Etienne Chouard. — Part III (Lyon Conference) Mars 2012 - "Is Democracy a trap ? " Roots of our political impotency.
-
0:44 - 0:49- I would like to have a say.
-
0:49 - 0:51My opinion is close to the one of Alexandre.
-
0:51 - 0:54It's true that a few of us are starting to look into
-
0:54 - 0:59democracy and what you've been saying. It's also true that most people,
-
0:59 - 1:0190%, don't care at all about it.
-
1:01 - 1:05Would a solution be that all become citizens or
-
1:05 - 1:11that we make a distinction between citizens and civilians?
-
1:11 - 1:17To be a citizen, that implies duties against which
-
1:17 - 1:22we receive rights. At the same time, being a citizen as you have exposed
-
1:22 - 1:27requires to be volunteer, so you have to take the first step.
-
1:27 - 1:30I think that we should have a distinction between citizens and civilians,
-
1:30 - 1:33but with a fundemental principle:
-
1:33 - 1:37all civilian who wishes to do so can become a citizen.
-
1:37 - 1:41This principle could never be revoked by anyone,
-
1:41 - 1:46law or religion, it's a fundemental principle.
-
1:46 - 1:50And there you could have 10% of citizens and 90% of civilians or
-
1:50 - 1:5590% of citizens and 10% of civilians. In my opinion, we need this distinction.
-
1:55 - 1:56- That's actually very attractive.
-
1:56 - 2:00- I would even go as far as to say that this distinction is useful because civilians,
-
2:00 - 2:03other people, consumers, to become citizens.
-
2:03 - 2:06If we make a distinction, desire will rise from it.
-
2:06 - 2:09- Absolutely. I completly agree. I actually find it...
-
2:09 - 2:12...sorry, I keep on using the word, but I find it very...
-
2:12 - 2:16- ...sexy!
-
2:16 - 2:19- Absolutly. And still, it's not politically correct.
-
2:19 - 2:22It looks really a lot like active/passive citizens.
-
2:22 - 2:25It looks like censitary suffrage. I'm sure that it's not what you have imagined,
-
2:25 - 2:27that is that the criteria isn't money.
-
2:27 - 2:32- No, but you would have a Rule of Law, civilians would submit
-
2:32 - 2:36to the same rules as citizens. [...]
-
2:36 - 2:38- You should actually take a microphone so that you can be recorded
-
2:38 - 2:40because it's very interesting.
-
2:40 - 2:42- Since civilians don't have weapons
-
2:42 - 2:45and also bare no responsibility, they would not have the right to decide,
-
2:45 - 2:47by that I mean they will not obtain power.
-
2:47 - 2:48That's the only distinction.
-
2:48 - 2:52- No weapons, obligation to obey, protective rights to be sure
-
2:52 - 2:54that the majority won't squash them...
-Yes, of course. -
2:54 - 2:57- ...and the possibility - and that's real important - to step into the side
-
2:57 - 3:02of citizens, to the only condition of being ready for it.
-
3:02 - 3:06Maybe to have learned for it, a permit? So you have learned a minimum about the institutions
-
3:06 - 3:10and democratic values. Then you'd be capable.
-
3:10 - 3:15If it is really open entry and that there isn't
-
3:15 - 3:18a huge "entry process" that would be insurmountable. If someone who tries sincerly,
-
3:18 - 3:21or even modestly, manages to become a citizen, then I find it attractive.
-
3:21 - 3:26It let's people who don't want to stay at peace. It would be a regime where we have...
-
3:26 - 3:30Tonight, we're moving forward. This is something important.
-
3:30 - 3:35This would let us have a system where the 90% who don't care
-
3:35 - 3:40would have a protected spot against injustice.
-
3:40 - 3:42Those people are in fact people who don't want to have a chief.
-
3:42 - 3:46Excuse me, it's citizens who don't want to have a leader.
-
3:46 - 3:48Civilians (in your words) are people who want a good leader.
-
3:48 - 3:51They want a good master. They don't want to be free.
-
3:51 - 3:56There are many people like that. And with those, how do you build a society ?
-
3:56 - 3:59Probably with two parallel speeds. But one gear can switch to the next one easily.
-
3:59 - 4:02That doesn't seem shocking to me, nor unfair.
-
4:02 - 4:05When you feel like you want to take part in politics, you switch sides
-
4:05 - 4:09and become a citizen with rights and duties.
-
4:09 - 4:14- I'll just tag along that idea
-
4:14 - 4:17- Some amongst you never speak up so maybe we can...
-
4:17 - 4:20Actually, maybe I should stop talking.
-
4:20 - 4:29- 90% or 20% or even 50%, will the people in power, the 1%, let us get that far?
-
4:29 - 4:32- Ah very good point and it's sure they'll try everything to stop us.
-
4:32 - 4:33That is a real objection.
-
4:33 - 4:34- Our actual system, in short.
-
4:34 - 4:37- Yes and it's an objection, but maybe we should keep it for last.
-
4:37 - 4:42My way of bringing forward a solution,
-
4:42 - 4:46or what seems to me as a possibility, is the viral way. I'll just point it out shortly
-
4:46 - 4:50so you see where I am getting at.
-
4:50 - 4:52I don't beleive that we'll rise up today.
-
4:52 - 4:55Today, we'll just loose. We aren't enough to fight it, they are just too strong
-
4:55 - 4:58and with that in balance, we wouldn't win. What I am saying is
-
4:58 - 5:03that if we manage to have a simple idea, a powerful idea, and that it takes all
-
5:03 - 5:07the injustices at their root. All or almost all, Alain.
-
5:07 - 5:10You'll still have some, I know. But still, imagine that we solve many
-
5:10 - 5:15by making ourselves powerful enough to resist to injustice.
-
5:15 - 5:19Imagine that we manage to pass on the message amongst our mists.
-
5:19 - 5:22Each time that we gather, we are fourty, fifty, sixty, a hundred.
-
5:22 - 5:26Even if we are twenty! Imagine even if we are ten!
-
5:26 - 5:30Imagine that you alone manage a factor 10 each time that you are busy
-
5:30 - 5:34spreading the word to other "white blood cells". You convince them,
-
5:34 - 5:37and not in one go, you'll have to come at it again, see them twice or thrice.
-
5:37 - 5:41You work on it because there is a desintoxication period.
-
5:41 - 5:45We've been trained a lifetime to beleive the opposite of democracy.
-
5:45 - 5:50And what we are discovering on our own, you won't convince people in one night.
-
5:50 - 5:55You'll have to discuss, come back, find elements so that the debate picks up flavour,
-
5:55 - 5:59that people want it. People from whom we received critisim,
-
5:59 - 6:05they must want to come back for more. Find the way to touch them. Let's imagine you have a factor ten.
-
6:05 - 6:09It will become exponential. And an exponential grows very fast.
-
6:09 - 6:15A viral idea is made possible with the help of Internet
-
6:15 - 6:22- and that's as long as we still have it so we must hurry - it could work.
-
6:22 - 6:27If we are thousands to want this - which isn't the case now -
-
6:27 - 6:32but if we are thousands to want this, we'll have it without bloodshed.
-
6:32 - 6:35The people who took power after the Revolution, they manage when we're tens of thousands...
-
6:35 - 6:37It's insane: that's a lot of people, tens of thousands.
-
6:37 - 6:40You should see pictures of the Commune of Paris.
-
6:40 - 6:42The people of Paris must have thought: "We're invulnerable".
-
6:42 - 6:48The streets were full of people fraternizing. They feared no one anymore.
-
6:48 - 6:52- They were more than 500 000 in Greece (nowadays), and that didn't change anything.
-
6:52 - 6:54- And it didn't change much. So I'm talking about millions.
-
6:54 - 6:57We need to be many. And that's not all. They were 500 000 in Greece
-
6:57 - 7:05but they were scattered! At the moment, we need a bond.
-
7:05 - 7:10We're missing a common ideal. A central idea that we know
-
7:10 - 7:12is common and we know we shouldn't deviate from.
-
7:12 - 7:14We can still talk about all the other issues, for sure,
-
7:14 - 7:17but there should be that one thing we won't negociate or compromise:
-
7:17 - 7:20"We don't want professionals for the Constitutional Assembly."
-
7:20 - 7:22We can debate, but this point won't be subject to debate.
-
7:22 - 7:27If that is our bond, that would really be something.
-
7:27 - 7:31When you read Marx, you find many interesting ideas
-
7:31 - 7:34but there, in a sens, he completly failed.
-
7:34 - 7:41He says nothing about the constitutional process. For him, the Constitution is the result.
-
7:41 - 7:44That was a consequence of the balance of power. He's right in a way.
-
7:44 - 7:49But he's wrong because it is the tool that changes the balance of power.
-
7:49 - 7:53Hey! There should be something that should get you thinking
-
7:53 - 7:56when banks write the Constitution.
-
7:56 - 7:59Why do they write the Constitution? They're less ignorant than we are.
-
7:59 - 8:02We say: "It's the result of a balance of power,
-
8:02 - 8:05we don't need to take care of it. It will automatically come from a change in the balance of power."
-
8:05 - 8:08Banks are less ignorant: they write the European Constitution.
-
8:08 - 8:11It was written by them. They understood that it was the core piece to be played.
-
8:11 - 8:17The Gendarmes obey to the Constitution.
The Army obeys the Constitution. -
8:17 - 8:22Policemen are very "legalistic". They obey the Constitution.
-
8:22 - 8:32"Your conference is too long." I hope I'm not boring you all? You guys are great.
-
8:32 - 8:39You can write to me on the website if it's getting late and we...
-
8:39 - 8:41- The banks...
-
8:41 - 8:45- Yes. The bankers write the Constitution. Policemen obey the Constitution.
-
8:45 - 8:49If we find the way, not to write a perfect Constitution,
-
8:49 - 8:54but a Constitution with our ideas even if it's not perfect.
-
8:54 - 8:59That's the core that we need to spread to others.
-
8:59 - 9:01We need to convince that it will work because we'll be many.
-
9:01 - 9:06I'm sure that since it is a conflict of interest with people
-
9:06 - 9:09who want us to be powerless, who write those rules.
-
9:09 - 9:14In those rules, you can program our impotency
-
9:14 - 9:17or our strength. In the Constitution, you can program either our strength
-
9:17 - 9:21or our impotency. If that Constitution is written
-
9:21 - 9:24all around the world, during our history, by people who have a personal interest
-
9:24 - 9:31in our impotency... then you've found something. Marx for example never spotted it.
-
9:31 - 9:35I'm not completly anti-marxiste. It's complementary.
-
9:35 - 9:42I honestly beleive that the 99% will have finally the means to resist
-
9:42 - 9:48instead of abandoning power, at least that kind of power,
-
9:48 - 9:53because we abandoned the great power that defines how we will write the rules;
-
9:53 - 9:56and how we will be able to resist instead of being pushed out.
-
9:56 - 10:01We must never abandon that power. Even if you don't take part in politics.
-
10:01 - 10:04If you are here tonight, you're already taking part in a way. But what we need to say
-
10:04 - 10:10to those who don't do politics, and you're not concerned in this situation,
-
10:10 - 10:13but I receive every day emails from people who landed on the website by sheer luck.
-
10:13 - 10:17They saw a conference on Internet - and they didn't do politics before,
-
10:17 - 10:20they had renounced - and they write: "I've found something!
-
10:20 - 10:27I'm going to start looking at politics again!." This idea of taking the control back
-
10:27 - 10:32from the consitutional process, not the complete politics, is appealing.
-
10:32 - 10:35If you take control of the constituant by saying: "I'm going to watch out
-
10:35 - 10:39that those writing the rules, up there, aren't in a conflict of interest."
-
10:39 - 10:43You'll have many counter-powers put in place. Control systems
-
10:43 - 10:46that will make sure that they watch each other and that you, you can watch them.
-
10:46 - 10:49You'll have a lot less to fear in the end.
-
10:49 - 10:52If you're not interested, you won't need to
-
10:52 - 10:59do politics, you'll be more protected because you took care of the start process,
-
10:59 - 11:01instead of all the consequences. There's just too many of those to divide us.
-
11:01 - 11:04That squatter us. You will have taken care of the root. The only thing
-
11:04 - 11:11that should unite us. This fertile ground where all the injustice grow from.
-
11:11 - 11:14Our political impotency. And now you're wound up.
-
11:14 - 11:16Why is it that we are so powerless in the Constitution?
-
11:16 - 11:17Why is there such a bad Constitution?
-
11:17 - 11:18Because those who wrote it are in conflict of interest.
-
11:18 - 11:20How do we change that ? How can we not have conflict of interest ?
-
11:20 - 11:24Here you have climbed to the root of causes.
-
11:24 - 11:27I am giving you this image of roots where I find the cause of causes,
-
11:27 - 11:34the root that starts it all. The fact that there are politic professionals
-
11:34 - 11:38who have an interest in the Constitution. The Constitution, they should fear it.
-
11:38 - 11:43They shouldn't be writing it ! That's "Chouardesc".
-
11:43 - 11:45- Don't you think that, added to the control of the Constitution,
-
11:45 - 11:49we should also take control of "logos" [greek], of the field of words?
-
11:49 - 11:51- Of the Constitutional Counsel ? You mean those who apply the Constitution ?
-
11:51 - 11:55- No but of ourselves. It's like you said at the beginning
-
11:55 - 11:58of the conference: the fact that nowadays, the words have their opposite meaning.
-
11:58 - 12:07"Democracy" for example.
- Ah yes, that's for sure
- We should also reaquire the lexical fields. -
12:07 - 12:09The "Logos". I am under the impression that we are going more and more towards
-
12:09 - 12:12a world like George Orwell described with the "Newspeak".
-
12:12 - 12:14The terms have completly been hackneyed, transformed.
-
12:14 - 12:16They don't mean anything anymore.
-
12:16 - 12:21- Of course, of course, of course.
- [...] -
12:21 - 12:24- Alright. Let's give ourselves 20 minutes and then there's a small pot luck.
-
12:24 - 12:2920 minutes? That's awfully short.
-
12:29 - 12:33In Grenoble, at the end of December, we finished at 1:30 AM.
-
12:33 - 12:35We had eyes like that. We didn't fall asleep neither!
-
12:35 - 12:37We finished at 1:30 AM because we really had to stop.
-
12:37 - 12:46- I'll rebound on Boris' idea and go in the same direction:
-
12:46 - 12:49we all agree on how it is now. It's not good.
-
12:49 - 12:52I start more with the idea that we shouldn't seperate
-
12:52 - 12:58but do a fusion of politics, economy and history and make one same job out of it.
-
12:58 - 13:01But you'd need that the voters be technical people.
-
13:01 - 13:05That is that they only get to vote for the people taking part in the discussions
-
13:05 - 13:09and who become technicians. By using this method, the whole debate will change.
-
13:09 - 13:11Those who actually will become candidates,
-
13:11 - 13:15they won't have a passionate speech like "Get France at work",
-
13:15 - 13:17they'll actually have a very technical speech, because they will know
-
13:17 - 13:21that their audience, those electing them, are also technical.
-
13:21 - 13:24They will have way pro's and con's ant that they won't be fools
-
13:24 - 13:29like those who actually don't care and who are completly influenced
-
13:29 - 13:32by current marketing technics.
-
13:32 - 13:33- That's a good argument, but...
-
13:33 - 13:39- Anyone can be a technicians
-
13:39 - 13:40when they come in.
-
13:40 - 13:43- They are trained to become technicians ?
- That's it. -
13:43 - 13:48- You've got something there that's attractive and repulsive at the same time.
-
13:48 - 13:51It's attractive because it's true
-
13:51 - 13:55that technicians will probably be less passionate.
-
13:55 - 13:59But finaly, I beleive that's it's a bait.
-
13:59 - 14:03Right now, we are in a government of technicians. And it's horrible.
-
14:03 - 14:06- I meant the people become technicians.
- You're not using the correct wording. -
14:06 - 14:08- People who at least are interested by something.
-
14:08 - 14:10- It's actually coming back to Boris' idea, here.
-
14:10 - 14:11- It's going in his direction.
-
14:11 - 14:13- Yes but it's not necessarily technician. I find that
-
14:13 - 14:17the bet the Athenians made that says that political skill doesn't exist,
-
14:17 - 14:22that political technic doesn't exist, is a good one. We're all capable to taste chicken
-
14:22 - 14:24and say: "It's good, it's bad". And still, we're incapable of
-
14:24 - 14:29making it good or bad. It's an image of Alain in "Words about the powers"
-
14:29 - 14:32It must be the best book I have ever read - and I've read many -
-
14:32 - 14:35but I honestly beleive it to be the best in the world. I'm just slightly exagerating
-
14:35 - 14:37because I'd probably put two or three up there,
-
14:37 - 14:41but the "Words about the powers" is just a marvel, a real marvel.
-
14:41 - 14:45He talked about the objection about skill. He said:
-
14:45 - 14:48" It's not reasonable to get tricked by..."
-
14:48 - 14:52He didn't use those exact words but it's not normal that parlementarians
-
14:52 - 14:56should trick the voter into beleiving that they are skilled and we aren't.
-
14:56 - 15:02He takes the image of the politics' consumer that are the citizens
-
15:02 - 15:06who have delegated to the parlementarians in exchange of services,
-
15:06 - 15:09and who say: "I am well capable of knowing that what you have now given me isn't good,
-
15:09 - 15:12and that you need to be punished even if I am not technician. I'll just say
-
15:12 - 15:18you have not achieved your result." There is another image when he talks about
-
15:18 - 15:24knowing who is the master of the ship. He says: "Yes, maybe that we need
-
15:24 - 15:27technicians at the parlement who are the ships' captain,
-
15:27 - 15:32who know how to navigate the ship, be we are the ships' owner."
-
15:32 - 15:33That is we say where the ship has to go.
-
15:33 - 15:36Captains don't decide of the destination of their ship, owners do. Images let you understand.
-
15:36 - 15:40In my eyes, the technician, it's just like Keynes said: "Economists,
-
15:40 - 15:42fly to the back seat! They're not going to have the steering wheel!"
-
15:42 - 15:46Technicians should be the same. They shouldn't hold the steering wheel.
-
15:46 - 15:49Otherwise we'll end up with Big Brother. But at the same time, I understand your point.
-
15:49 - 15:53- You're mixing economist, banker, and financial people.
-
15:53 - 15:54- It's all the same to me.
-
15:54 - 15:57- No, an economist is someone who has worked, who has theories,
-
15:57 - 16:01with books of thousands of pages, and who has as goal
-
16:01 - 16:05to get the folk richer, with social justice. Economists
-
16:05 - 16:09work towards that. It's nothing to do with financial people and bankers
-
16:09 - 16:10who try to scratch every penny off our backs.
-
16:10 - 16:13- The immense majority of economists are payed off by finance people
-
16:13 - 16:21and by sales people who try to legitimiate the domination by the rich.
-
16:21 - 16:23You have exceptions, but globally, economists are...
-
16:23 - 16:26- I think that the first thing we should do, is to try and make people realise
-
16:26 - 16:32that they are in pure political consumption nowadays.
-
16:32 - 16:35They should see that there is another way to see politics. That would already be a step.
-
16:35 - 16:41To make them realise that we can act at our own level.
-
16:41 - 16:45- Yes, but you must hear Alexander as well because I've also lived through it.
-
16:45 - 16:49Many times. There are many people,
-
16:49 - 16:51when you come and talk politics, who say: "Wait a second, you've just talked about politics here.
-
16:51 - 16:54I've listened to you because we're friends. But don't
-
16:54 - 16:57do this to me a second time, otherwise I'll just never come again."
-
16:57 - 17:01They just don't want to hear about it at all. They want to hear about soccer,
-
17:01 - 17:04television and so on. And still, they vote. So Boris' idea is a very good one.
-
17:04 - 17:06- They've done everything so that it is that way.
-
17:06 - 17:09- Watch out, watch out! No, please, watch out.
-
17:09 - 17:13In what Boris has said, there is something very important.
-
17:13 - 17:17Actually a couple of things. That is that civilians must be protected.
-
17:17 - 17:19What we called "civilians" anyhow. I like the word, I had never used it like that.
-
17:19 - 17:22Why not ? But you could use "electing citizen".
-
17:22 - 17:25That is civilians who are voters.
-
17:25 - 17:27- Why do you need to make a distinction?
-
17:27 - 17:29- You have to. People aren't the same.
-
17:29 - 17:32- Are we equal as human beings?
-
17:32 - 17:35- What do you mean? Please try to develop
-
17:35 - 17:36your thought. What do you mean by that?
-
17:36 - 17:41- We aren't equal.
- We aren't equal in the will that we put into things. -
17:41 - 17:46- If you have civilians on one side and citizens on the other, you have no equality.
-
17:46 - 17:48- What is your name?
-
17:48 - 17:49- Monique.
-
17:49 - 17:55- Monique, can we not say that we are all equals
-
17:55 - 17:59in the sens that we all have the right to become citizen whenever we want ?
-
17:59 - 18:05Monique, this isn't a twist and twirl. It's not a political lie
-
18:05 - 18:08that hides a non when it said yes or the opposite. It's just true.
-
18:08 - 18:13Is it not a true liberty, a true equality to say:
-
18:13 - 18:19" As long as you don't want to, you aren't, and when you wan, you will be. "
-
18:19 - 18:23Is that not an equality ? We don't have to all do the same things, Monique.
-
18:23 - 18:26- It's like becoming French, you need to choose. That's just wrong to have to choose.
-
18:26 - 18:27- Yes, but it's the same.
-
18:27 - 18:30- I don't agree with that.
-
18:30 - 18:31- Why does it bother you?
-
18:31 - 18:32- I find it shocking..
-
18:32 - 18:34- It's not just the French. I think that all human beings in the world say that.
-
18:36 - 18:38- Either we're all citizens or we're not.
-
18:38 - 18:43- Then go operate on people as a doctor. And the next day, you'll see the result. You can't become
-
18:43 - 18:46a doctor overnight. However each of us has equal chances.
-
18:46 - 18:49If you want to become a doctor like him, you can.
-
18:49 - 18:54- No, Alexandre, that's not the objection. Alexandre
-
18:54 - 18:56that not a real objection because in politics, there are no skills.
-
18:56 - 19:00You can't compare with a doctor. It's not the correct answer.
-
19:00 - 19:03Because it's not a question of skill, it's a question of will.
-
19:03 - 19:07The Doctor has a skill. The answer using the image of the doctor
-
19:07 - 19:10does not fit to answer Monique. Monique says:
-
19:10 - 19:14"Wait a second. We're equal or we aren't equal. If we're equal,
-
19:14 - 19:17don't start making political distinctions between people."
-
19:17 - 19:22And you say: "You have to admit that we aren't equal.
-
19:22 - 19:25The doctor has a skill that you must reconize."
-
19:25 - 19:29The democractes in Athens, they didn't say
-
19:29 - 19:32that you needed to randomnly pick someone to be a doctor.
-
19:32 - 19:34- It's not equality of knowledge.
-
19:34 - 19:37- What Monique is asking for is political equality, not equality of knowledge.
-
19:37 - 19:50But Monique, that's actually very interesting. It's a very interesting and important subject.
-
19:50 - 19:55- For me, equality isn't equality of chances or equality of will.
-
19:55 - 19:58We aren't all equal in regards to the will
-
19:58 - 20:02that we can have towards an object. You need to want it.
-
20:06 - 20:10- We are all equal, we are all...
-
20:10 - 20:13- Monique
-
20:13 - 20:14- You shouldn't have to impose equality, simply.
-
20:14 - 20:20- Monique, what Boris is saying isn't a political inequality.
-
20:20 - 20:24It's not saying politically, we're not equal. He say that there is a political equality
-
20:24 - 20:26but a inequality of will.
-
20:26 - 20:34- I'm not skilled! I've heard about you three weeks ago,
-
20:34 - 20:39I haven't graduated highschool, I'm not skilled. I paint buildings. I don't know anything.
-
20:39 - 20:45I know nothing. What I want to say is: Boris, you have people like me
-
20:45 - 20:48who aren't skilled. We are several like this.
-
20:48 - 20:49- But you are skilled because you are here.
-
20:49 - 20:54- No, I am not skilled. I didn't want to bother with politics. I'm in the 99%.
-
20:54 - 20:56- And yet you are here. You're here.
-
20:56 - 20:58- I'm happy because it started to interest me. There is something
-
20:58 - 21:04that spoke to me.
- Because you want it.
- I am motivated. -
21:04 - 21:07- Because you are here, your vote counts more than that of someone who isn't here.
-
21:07 - 21:09That's all. That's what we're trying to say.
-
21:09 - 21:12- That's why it's very important not to talk about skill, Alexandre.
-
21:12 - 21:16- I am not against it. What I mean is that I think there is a problem.
-
21:16 - 21:16- A problem of wording.
-
21:26 - 21:28- You say that you've followed what he's been doing for 6 years. I have been for 3 weeks.
-
21:28 - 21:32- I have wrongly chosen my words. But I honestly think that someone like you
-
21:32 - 21:35is more apt to vote than someone who never came at all.
-
21:35 - 21:37- Because she wants it. Because she wants it.
-
21:37 - 21:40But it's true, Monique. You see how it holds together?
-
21:40 - 21:42- What is bothering you, Monique?
-
21:42 - 21:44- For me, it's not unequal. That's why it's getting me angry
-
21:44 - 21:46because we say it's unequal. For me, the fact that you are here,
-
21:46 - 21:51is the proof that it has nothing to do with social background. It's the will to want it.
-
21:51 - 21:54Just to want it is simply enough as criteria. If you don't want it,
-
21:54 - 21:57then you should be able to vote because it's a weapon of mass destruction
-
21:57 - 22:02to let someone who doesn't care vote.
-
22:02 - 22:16- What is bothering you, Monique?
- Look, political extremists, they have the will. -
22:16 - 22:26- Why are you talking about extremists? You have the far right, the far left, the center.
-
22:26 - 22:28- We're talking about the will to be citizen or not.
-
22:28 - 22:34- Yes.
-
22:34 - 22:38- They're in the dark. Can someone put a light on?
-
22:38 - 22:48- How can you judge the aptitude,
-
22:48 - 22:52what is necessary to become a citizen?
-
22:52 - 22:59Because we're talking about personal aptitude.
-
22:59 - 23:04- We're talking about the will! If they want it, only if they want it.
-
23:04 - 23:10- And someone who doesn't have the will. It's a question of education...
-
23:10 - 23:16Each of us, how come we are who we are? How do you end up being interested
-
23:16 - 23:19and how are you capable of making the distinction between a civilian and a citizen?
-
23:19 - 23:24- The idea is to put marketing aside and it's influence on us,
-
23:24 - 23:26on the people who don't care. Those people come to vote
-
23:26 - 23:30and they are undecided, voting yes or no on a hunch.
-
23:30 - 23:33" That one is pretty, I'll vote yes or no. " And in the end,
-
23:33 - 23:37he could do a lot more damage than good. But if you are interested...
-
23:37 - 23:42- I find that you are making too many jugements.
-
23:42 - 23:44- Let her give an anwer.
-
23:50 - 23:53- It's a beautiful ping-pong here. But it would be grand
-
23:53 - 23:56if you didn't talk simultanously. It's really a great exchange.
-
23:56 - 24:00Very interesting. But we should develop a sort of discipline.
-
24:00 - 24:04When one is talking, no one else talks.
-
24:04 - 24:07Every time, it's very interesting. One questions and then another answers.
-
24:07 - 24:09But then the first needs to answer back because it's not finished.
-
24:09 - 24:13Monique hasn't finished. She needs to be able to defend her point of view.
-
24:13 - 24:16But please don't talk at the same time.
-
24:16 - 24:19I can impose my speech because I have a microphone here but
-
24:19 - 24:23you guys don't have one. So you need to listen closely to hear. It's important
-
24:23 - 24:28that we all stop talking when you are in a ping-pong debate. It's very interesting what you've been saying
-
24:28 - 24:32and I'm sure it's just a question of wording. It's actually quite defendable to have the idea
-
24:32 - 24:36of multiple regimes. A little bit like when we accept
-
24:36 - 24:41that someone doesn't go voting. We give him the right not to vote
-
24:41 - 24:46and he uses his power only when he votes. Monique, is that it ? No?
-
24:46 - 24:51You don't force them to vote?
- Not at all.
- Then it's the same here. -
24:51 - 24:55The guy who isn't a citizen, he can become one.
-
24:55 - 24:58- Why give a particular name to the guy who doesn't vote?
-
24:58 - 25:02- Because there is power for those
-
25:02 - 25:07who are citizens and who want it. But you can solve this.
-
25:07 - 25:10They are imagining a position / status. In my opinion
-
25:10 - 25:14when you have a large assembly and people come like in Athens
-
25:14 - 25:17depending on what the subject is... you already have the distinction.
-
25:17 - 25:18- Yes, exactly.
-
25:18 - 25:22- So you don't need a position / status, Boris. You see what I mean ?
-
25:22 - 25:26If we vote our laws, that is that we stop accepting
-
25:26 - 25:29to be represented. We say: "We don't want representatives anymore,
-
25:29 - 25:33we want to vote our laws ourselves." Then, when we assemble,
-
25:33 - 25:37neighbourhood by neighbourhood, town by town, we vote directly our laws.
-
25:37 - 25:41In that case, we are exactly in the situation you already know.
-
25:41 - 25:44What you already accept. People come to vote if they want to,
-
25:44 - 25:47and you won't force the others. Come to vote those who want.
-
25:47 - 25:49Thos who come are those who want. Those are your citizens.
-
25:49 - 25:51You don't need to tag them with a name or not.
-
25:51 - 25:53- What you're advising is the final goal. I would like
-
25:53 - 25:55that we reach it.
-
25:55 - 25:55- And you don't need a special name tag for it.
-
25:55 - 25:59- But in the mean time, you need a politic, let us say, of "evangelisation" of the citizens.
-
26:04 - 26:06- That's not the right word!
- What you're looking for is a lever. -
26:06 - 26:10- Don't take it personnaly, it's just a word.
-
26:10 - 26:13- You need a distinction, you need two tags at start to motivate people.
-
26:13 - 26:17To make them citizens. You need to motivate civilians to transform them into Citizens.
-
26:17 - 26:22- Boris, you do get the feeling that... I understand your aptitude.
-
26:22 - 26:25You count on the aristoractic aspect
-
26:25 - 26:27but aristocratic in the good sens of the word.
-
26:27 - 26:29It's like the legion of honor (NT: french honorary medal).
-
26:29 - 26:30- Yes, exactly.
-
26:30 - 26:32- a sort of diploma to make people want it.
-
26:32 - 26:34To make them want to take part because people are touched by
-
26:34 - 26:38medals. Others see that as discrimination.
-
26:38 - 26:41They say: "Wait, you have two categories of citizens here."
-
26:41 - 26:43You'll have, like they used to say during the French Revolution,
-
26:43 - 26:47and it was shameful, you had active citizens, those who voted,
-
26:47 - 26:51and passive citizens who weren't worth anything. It's revolting.
-
26:51 - 26:54I know that's not what you're thinking of and still, that's what it suggests.
-
26:54 - 27:00"It's just too long, your involvment" - that's what the tag, the diploma suggests.
-
27:00 - 27:01In my eyes, we don't need it.
-
27:01 - 27:04- The will is The thing in the world best shared,
-
27:04 - 27:06everyone has will, what ever the social class you belong to, what ever the...
-
27:17 - 27:19- It's very interesting but I find that what you are proposing
-
27:19 - 27:24but it supposes that the problem is already solved.
-
27:24 - 27:27What shall we do if the people have already taken back political power
-
27:27 - 27:31and how shall we organise it? I think that what is more interesting,
-
27:31 - 27:36and in that case, you can imagine many positive, creative things and so on...
-
27:36 - 27:41...You see what I mean ?
-
27:41 - 27:43What I am more interested about is how to get the message through to the people.
-
27:43 - 27:47How to "snow ball effect" it all ? How we manage to federate each other
-
27:47 - 27:49to be white blood cells and put the tools in place together?
-
27:49 - 27:55To work with Internet, with a decentralised organisation. That's what is the core right now.
-
27:55 - 27:59And we need to think about the "form". How are we going to present things?
-
27:59 - 28:03The critism we receive it not on the core of random draw / common lot.
-
28:03 - 28:07It's more on the form. It the random draw
-
28:07 - 28:11really that essential thing? Or is it controling our elected representatives?
-
28:11 - 28:15And then again, short mandates, non-renewable,
-
28:15 - 28:20and sword of Damocles that should stay above them. So if we want a real movement
-
28:20 - 28:24where we pass ideas through, do we first talk about the random draw ?
-
28:24 - 28:29It seems essential in the constitutional process
-
28:29 - 28:31but then I think that it's rather on other ideas
-
28:31 - 28:33that we should focus that are far more important.
-
28:33 - 28:36And since we write "Central process: the random draw / common lot."
-
28:36 - 28:38you have to ask yourselves if, in the end, it is not less central
-
28:38 - 28:44than other elements. Second point, to finish,
-
28:44 - 28:47it's on the root of causes. I don't beleive there is a root to the causes,
-
28:47 - 28:49in the sens that the causality isn't linear, cartesian,
-
28:49 - 28:52but it is rather complex. There are multiple things
-
28:52 - 28:55who are going to co-create reality. So we have many points.
-
28:55 - 28:58So: is it the monetary system or is it
-
28:58 - 29:05the lack of attention towards who writes the Constitution? Or is it,
-
29:05 - 29:09as an example, rarety of goods?
Before, when bread was available -
29:09 - 29:12for 100 people, we'll all fight for it. It's mechanical.
-
29:12 - 29:15It always worked that way. We have erased rarety
-
29:15 - 29:20through technology. Today, we live in a society of abundance.
-
29:20 - 29:25of opulence sometimes, and we keep it going. So you have to think
-
29:25 - 29:28that our economical system and its' mechanisms and contingencies,
-
29:28 - 29:31but more it's mechanisms, are maintained for rarety
-
29:31 - 29:36to maintain the monetary system. It's Thorstein Veblen who said, at the beggining of the century,
-
29:36 - 29:41an institutionalist economist, who had a global vision of society:
-
29:41 - 29:44sociology, economy, politics, right, and so on,
-
29:44 - 29:49and he showed that there is a real paradox between the usage value and the merchant value.
-
29:49 - 29:54The usage value is what the engineers planned for it's use. The use you have
-
29:54 - 29:58for that good or service. The engineers will create the abundance (or try).
-
29:58 - 30:01To create systems that will produce more with less and so on.
-
30:01 - 30:05And the merchant value is, in fact, the law of offer and demand.
-
30:05 - 30:08The more abundant a good, the less it costs.
-
30:08 - 30:10The more rare a skill is, the higher its' price.
-
30:10 - 30:14I hope that you understand. The more it is abundant
-
30:14 - 30:16the less expensive it is and the less profit you can make.
-
30:16 - 30:20So you maintain the factories and the machines so they don't produce too much.
-
30:20 - 30:25The rarety is maintained by the economical system, by the logic of profit.
-
30:25 - 30:31That's also central. So let's come back
-
30:31 - 30:34to economory rather than: what will we do
-
30:34 - 30:51when the problem is already solved?
-
30:51 - 30:54- I'll start with the second, the multifactorial.
-
30:54 - 30:58It's true that you have many factors involved and when you are searching the root of causes
-
30:58 - 31:03you won't find a unique cause. That's not what we're looking for: we're looking
-
31:03 - 31:09to heal a sickness. And the root of causes, it's amongst the very first ones
-
31:09 - 31:16-and it's true that you can have more than one- we're looking for at least a determining one.
-
31:16 - 31:23One that determines the others. That means, by definition, that if you change it, you change everything
-
31:23 - 31:26that runs from it. That's what we're looking for. So maybe you are right:
-
31:26 - 31:35maybe we'll find another way that the one I am suggesting which is to change the right of right
-
31:35 - 31:40to stop having a injuste right and get out of all the injustices.
-
31:40 - 31:46When I say that we have to reestablish our political power,
-
31:46 - 31:52I count on chance and multiplicity, the biodiversity of our requirements
-
31:52 - 31:58and of our strifes, once we have made ourselves powerful, we will be capable
-
31:58 - 32:01of correcting injustices. Or at least a great number of injustices.
-
32:01 - 32:04Because we will have solved something that is determining.
-
32:04 - 32:07I know that it's not everything
-
32:07 - 32:08I know very well that there are many factors.
-
32:08 - 32:13Our political prison has been built by the most rich
-
32:13 - 32:16because the 1% have started with the help of their wealth
-
32:16 - 32:22corrupting political actors now to make sure they become richer than rich.
-
32:22 - 32:30It's Bonaparte, and I musn't use curse words, that awful clown of Bonaparte,
-
32:30 - 32:31who pushed by the financial people who wanted to build the Bank of France,
-
32:31 - 32:35who won all the wars, because he got payed his wars.
-
32:35 - 32:40Because they helped him everywhere. Each time he has enemies, they get pushed aside.
-
32:40 - 32:42We fabricate his chance!
-
32:42 - 32:45Until on day, he sends it back your way and creates the Bank, called "Bank of France"
-
32:45 - 32:50but is in reality the beggining of the grand racketeering that put those people
-
32:50 - 32:53in control of the power all the time.
-
32:54 - 32:57I know that the starting point was wealth.
-
32:58 - 33:04But what multiplied by ten their wealth was universal suffrage.
-
33:04 - 33:10That's what let them, through parlementarians, to take control of the production of rights.
-
33:11 - 33:17If we get that, we'll boost it all. We might not
-
33:17 - 33:22get rid of the rich or cupidity, but at least we'll take away the turbo button from the engine.
-
33:22 - 33:28By taking away universal suffrage, after 200 years, we prove
-
33:28 - 33:31that it hasn't held up to it's promises. By taking away the turbo, by putting instead the random draw with all the counter-powers
-
33:31 - 33:38that go with it: we'll partially regain political power. It will help us solve the problems we have.
-
33:38 - 33:41I know that it's not a "cure-all", and I am not expecting perfection.
-
33:41 - 33:44Actually, I've answered your two points I think.
-
33:45 - 33:48Because when you say: "Random draw is not essential,
-
33:51 - 33:56nor central, it's controlling the elected representatives that is." The problem is that the control of the elected representatives
-
33:58 - 34:02you have to program it in a Constitution.
-
34:02 - 34:05Frédéric. It's Frédéric right ?
- Sebastien
- Sebastien, sorry -
34:05 - 34:11Sebastien, to get the control of the elected representatives. You'll have to write it in a Constitution.
-
34:11 - 34:14So you say: "The most imporant is the control of the elected representatives."
-
34:14 - 34:17That control, I've seen it as well. When I analysed,
-
34:17 - 34:20I said: "My political impotency, it comes from the fact that I can't control my elected representatives.
-
34:20 - 34:23Why can't I control them ? It's because I have a bad Constitution.
-
34:23 - 34:27Why do I have a bad Constitution? Because the elected representatives write it!"
-
34:27 - 34:31I understand what you are saying but for me, that's a starting point.
-
34:31 - 34:34It's one of the causes. And even better, it's one of the root of the causes.
-
34:34 - 34:40If you tell me: "You just need to control your representatives." I'll tell you: "Well yes." But how are you going to do that?
-
34:40 - 34:44If you don't solve the problem of who writes the Constitution, you let the representatives
-
34:44 - 34:46write the Constitution. You can wait ages that they write the control of the representatives.
-
34:46 - 34:49They never will! You see what I am saying? In that logic of multiple factors,
-
34:49 - 34:56you have determining factors. It is because the representatives write the Constitution that
-
34:56 - 34:59you don't see the control of representatives in the Constitution. Not the other way around!
-
34:59 - 35:07- For me, it's because we have rarety that we are obliged to organise ourselves with the market principle. You didn't have enough
-
35:07 - 35:11to distribute to everyone. Se we were obliged to enter a model with concurrence and competition.
-
35:12 - 35:15- What is the link between market system and who writes the Constitution ?
-
35:15 - 35:17- The root of causes of what ? The root of causes of our actual problems?
-
35:17 - 35:19- Of our political powerlessness!
-
35:19 - 35:20- Alright.
-
35:20 - 35:27- Of our political impotency to resist on money, to resist to rarety, to resist on the injust right of a company (on it's employees),
-
35:27 - 35:34to resist on... Our political impotency has a powerful cause that, in my opinion, can be solved with the random draw.
-
35:34 - 35:39- What he wants to say is that we might need, at a punctual moment, to have a mass of people randomnly chosen to write
-
35:39 - 35:46a robust Constitution. - A just one.
- Suffisiantly robust that we don't need to randomnly draw afterwards. Maybe that's what he's been trying to say. -
35:46 - 35:52- Absolutly! Absolutly! I agree with that! In my opinion, we'd still need some of it. We're not obliged to have a complete democracy.
-
35:52 - 35:59Not at all. I am becoming, progressively, without wanting to, a defender of that kind of regime.
-
35:59 - 36:05Because apparently, by explaining it I help make people understand what could help us to get out of this mess.
-
36:05 - 36:10Because it is things that have worked, that have been tested, ground, bettered over 200 years.
-
36:10 - 36:17We could really use it.
But in parallel to these thoughts about pure democracy, -
36:17 - 36:25true democracy, I also have many advanced thoughts, very varied, very documented on how to to improve the representative government.
-
36:25 - 36:31We'd keep elected representatives, we'd keep MPs, simply we'd control them a lot better.
-
36:31 - 36:37But I still need random draw / common lot for the Constitutional Assembly.
-
36:37 - 36:42Unless you find a better idea than the random draw to end up with desinterested Constitutional Assembly.
-
36:45 - 36:46- A royal dictatorship.
- Why not ? But you need garantees. -
36:46 - 36:47How ?
-
36:49 - 36:53- The problem of the Sauvé Report (NT: about conflict of interest in public society), MP's just sat on it. It's what I told you:
-
36:53 - 37:00ask representatives to write rules to which they have to submit. On conflict of interests in particular,
-
37:00 - 37:02you can see that it doesn't work.
-
37:07 - 37:13Our senators don't want to vote the law. The Nationale Assembly doesn't feel thrilled by it. So I'm completly with you on this.
-
37:15 - 37:21- So we agree to make it a priority ? Maybe not the only one,
-
37:21 - 37:23but a priority it's better when it's alone.
-
37:23 - 37:36A priority to solve maybe not all situations, Alain. Alain is gone ? - Yes.
- Rats... Well maybe not to solve all problems, -
37:36 - 37:38but to solve a great deal. Can we agree on the idea of a priority that would be...
- Changing the system. -
37:42 - 37:46- That is to impose, to put in what we want,
-
37:46 - 37:51a Constitutional Assembly without political professionals.
-
37:51 - 37:56People who don't want to be in power. We want that in the Constitution, we want people who
-
37:56 - 37:59renounce the futur power, first, then that they aren't professionals.
-
38:01 - 38:03Or is there something about this that bothers you ?
-
38:04 - 38:08- It goes already too far and Venezuela has prooved that even with professionals of politics,
-
38:08 - 38:09you can still achieve something a lot better than what we have
-
38:09 - 38:12today in France. Even if it isn't real democracy,
-
38:12 - 38:17they still have, through professionals who wrote the Constitution,
-
38:17 -they still voted it in.
- It's the people. They wrote it.
- Title:
- Etienne Chouard. — Part III (Lyon Conference) Mars 2012 - "Is Democracy a trap ? " Roots of our political impotency.
- Description:
-
PART VI : Debats
— An original proposition from Boris, debatted with Monique.
— A simple and powerful idea : «We don't want political professionals in the Constitutional Assembly.»
Discussions about :
- Importance of the constitution.
- Conflict of interest.
- The root of causes.
- Questions about skill and will to take part.Bibliography :
- Alain, Words about the powers. — Éditions Gallimard (1 january 1985).Etienne Chouard, independant researcher.
Conference in Lyon, on March 9th 2012. MJC St Just.
"Is Democracy a trap, an illusion ?"Mounting & Framing : Matthieu Wadoux — matwad@gmail.com
English translation : Dorian Faucon - hussard_noir@hotmail.com - Video Language:
- French
- Duration:
- 38:45
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie VI. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. | ||
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie VI. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. | ||
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie VI. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. | ||
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie VI. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. | ||
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie VI. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. | ||
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie VI. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. | ||
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie VI. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. | ||
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie VI. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. |