Etienne Chouard. — Part V (Lyon Conference) Mars 2012 - "Is Democracy a trap ? " Roots of our political impotency.
-
0:37 - 0:41Are there rules for a debate? Because a political debate
-
0:41 - 0:46must not be polluted by certain stakeholders.
-
0:46 - 0:48- Are you talking about our debate or are you thinking about...?
-
0:48 - 0:49- No, not this one.
-
0:49 - 0:51- In a general sens?
-
0:51 - 0:52- Yes, on a general basis.
-
0:52 - 0:58- So in Athens, there was an assembly where all those who wanted
-
0:58 - 1:01could gather. So they were 30, 40, 50 thousand depending on the historical period.
-
1:01 - 1:05For example, they had the plague. 200 years is long so population changes and they didn't have population census.
-
1:05 - 1:11So it's an approximation that we have on the population of Athens. So they gathered
-
1:11 - 1:18and almost at every gathering, they were 6000. So that's quite an assembly.
-
1:18 - 1:256000 with no microphone. 6000 and all keep quiet. Only one talks at a time.
-
1:25 - 1:31You don't debate. It's not when you are about to vote that you are going to debate. Here, you vote.
-
1:31 - 1:36It's not when you vote that you debate the laws you're about to vote. It's the preliminary work
-
1:36 - 1:44of those randomnly drawn. Those randomnly chosen prepared teh laxs. Then, we talked about it on the Agora to know
-
1:44 - 1:48what were these laws. Then came the moment where you had to go and vote. Spokesmen came
-
1:48 - 1:54to defend. Some preached in favor, others against, one at a time. And people listened.
-
1:54 - 1:59So if you wish, in the Athenian Assembly, you didn't have a debate. You had a serie of speaches
-
1:59 - 2:06one after the other and then you voted. The citizens were autonomous. That is they wrote by themselves,
-
2:06 - 2:13they votes by themselves the laws to which they consented. That was the "raison d'être", the justification
-
2:13 - 2:18of democracy. It wasn't to abolish social injustices of Athenians.
-
2:18 - 2:25I didn't read anything saying so, at least. Simply, after 800 years of tyranny
-
2:25 - 2:31that had touched their soul, they were fed up with tyrants. They wanted to imagine
-
2:31 - 2:35a regime of political equality. I haven't forgotten your objections
-
2:35 - 2:38but let's go through the schematic first. So in the schematic you have as
-
2:38 - 2:44leaflet, you have two parts: the top and the bottom one.
-
2:44 - 2:49So I'll project it on the wall in the same way so people can read it (otherwise it'll be too small)
-
2:49 - 2:52So I'll first talk about the top section, then
-
2:52 - 2:57the bottom section. It's better when it's large so people have an easier read.
-
2:57 - 3:05Is it working. Is the projector working? Yes. The center of the schematic is the objective
-
3:05 - 3:10of the Athenians. So I'll tell you what I read about the Athenians (and I read quite a lot about them).
-
3:10 - 3:13I'll give you a couple of sources. Amazing and delicious ones,
-
3:13 - 3:18but that's my opinion. Don't hold a grudge against me
-
3:18 - 3:23if I'm wrong. We can all make mistakes. Those who say they don't make mistakes
-
3:23 - 3:29are liars. I'm sincerly searching. If you show me where I'm mistaken, you can
-
3:29 - 3:35see me change and adapt. I don't care about being right. I'm trying to imagine
-
3:35 - 3:41with you a system that works, a pragmatic system. I'm not an idealist. Alright, a little,
-
3:41 - 3:46maybe. I'm not trying to build a dream. I'm searching for something sturdy
-
3:46 - 3:51that would be possible. If I said "this will never work", I wouldn't even do it.
-
3:51 - 3:55I wouldn't bother with all these efforts. Yes?
-
3:55 - 3:59- I've been following your actions over the years and I see an evolution. Since you say
-
3:59 - 4:02that you are searching, I feel that you are becoming more and more technical
-
4:02 - 4:06and less and less human. I mean...
-
4:06 - 4:11Amongst the 99%,
-
4:11 - 4:14you can be sure that 90% just really don't care.
-
4:14 - 4:18And even if you give them power, they won't want it.
-
4:18 - 4:21- I don't want to give them power. They must want it.
-
4:21 - 4:26- The poster idea, I've tried it. 99% of the people coming home don't read it
-
4:26 - 4:32or simply don't ask. And the 1% are just to be polite. So it really needs to be pragmatical.
-
4:32 - 4:36In my eyes, democracy works because it's easy: you go and vote
-
4:36 - 4:40once every five years and then you can just be mad about it all you want, no one cares.
-
4:40 - 4:43- You mean the representative government, not democracy?
-
4:43 - 4:49- Yes, yes, sorry. So it's all good and well to want something good.
-
4:49 - 4:54I feel like we are heading towards a system
-
4:54 - 4:56where it just asks too much out of people.
-
4:56 - 4:57- Yes, that's a real possibility.
-
4:57 - 4:59- And you'd need a different education than ours...
-
4:59 - 5:04- Couldn't we work on this... Sorry, what is your name?
-
5:04 - 5:05- Alexandre.
-
5:05 - 5:10- Alexandre. Couldn't we work on this as a team, Alex? I understand you clearly.
-
5:10 - 5:18The more I work on this, the more technical I become. I have so many things
-
5:18 - 5:24to say that it's just really long to explain. It becomes accessible only to people
-
5:24 - 5:29who have put themselves to work. And that's just not many. Maybe 10% of the population if you're optimistic.
-
5:29 - 5:36I agree with you. But at the same time, it's not a lost battle.
-
5:36 - 5:41But you shouldn't count only on me. I don't feel like I am a the guy
-
5:41 - 5:48who brings something. I am more the small rock, the small mechanism
-
5:48 - 5:56in a group. Maybe I have reached a level that I am no longer easy to access
-
5:56 - 6:01because it's just complicated, it scares people who discover it all. I hear you and understand you.
-
6:01 - 6:09It must be others than I, like an Alexandre or a Paul. And they are going to simplify it all.
-
6:09 - 6:15Paul made a website without telling me about it. He told me once it was finished.
-
6:15 - 6:19When I discovered it, I said: "It's great! It's fabulous what he did!"
-
6:19 - 6:25He made a web site called "www.le-message.org". I've put up some screenshots.
-
6:25 - 6:32It's just 5-6 fabulous pages. It's light, it's "Sugar free". He condensed very simply,
-
6:32 - 6:38all the conferences and the texts that he read.
-
6:38 - 6:45He thought hard to condense it. He must have had the same objection as you: "Too much stuff
-
6:45 - 6:52on the website of Chouard. It's too much, you just get drowned by it."
-
6:52 - 6:57"So what's important in there?" And he just kept the essential part to bring people
-
6:57 - 7:03to the root of causes, the constitutional process, the message. We'll be able to change everything if we
-
7:03 - 7:06gather an assembly. If we make the same representative government as today, but
-
7:06 - 7:12that we right the rules. Anyone but the professionals of politics. The same things
-
7:12 - 7:15as today but with counter-powers everywhere. Our initiative
-
7:15 - 7:20that will block the system when we're unhappy. Even that, Alexander, it's already worth it!
-
7:20 - 7:26It's an easy thing. And so that, he made it. On his website "www.le-message.org",
-
7:26 - 7:35you should go and see, there are five short points, each with a paragraph
-
7:35 - 7:40of a couple lines, really light, and every word counts. The words you need
-
7:40 - 7:45to understand the logic. Point 1, Point 2, Point 3, so what we need is:
-
7:45 - 7:49a constitutional process where there are no professional politicians.
-
7:49 - 7:54And for it to work, we need to be many to want this. And it will solve many problems,
-
7:54 - 7:59most social injustices will drop in front of our political power
-
7:59 - 8:03that has not yet been seen. The people have never seen their political power, their capacity
-
8:03 - 8:10to resist ecological catastrophy, to corruption and so on. Allowing us to obtain
-
8:10 - 8:14our political power will let us solve the problem. So "le-message" brings you
-
8:14 - 8:19quickly, with an explanation much easier than mine, to this conclusion.
-
8:19 - 8:24So could we not work as a team? That is that I continue to dig deeper on the subject,
-
8:24 - 8:28finding objections to make sure that the system is sturdy and that we haven't
-
8:28 - 8:33forgotten anything: A loop hole, a latent defect, something we've missed.
-
8:33 - 8:42What you've brought up, Alexandre, in your objection is:
-
8:42 - 8:45"I manage to convince 10%, which is slightly more than the 1% doing politics,
-
8:45 - 8:51but 90% just don't care. That's terrible!"
Even when I try -
8:51 - 8:56to talk to them, they say: "Talk to me about something else or I'll just leave,
-
8:56 - 9:05and I won't come back!" Alright, for this, I don't have a solution. But to me,
-
9:05 - 9:13the answer to this is that it's nothing new. It already existed in Athens. In Athens, at the assembly,
-
9:13 - 9:19you couldn't find the 30 or 40 thousand citizens. Only 6 thousand came.
-
9:19 - 9:23The others just didn't care! And still, it worked fine. If you are unhappy about something,
-
9:23 - 9:28you go to the assembly, you vote, you debate. If you're happy with how things are, you just don't go.
-
9:28 - 9:31Things will move on without you, but that's fine. What is important
-
9:31 - 9:36in democracy it that it works town by town. This is the scale of democracy.
-
9:36 - 9:39Where you were talking about the scale, it should be the scale of a town.
-
9:39 - 9:45And in every town, come who wants to come. You are right, we won't have
-
9:45 - 9:51assemblies of 30 thousand people. We won't fill a stadium each time. We'll have small assemblies
-
9:51 - 9:56of 6 to 10 thousand people if all goes well, if we organise things well. Yes?
-
9:56 - 10:02- Yes, just to point out that out of the 6000 assembled at the Agora,
-
10:02 - 10:05they renewed the pool quite often so you had a lot of new comers
-
10:05 - 10:07so there weren't 6000 who were passionate about the subject...
-
10:07 - 10:09- You had a lot more than that.
-
10:09 - 10:11- ... and the rest who just stayed put on the side line.
-
10:11 - 10:18- Yes, absolutely. To simplify things, I was just saying people didn't care
-
10:18 - 10:23and on voting day, 6000 were there, but you're correct when you point out
-
10:23 - 10:26that it wasn't always the same. They came because the subject was important for them.
-
10:26 - 10:31- But you need the means to analyse because nowadays, with our education,
-
10:31 - 10:33we don't obviously have the means to analyse.
-
10:33 - 10:39- You're correct. But here again, the answer is in the solution. That is that, as Tocqueville says,
-
10:39 - 10:45you can have a randomnly picked jury. That's a school of thought.
-
10:45 - 10:51It teaches us. As Aristotle used to say, the citizen learns how to be a citizen by practicing.
-
10:51 - 10:55Sometimes he is governed, sometimes he governs, and so on. That's what makes him fit.
-
10:55 - 11:01"Practice makes perfect." What's important in democracy is
-
11:01 - 11:07that since you want true equality, you need amateurism. Amateurism
-
11:07 - 11:13means not professional. In political philosophy, they consider
-
11:13 - 11:17that to build a ship, you need a skill,
-
11:17 - 11:23so they elect people that skill. To lead a war, you need a skill,
-
11:23 - 11:29so you elect your general who has that skill. To keep the books, you need a skill,
-
11:29 - 11:33to know how to count, so you elect your finance people. What the Athenians said
-
11:33 - 11:38and I beleive we could say this too: we shouldn't develop a complex about this point of view,
-
11:38 - 11:43because there are many experiences out there. In the book of Sintomer (remind me to talk about it later if I forget),
-
11:43 - 11:47there are many examples of the random draw / common lot that show
-
11:47 - 11:49that we are competent. The randomnly drawn people are competent.
-
11:49 - 11:58So what the Athenians said is: "To do politics, all are equal."
-
11:58 - 12:03You do not need skills, we have skills. We all have, because we are alive
-
12:03 - 12:08and we have a brain, skills. You just have to filter the insane. Look on your leaflet,
-
12:08 - 12:13and you see "docimasia". It's an exam you had to take. Not for your skills.
-
12:13 - 12:21They saw this like a bet. Not a bet, an axiom.
-
12:21 - 12:25We were democrates. So as first basis,
-
12:25 - 12:29as a central pillar, if you take it away, you take out democracy. So this pillar
-
12:29 - 12:37said: "We assume we are political equals." Not intellectual equals. Athenians
-
12:37 - 12:41knew that there were insane people, thieves and so on. So they didn't trust each other.
-
12:41 - 12:47They knew quite well that you had idiots or crooks.
-
12:47 - 12:53We are equal, they assumed. There are no "political" skills. You should read
-
12:53 - 12:59Castoriadis. Castoriadis plainly shows this. So if you will, the skill
-
12:59 - 13:05that you will need to deal with daily business, does any elected representative have it more than a randonmly drawn person?
-
13:05 - 13:12I don't think so! I am clearly opposed to that train of thought! If I tried to make a list
-
13:12 - 13:19of all the stupid things our elected representatives do all around the world, starting with declaring wars
-
13:19 - 13:25and atomic explosions to test the next awful weapons! And training our military forces
-
13:25 - 13:29with extravagant weaponry! All this is chosen by our elected representatives under the influence
-
13:29 - 13:36of our military. So when I make a list of all the awful mistakes that our elected representatives make,
-
13:36 - 13:42I'm not afraid of what randomnly drawn people will do. We'll have a hard time reaching such a rich prize list
-
13:42 - 13:49of mistakes! What makes the skill of an elected representative newly in power, a young one?
-
13:49 - 13:54Nothing, he's worthless! A young lawyer, alright, he might be a good lawyer. But he'll be awful
-
13:54 - 14:01concerning climate change, or on the topic of geostrategy or of ecology. He knows nothing about it! Nothing!
-
14:01 - 14:04What is going to give him the skill? And still, he'll become competent. How will he become competent?
-
14:04 - 14:07His work! He'll tackle a subject and he'll work on it. The randomnly drawn person,
-
14:07 - 14:11he'll do the same. Randonmly drawn people are not skilled.
-
14:11 - 14:13It'll scare you if you say: "You need a training".
-
14:13 - 14:16I recommend you to read Sintomer in a book called "The random draw,"
-
14:16 - 14:21and now in it's second edition, called "A small story of democratic experimentation".
-
14:21 - 14:23He explains random draw in Athens.
-
14:23 - 14:24It's interesting to see
-
14:24 - 14:27it in it's detailed daily mechanisms.
-
14:27 - 14:28It's interesting to see how it worked,
-
14:28 - 14:31and so how we could make it work, today.
-
14:31 - 14:33And then he explains the experiences of random draw / common lot,
-
14:33 - 14:34today, everywhere around the world.
-
14:34 - 14:38And you see that incompetent citizens...
-
14:38 - 14:42Wait a second, it's our elected representatives that say we are incompetent! That's upsetting!
-
14:42 - 14:43We aren't that incompetent!
-
14:43 - 14:45Who are you to say that we are incompetent?
-
14:45 - 14:49Don't beleive them. Don't beleive them. You'll see what citizen assemblies are capable of,
-
14:49 - 14:52"assemblies of incompetents"
-
14:52 - 14:54assemblies of people, in fact honest people
-
14:54 - 14:56who are randomnly drawn, who know nothing about the topic.
-
14:56 - 14:59But after having worked on the topic for six months, it's something else.
-
14:59 - 15:02You have three months, four months, five months to think about genetically modified organism (GMO)
-
15:02 - 15:04You'll listen to people from Monsanto,
-
15:04 - 15:05you'll make them come. You have money to do that.
-
15:05 - 15:09So you invite people from Monsanto and you'll ask them about GMOs
-
15:09 - 15:11You don't know anything about it at start. OK, that's true.
-
15:11 - 15:12But you'll ask them:
-
15:12 - 15:16"Explain to us why... because we've been asked if we are for or against GMOs.
-
15:16 - 15:19You seem to be for it: explain to us, Monsanto, why you would want GMOs."
-
15:19 - 15:22And Monsanto sends their experts to explain why.
-
15:22 - 15:27Then, these same "incompetents" know that the farmer confederation
-
15:27 - 15:29doesn't agree with GMOs.
-
15:29 - 15:31So they invite the people of the farmer confederation to come.
-
15:31 - 15:33And ask: "But why are you against GMOs?"
-
15:33 - 15:34And people of the farmer confederation explain.
-
15:34 - 15:36During this time, people listen all around.
-
15:36 - 15:38Other citizens, who aren't in the assembly, but who can listen.
-
15:38 - 15:42All these people listen and try to understand.
-
15:42 - 15:44Then they invite people from Bayer, another group like Monsanto,
-
15:44 - 15:47and ask: "Those guys told us that GMOs are..."
-
15:47 - 15:49Then Bayer responds with: "Yes, but they forgot to talk about this and that."
-
15:49 - 15:53Then you invite the peasants from latin America.
-
15:53 - 15:55We have money, remember, so we make them come.
-
15:55 - 15:59We ask: "You didn't have GMOs before. Explain to us why you wanted GMOs.
-
15:59 - 16:03You installed GMOs? Good. So how did it go?
-
16:03 - 16:04If you way the pros' and cons',
-
16:04 - 16:06what do you think about it? It's good? It's bad?"
-
16:06 - 16:08And the peasants of Latin America will explain.
-
16:08 - 16:12Then the "incompetents" invite the guys from Monsanto again, because
-
16:12 - 16:15they are "incompetents", but not insane and rather honest.
-
16:15 - 16:18So they want to know everything. They want to understand.
-
16:18 - 16:20So they heard Monsanto once. They heard the peasants once.
-
16:20 - 16:23They heard the opponents of GMOs once. But you need to be able to answer.
-
16:23 - 16:26So they invite Monsanto again:
-
16:26 - 16:28"They told us this and that. What do you say about it?"
-
16:28 - 16:30And people from Monsanto answer.
-
16:30 - 16:33After six months, those people are more competent than anybody.
-
16:33 - 16:35And it's still people like you and me.
-
16:35 - 16:39You really must read it. It'll give you confidence.
-
16:39 - 16:45There are many stories of randomnly picked assemblies of so called "incompetents"
-
16:45 - 16:48who, through their work, become very competent
-
16:48 - 16:51and most of all, uninterested,
-
16:51 - 16:55honest, very hard to influence by the lobbies because they owe nothing to no one.
-
16:55 - 16:59Why is an elected representative corruptible?
-
16:59 - 17:01He has debts.
-
17:01 - 17:03He has power because someone financed his election campaign.
-
17:03 - 17:05I'm not talking about small representatives.
-
17:05 - 17:09Small ones can be elected because in a town, you are elected
-
17:09 - 17:11because people know you. They know you for being someone good.
-
17:11 - 17:13And you won't win much anyhow.
-
17:13 - 17:17You often see a lot of loyalty & devotion in the elected representatives of small towns.
-
17:17 - 17:20I'm not saying they are all rotten,
-
17:20 - 17:24not at all. But when you change the size and you put at nation level
-
17:24 - 17:28or more so, European level, and worse, world level,
-
17:28 - 17:31when you need to finance an election campaign
-
17:31 - 17:33to win an election of that level,
-
17:33 - 17:37all the elected representatives are in debt towards those who financed their campaign.
-
17:37 - 17:39Those who financed elections aren't philanthropists.
-
17:39 - 17:41That's just untrue. Completly untrue.
-
17:41 - 17:43They do it because they want favors in return.
-
17:43 - 17:46So when elected representatives talk about GMOs,
-
17:46 - 17:49they are very dependent of those who financed his election.
-
17:49 - 17:52If amongst those who financed the election, you have Monsanto,
-
17:52 - 17:55pharmaceutical labs, like Big Pharma, your elected representatives
-
17:55 - 18:00might be competent, well it's worst
-
18:00 - 18:02because they are dishonest.
-
18:02 - 18:04If you have competence and dishonesty...
-
18:04 - 18:05- They are in conflict of interest.
-
18:05 - 18:07- They are in conflict of interest and it's a catastrophy.
-
18:07 - 18:10So concerning your objection on skill,
-
18:10 - 18:15and I have other arguments to refute it, but you can see that it doesn't resist analysis. Yes?
-
18:15 - 18:19- Concerning what you've been saying,
-
18:19 - 18:21the guy who's picked at random
-
18:21 - 18:23can also be bought out by Monsanto
-
18:23 - 18:25or bought out by the farmer confederation.
-
18:25 - 18:27- I really must answer that objection since it keeps coming back.
-
18:27 - 18:30- It's not that but...
-
18:30 - 18:33- Let us imagine that the random guy picked is you.
-
18:33 - 18:34- Yes.
-
18:34 - 18:36- Or me... I don't owe anything to anyone.
-
18:36 - 18:39I've been picked. Monsanto comes along to try and corrupt me.
-
18:39 - 18:42Just see the ruckus that I'll raise at the assembly
-
18:42 - 18:44when I say: "Hey! Monsanto is trying to corrupt me!"
-
18:44 - 18:46Because if I don't owe anything to anyone,
-
18:46 - 18:48it's a lot harder to corrupt me.
-
18:48 - 18:51It's a lot harder to corrupt someone who doesn't owe anything.
-
18:51 - 18:54Let us say it the other way around:
-
18:54 - 18:58it's a lot easier to corrupt someone who owes you something.
-
18:58 - 19:01And with an election on a large scale
-
19:01 - 19:07that mecanically puts the elected representative and the candidate for the next election
-
19:07 - 19:11on a corruptible level. He's drugged with power, he'll ask for it again.
-
19:11 - 19:13You put him in a dependency situation
-
19:13 - 19:15towards his sponsors
-
19:15 - 19:17and towards his political party
-
19:17 - 19:20who also has the same financial sponsors.
-
19:20 - 19:22You must understand that those people
-
19:22 - 19:25are absolutely not independent intellectually.
-
19:25 - 19:26They can be friendly and nice at start.
-
19:26 - 19:29The mechanism of the election will corrupt them.
-
19:29 - 19:31I don't hold a grudge against them for it.
-
19:31 - 19:33I'm just saying it's not the right system.
-
19:33 - 19:36I need to answer
-
19:36 - 19:38to the two, three strong objections you've made
-
19:38 - 19:39when you say:
-
19:39 - 19:42"He may well be randomnly picked but he's corruptible."
-
19:42 - 19:45He's corruptible, but of course he is!
-
19:45 - 19:47Athenians knew he was.
-
19:47 - 19:50I'm not saying he's incorruptible, I'm saying he's harder to corrupt.
-
19:50 - 19:53But most of all... Wait, let me move forward.
-
19:53 - 19:55Tac! That's really great!
-
19:55 - 19:56It's modern and all.
-
19:56 - 19:58Here I go up, and here down. OK.
-
19:58 - 20:02Down again... Day, Night. Like in "Mr. Bean".
-
20:02 - 20:06All you see hear are controls.
-
20:06 - 20:09That's to show how randomnly picked people weren't trusted!
-
20:09 - 20:11They were pragmatic about it.
-
20:11 - 20:15They weren't utopists or idealists.
-
20:15 - 20:17They knew well enough that amongst random people
-
20:17 - 20:19you could have awful people.
-
20:19 - 20:21So they put a lot of control measures.
-
20:21 - 20:23You had controls before the mandate,
-
20:23 - 20:25after the mandate and even during the mandate.
-
20:25 - 20:28Our elected representatives today have no controlling measures.
-
20:28 - 20:29There: Zero.
-
20:29 - 20:31Zero.
-
20:31 - 20:32The small control
-
20:32 - 20:33that is present with elected representatives is:
-
20:33 - 20:35maybe you won't be reelected.
-
20:35 - 20:39But if you're not reelected...
-
20:39 - 20:40You know what they did?
-
20:40 - 20:43They voted an income,
-
20:43 - 20:45an unemployment income.
-
20:45 - 20:48When you're fired, you're paid (as elected representative). How long?
-
20:48 - 20:49Just guess.
-
20:49 - 20:52- Five years. -Five years! Yes ! It's true.
-
20:52 - 20:56Do you realise why we can't let them write such things?
-
20:56 - 20:59Parlementarians wrote the rules
-
20:59 - 21:02that let them be payed when they are elected,
-
21:02 - 21:06and when they are rejected because they betrayed their promises
-
21:06 - 21:07and they are not reelected,
-
21:07 - 21:09they still get payed until the next election!
-
21:09 - 21:11Because the current elected one is going to lie as well.
-
21:11 - 21:14So they thought of a system to keep on living on our behalf.
-
21:14 - 21:17It's really on our behalf because they don't work for us anymore.
-
21:17 - 21:19And when the current one gets kicked because he betrayed us,
-
21:19 - 21:22and we have the choice between two, that's it.
-
21:22 - 21:24Left and right wing. Both are the same in that matter.
-
21:24 - 21:27In England, you also have two parties. In the USA, you have two parties.
-
21:27 - 21:31It's a mafia system that is taking over all around the world.
-
21:31 - 21:34As if it were perfectly natural for them to be there.
-
21:34 - 21:35What could you possible do smarter?
-
21:35 - 21:39When this one gets fired, he still gets paid
-
21:39 - 21:42and he'll come back in office at the next go. That's a part time job on average!
-
21:42 - 21:44But with this unemployment income, they're paid full time.
-
21:44 - 21:47Today, we don't have any control concerning our elected representatives.
-
21:47 - 21:48No control at all.
-
21:48 - 21:51Here you had only the volunteers. So it's a filter.
-
21:51 - 21:54Those who didn't beleive they were capable didn't come.
-
21:54 - 21:56That's a reassuring filter.
-
21:56 - 21:59The guy who knows he can't or who doesn't care
-
21:59 - 22:03or he gets angry for nothing or which ever reason: he's filtering himself out.
-
22:03 - 22:07I'm going quickly but it would be worth spending time on this issue.
-
22:07 - 22:09But I'm going quickly so I can respond to all your objections.
-
22:09 - 22:13You had the docimasia which was an exam to filter out the insane.
-
22:13 - 22:15Real insanity. And then you had criterias.
-
22:15 - 22:17We should also think about criterias
-
22:17 - 22:20to know who would be allowed for random picking, who we accept as representative.
-
22:20 - 22:25Remember that these representatives don't vote the laws.
-
22:25 - 22:28The goal is not: "They'll vote my laws!". Not at all, you will vote your laws.
-
22:28 - 22:31Simply because you have randomnly picked representatives.
-
22:31 - 22:35They will be weakened by this random draw. They will be controlled at every stage.
-
22:35 - 22:40Because of this random draw and weakening, you will decide.
-
22:40 - 22:44Don't be afraid of the awful guy! He might still do his job badly here and there
-
22:44 - 22:47but he'll have very little power. Representatives will be controlled.
-
22:47 - 22:51They won't have much power, not for a long period and never twice in a row!
-
22:51 - 22:54And they'll be controlled, again and again and again.
-
22:54 - 22:57There is nothing to fear in the random draw/common lot, if you think it through.
-
22:57 - 23:02When you discover it, you don't know how it works.
-
23:02 - 23:06You think: "Randomly picking someone!" and you imagine the same awful people as we have today.
-
23:06 - 23:10"The little control we do have, we'll lose it
-
23:10 - 23:13to just any random guy!" That's just a misunderstanding.
-
23:13 - 23:16That's not it. Democracy, it's not the same system than what we have today,
-
23:16 - 23:18plus random draw/common lot. That's not it.
-
23:18 - 23:26Democracy is we vote our laws ourselves.
-
23:26 - 23:29There are things we can't do:
-
23:29 - 23:31we can't prepare the laws because we're just too many.
-
23:31 - 23:33So we let a Counsel of Five Hundred randomnly picked prepare the laws.
-
23:33 - 23:36They had a Counsel of Five Hundred randomnly picked who prepared the laws, discussed them.
-
23:36 - 23:40Mind you, nothing stopped us from participating as well. Then we voted the laws.
-
23:40 - 23:42So we need a Counsel of Five Hundred.
-
23:42 - 23:44Randomnly picked people to prepare the laws.
-
23:44 - 23:48Then you need other randomnly picked people to apply the law.
-
23:48 - 23:53Judges were randomnly picked. Policemen were randomnly picked.
-
23:53 - 23:57Policemen were randomnly picked. Not a bad idea ey?
-
23:57 - 24:02Judges randomnly picked. They don't form a corp, a body, as Robespierre said.
-
24:02 - 24:05That is: it's not always the same people who are armed, who could fire,
-
24:05 - 24:08who were unpunished, who were protected. Not always the same ones.
-
24:08 - 24:11You're a judge then a year later, you're no longer a judge.
-
24:11 - 24:17At the end of your judge mandate, you are held accountable and you might well be punished. Punished!
-
24:17 - 24:18Severly punished. How will you be held accountable?
-
24:18 - 24:23You will show what you did in front of a tribunal of 200 randomnly drawn people.
-
24:23 - 24:25This surrender was part of taking care of democracy.
-
24:25 - 24:30You had to show your results. You were a volunteer, randomnly picked,
-
24:30 - 24:35and the job wasn't sleeping in the shade. You weren't paid 60 000€ / month even
-
24:35 - 24:37if you never came to the assembly.
-
24:37 - 24:40You had to work, to show results and if you did a bad job, you might be put to death at the end.
-
24:40 - 24:45So you had to be careful. So why did they volunteer? Because people knew what the greater good was.
-
24:45 - 24:47It worked that way and you had the approval of others,
-
24:47 - 24:53you had "verēcundia", shame. The one who served well his city,
-
24:53 - 24:56he got a pantheon built for him. He received an arc of triomph.
-
24:56 - 25:01He received all the honors, he was treated much better. People can be driven by appraisal
-
25:01 - 25:06and we always will. Only insane people are driven by money
-
25:06 - 25:09and only money. So they take care of the greater good and are capable
-
25:09 - 25:12of doing things well just because they get 1 million euro per year?
-
25:12 - 25:14Very few people work with that as incentive.
-
25:14 - 25:18- You were talking about anachronism before, so when you say
-
25:18 - 25:20random draw / common lot, it was in a certain context at a certain time period.
-
25:20 - 25:23Maybe, for our age, we should talk of something else than the random draw.
-
25:23 - 25:24- Maybe...
-
25:24 - 25:29- It's ethics. Random draw, nowadays, it's a bit like a going to a casino...
-
25:29 - 25:38- It'll ask quite a lot of effort, I know that it's a big effort.
-
25:38 - 25:41- In a court room, it's not the same scale, but
-
25:41 - 25:43people are randomnly picked.
-
25:43 - 25:48- Today, in some courts, juries are randomnly picked and they can send people to jail for life.
-
25:48 - 25:53And it works fine. It's something very important.
-
25:53 - 25:56It changes people.
-
25:56 - 25:59- Theoretically it works fine but even without considering awful people being
-
25:59 - 26:05randmonly picked, as you say, each of us can be influenced
-
26:05 - 26:13by financial pressures, social pressure, professional, etc.
-
26:13 - 26:18Each of us, we know this, has pressure points. Sometimes, in the court room
-
26:18 - 26:23you get juries out of the population who are random, yes, but with no skills...
-
26:23 - 26:24- Absolutly
-
26:24 - 26:28- ...and without the means to defend against these kind of pressures.
-
26:28 - 26:41It's a bit sad to think that we have to pay our representatives
-
26:41 - 26:45but you know we started paying our representatives, our MPs
-
26:45 - 26:49our mayors, to avoid the fact that they become subject to those kind of pressures.
-
26:49 - 26:50- Corrupt.
-
26:50 - 26:53- to financial pressures first but also to avoid the fact
-
26:53 - 26:59that those who could play that role were already ones with a large income.
-
26:59 - 27:03- Of course. What is your name?
-
27:03 - 27:05- It's Alain.
-
27:05 - 27:10- Alain, I completly agree with you. We should pay our MPs.
-
27:10 - 27:14If it's a democracy, it won't be our MPs anymore because it will be us instead
-
27:14 - 27:18who'll vote the laws. It will be our policemen, our judges, our civil workers.
-
27:18 - 27:21It's the people we need, tha the assembly needs
-
27:21 - 27:29to do the things it can't do. But Alain, I know it won't be perfect.
-
27:29 - 27:34Yes, there will be possibility for corruption, but drasticly reduced.
-
27:34 - 27:40Don't give up on a system where we would be much more protected
-
27:40 - 27:45against abuse of power and injustice, just because it won't be perfect.
-
27:45 - 27:50Yes, risks of corruption will remain, but you'll have less of it.
-
27:50 - 27:55Do realise that right now, those who took the power after the French Revolution...
-
27:55 - 28:01For me, this has been going on for a long time. You keep on finding them. Since 1789, you find
-
28:01 - 28:07the ultra-rich, the 1%, who decide if it will rain or shine, who decide wars, injustice,
-
28:07 - 28:12who have made this unfair right called capitalism. Because it is a right.
-
28:12 - 28:16It's the right of the owner on the workers. And this is made possible
-
28:16 - 28:21only because the rich have succeeded. Never before had they been able to in human history.
-
28:21 - 28:25You must understant that before, it wasn't grand, you still had abuse of power, but the rich
-
28:25 - 28:30had to share power before 1789. The rich had to share power with the nobles,
-
28:30 - 28:32with the clergy, with the king.
-
28:32 - 28:36- You're idealising a bit, I beleive, what was going on before the French Revolution.
-
28:36 - 28:37- Not at all!
-
28:37 - 28:41- That is that a royalty, that you pointed out earlier, could be a solution.
-
28:41 - 28:45I don't regret royalty.
-
28:45 - 28:47- Me neither, me neither. It was a provocation to show you that I am open.
-
28:47 - 28:51- In the same maner, you have taken as example
-
28:51 - 28:57the swiss peoples' initiative referendum. For me, the swiss system, the way the Swiss live,
-
28:57 - 29:03for the majority of the Swiss, with the power of the actual banks, the role of the banks
-
29:03 - 29:05in the 30's and 40's with Germany...
-
29:05 - 29:06- Wasn't honorable.
-
29:06 - 29:07- I don't regret that.
-
29:07 - 29:09- I don't want to take it as example. Yes, I agree with you.
-
29:09 - 29:10- But you talked about Switzerland.
-
29:10 - 29:14- Yes, but I never finished my example. I talked about Switzerland because...
-
29:14 - 29:20I forgot to tell you that while the French were being destroyed, Alain,
-
29:20 - 29:24and you do well to remind me in this, because I forgot
-
29:24 - 29:28and it's important so that you understand why I was talking about Switzerland.
-
29:28 - 29:32While the French were getting their pensions destroyed without any mean to resist it,
-
29:32 - 29:37during that time, the same year, last year, the Swiss parlementarians also
-
29:37 - 29:46voted to degrade the Swiss pensions. In the weeks that followed, the Swiss started
-
29:46 - 29:52a peoples' initiative referendum that succeeded and they abrogated those laws.
-
29:52 - 29:58Pay attention to this, please. I'm not saying that the Swiss are a model, that's not it.
-
29:58 - 30:04It's like athenian democracy, it's not a model. I say like Castoriadis
-
30:04 - 30:10that in the athenian democracy, there is a seed, there is something interesting. I won't take it all.
-
30:10 - 30:16You see what I mean? In the case of Switzerland, there are things that disgust me.
-
30:16 - 30:20But there are also interesting things. I have discernment, that is
-
30:20 - 30:27that I don't throw away the whole swiss example because there are some things I don't appreciate. I sort things,
-
30:27 - 30:32I distinguist and say: "Hey, that's good! This I want!" And there I say: "Slavery I don't like,
-
30:32 - 30:39Phallocracy, I'm not interested, brutality, death penalty, I don't want it." However,
-
30:39 - 30:48desynchronising economical power from political power, Alain, that should
-
30:48 - 30:55still interest you! Even if you take marxist ideas, or experiences on ideas that Marx had,
-
30:55 - 31:00no one ever succeeded to desynchronise political power
-
31:00 - 31:12from economical power. Here, they managed it for over 200 years. That's just sexy! At least attractive.
-
31:12 - 31:16Well sexy, attractive, I mean...no ? It's not ? You don't think it is?
-
31:16 - 31:18- It's more sexy than the power of the banks over us at least.
-
31:18 - 31:19- Yes!
-
31:19 - 31:22- It's still the same families that held the power for 200 years.
-
31:22 - 31:24- Not at all! On this, you are wrong.
-
31:24 - 31:30- I'm not talking about political power, I'm talking about economical persons and finance people.
-
31:30 - 31:35- You should let other people talk...
-
31:35 - 31:42- In Athens, Alain, I insist on this, and maybe I'm wrong, but here
-
31:42 - 31:46is a point that is a fact. We don't have to quibble over this.
-
31:46 - 31:53This is a fact. Plato, Aristotle and the others complained
-
31:53 - 31:58all their lives about this government led by the poor. Don't tell me the rich ruled.
-
31:58 - 32:01It's not true, I won't beleive it. This is stricly facts.
-
32:01 - 32:04- What I'm saying is that you're not questioning the wealth of certain (very few) people
-
32:04 - 32:06and the poverty of the vast majority.
-
32:06 - 32:08- Wait. Wealth isn't happiness.
-
32:08 - 32:13- That's what the rich say. Be poor! Wealth isn't happiness.
-
32:13 - 32:14To me it is.
-
32:14 - 32:20- That's total dogmatism. It's a closed point of view.
-
32:20 - 32:23- Alain, I'm sure that...
-
32:23 - 32:26- We're not being emphatical here. It's a pure conflict.
-
32:26 - 32:31- Just one second, some has been very patient there, sitting in the middle.
- Title:
- Etienne Chouard. — Part V (Lyon Conference) Mars 2012 - "Is Democracy a trap ? " Roots of our political impotency.
- Description:
-
PART V :
Assembly of citizens in Athens, at the time of democracy. —
le-message.org. — Political amateurism, Political equality, and question of skill. — Assembly of citizen randomnly chosen / common lot. — Elections, debt and favors in return. — Question on corruption. —
Question on control over power.Bibliographic references :
- Cornelius Castoriadis, Post-scriptum on insignifiance. — Éditions de l'Aube (7 mai 2004).
- Yves Sintomer, Small story of democratic experiences. Random draw and politics of Athens till today. — Éditions La Découverte (13 octobre 2011).Etienne Chouard, independant researcher.
Conference in Lyon, on March 9th 2012. MJC St Just.
"Is Democracy a trap, an illusion ?"Cadre & montage : Matthieu Wadoux — matwad@gmail.com
English translation : Dorian Faucon - hussard_noir@hotmail.com - Video Language:
- French
- Duration:
- 32:46
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie V. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. | ||
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie V. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. | ||
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie V. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. | ||
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie V. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. | ||
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie V. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. | ||
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie V. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. | ||
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie V. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. | ||
Champi edited English subtitles for Etienne Chouard. — Partie V. — Conférence de Lyon, mars 2012. |