point is that merely holding an election every four years does not fundamentally alter our state of subservience: at election time, we are given a choice of three or four manifesto programmes on an all-or-nothing basis, manifestos which may never be honoured. The only power over our government we as citizens have is the power to punish politicians retrospectively, by voting them out after years of obeying them. It is quite possible to create an authoritarian system that has regular representative elections, even with several competitive candidates and yet still not be giving power to the people, as is shown by Iran.[2] This is wrong. The presumption should always be that the people keep as much power over their own lives and hand as little to their masters as possible because they never get to consent to the powers that rule them. Given that we are born under governments which exist whether we like it or not, it as an offense to our natural liberty and equality that those governments should hold any more power over us than is absolutely necessary. Besides, when the interests of the state are not the interests of the people, we have the government of the few over the rest.[3] [1] Marcuse, H. (1991). One Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press [2] Gedmin, J. (1 March 2013) “Not All Elections Are Worthy of the Name” Foreign Policy. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/01/not_all_elections_are_worthy_of_the_name [3] Pocock, J.G.A. (1975). The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition. Princeton (N.J.): Princeton University Press
Participatory forms of Democracy Can Restore Trust in Politics

Representative systems struggle to sustain popular trust, which is bad for democracy. Public trust in politics always tends to be dented by three specific features of representative systems. Firstly, the perception of elite influence over the political process is a largely unavoidable feature of electoral democracy because such elites are easily placed to manipulate politics, even if they do not actually do so. Secondly, the spotlight in representative democracy is on individual politicians (rather than on policies) and consequently exposing scandals and smearing the characters of politicians is an essential part of the political game: media coverage of politicians is largely hostile (particularly problematic if it diverts discussion from the merits and demerits of particular policies). A third feature of the system is that, since public opinion has no direct power, unpopular decisions don’t have to be properly justified. Governments often defy public opinion when they think a policy will pay off in the long run, and often they don’t really bother explaining why they are doing so (a good example of this is Gordon Brown’s signing of the Lisbon treaty in 2007). These three factors all tend to undermine trust in politics in representative systems. Trust is essential for democracy because without it people will not bother following politics or voting, leaving the door open for elites and aggressive minorities to wield undue influence. A clear example of this phenomenon is in the United States, where Christian fundamentalists – despite being a minority – wield enormous power. The reason for this is that turnout in American elections is very low, whilst fundamentalist Christians are politically very active and organised, allowing them huge influence.
Participatory Democracy Produces Better Decisions

Participatory democracy will lead to better decisions because laws will only be passed if they can be justified to the people. Professional politicians are disproportionately drawn from the privileged classes and are often ignorant of the effects their policies will have on ordinary people – as are the civil servants who advise them. Moreover, professional politicians are susceptible to corruption, lobbying or bullying by powerful vested interests seeking to direct government policy away from the general interest represented by the vast majority of the individual citizens, who generally lack such a determinant influence over the decision-making. Participatory democracy will therefore make sure that the legislation that is passed will help the people as much as possible; for example they will limit unecessary bureaucracy and make sure that policies are fair. Thus for example Switzerland has passed with 68% of the vote in a referendum  a proposal that prevents big payouts for managers known as ‘golden handshakes’ and ‘golden parachutes’ and shareholders will have a veto over saleries.[1] [1] Willsher, K., and Inman, P. (3 March 2013) “Voters in Swiss referendum backs curbs on executives’ pay and bonuses” The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/03/swiss-referendum-executive-pay
Referenda Produce Snap Decisions

Referendums will lead to poor-quality snap decisions. The problem with referendums is that they are called and voted on quickly, without a series of lengthy parliamentary debates or review by committees. This means that decisions are essential made by short-term popular opinion. This is a problem because there are many policies that are painful and unpopular in the short term but essential in the long run, such as cutting unaffordable public debts. Under representative democracy, governments can make these tough decisions and hope that they pay off before the next election. Harmful short-termism is particularly likely because voters, unlike professional politicians, may lack the technical or economic expertise to realise the necessity of adopting long-term solutions. A clear example is the effect of referenda over the fiscal policy in California.[1] Then, when short-terminism is at the heart of political decisions in a given society, it becomes very difficult to govern. Furthermore, it establishes a more instable political ground for the future generations, who may suffer from the irresponsible political measures adopted by their predecessors, for example inheriting disproportionate amounts of public debt. [1] Plunkett, J. (18 April 2010) “Would California-style referendums be good for Britain?” guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/18/general-election-2010-california