After a theoretical explanation of the notion of dialogue within the global frame that governance represent, Kalaora focuses several limits of its notions and particularly raises the question of acculturation to the pragmatism of the French socio-politic system against the notion of dialogue, and more largely of governance. These concepts or notions are born within an Anglo-Saxon framework of thought and action, where to act it is a fundamental condition of the reflexion and where the processes are worth more than outcomes. The author thus recalls that the bureaucratic and scientific formalism, and the tender of a participative process to a rigid framework, can override all other forms of action, at the point to carry out a concerted strategy in the dead end, and then to fortify the natural tendencies of the administration to fragmentation. Consequently, gathering traditional and representatives governmental forms and citizen’s logic of participation is an essential condition for setting up a "good governance". It’s therefore fundamental to understand governance as a space where are different values can be shared and discussed. B. Kalaora recalls that the consultation procedures are inevitably impregnated by the values assigned with the public action and rationalities which structure them: they are in keeping with the scope of the modernization of the public action and the governance. But consultion has multiple forms: Democratic procedures of consultation, flexible forms of coordinations, modes of decentralized management, use of the contract, convention, charter, partnership, subsidiarity, mediation... Until making creation of bonds between actors a finality. That results in the opening of the debate to a large audience rather than with the only experts: it is a way to extend the "thought" of the institutions for the decision-making. Consequently, the question is: is the concertation a new form of policy or a functional response to the dysfunctions of the traditional policies? For the author, the dialogue can exceed this only functional dimension (the compromise) while becoming a dynamic space of emergence of shared values where the personal projects compose with the collective requirements (by the identification of an ideal to be reached). The article covers then the various difficulties related to the coexistence in France of a prescriptive logic (centralized) and of a deliberative logic (decentralized): - unfolding of the political life and in particular questioning of the organization representative to the profit of the direct democracy; - contradiction between the administrative and hierarchical mode constitutive of the weight of the State and an opened mode, adaptive and which functions in network; - the difficulty of translating the new methods of the public action and which results in the diversion of the innovations rather than by refondement of the policy = the governorship like a "new look" of the public action, alibi marketing; The example of Natura 2000 shows a failure of the participation in the profit of the prescriptive lawful way, preventing any capacity of the individuals to adapt the step. In front of this failure, the government delegated the task to local operators. Results: sectoral treatment of the nature which results in patrolling the block instead of approach shared into terms of collective relation with. The possible initiatives taken by the publicly-owned establishments on the other hand did not receive a support on behalf of the State (example of the national parks opposite to their supervisions which did not anticipate an evolution of the executives of action) : - acculturation with pragmatism: tallies of thought and action in which to act it is a fundamental condition of the reflexion and where the processes are worth more than the results : to learn while making. However the centralised culture is prepared little with the action in the dubious one; perhaps the levelling value and french universalism lend themselves it badly to take into account with new values like particularism and equity; - dissymmetry between actors whose competences and resources cognitive and reflexive are unequally distributed; who is legitimate, how "to make speak" those which do not speak, how to represent the minorities? - to transform the dialogue into construction of compromise whose finality is immediate, instead of conceiving it like a means of making emerge new solutions and new forms of action which do not penalize the generations future.