In the technique era, the concept of responsibility tends to lose its relevance or, at the very least, must be reformulated: it is the outcome of the intense investigation into the meaning of keywords or phrases such as “organization”, “complexity”, “organizational complexity”. The technique refers to the environment in which the organization, which is a technical apparatus, is designed and operates through its numerous actors.

In order to address the relationship between e-democracy, technique and politics, the meaning of each term must be identified. E-democracy only partly carries with it the essential core of the notion of democracy. Technique is the environment within which e-democracy unfolds. Its purpose is to appropriate technology. Politics are sets of particular aims at which the organised action of groups of individuals and interests tends. There are irreconcilable contradictions between e-democracy, technique and politics; and obvious dangers of e-democracy seen in the interactions between the three. These include manipulation of individuals; stratification between web users; exclusion of 'unable' users; the illusion of the spread of higher rates of democracy.

The article aims to analyze in a linguistic perspective the administrative measures taken by the government to deal with the health emergency. More specifically, the contribution highlights the linguistic difficulties as well as the poor understanding of regulatory texts, or of their provisions, which result from a fragmentary and hasty legislative technique. Hence the difficulty for interpreters, and especially for those called upon to apply the same rules, to have a stable regulatory framework over time, and such as to allow a smooth and timely application and implementation.