True democracy, the Random Draw / Common Lot - Etienne Chouard (Montpellier, March 14th, 2012)
-
0:18 - 0:24A True Democracy
-
0:24 - 0:30Thank you, thank you for being here. I am traveling the country
-
0:30 - 0:35presenting conferences on a subject I have been working
-
0:35 - 0:40on for the past six years, something that I think
-
0:40 - 0:48should be of interest to you. Something that is poorly addressed in our media;
-
0:48 - 0:53yet a subject that seems trite: that is democracy.
-
0:53 - 1:03And ... while the referendum debate of 2005 was being prepared (NT: on the European Constitution)
-
1:03 - 1:08and studying what turned out to be an anti-constitution
-
1:08 - 1:13since the European constitutional treaty is in fact an anti-constitution.
-
1:13 - 1:17In other words, it is a text aimed to destroy national constitutions.
-
1:17 - 1:20(I will explain what I mean when I say that)
-
1:20 - 1:29As I was studying the anti-constitution, I woke up.
-
1:29 - 1:31Meaning, I was politically asleep.
-
1:31 - 1:36I was like the majority of us, a voter without any specific loyalty, without
-
1:36 - 1:42a party, without a syndicate / union, even with no social organisation.
-
1:42 - 1:49I was taking care of my own business, like all of us. And on the 2005
-
1:49 - 1:55referendum debate, because of an anecdote that turned all eyes on me
-
1:55 - 2:00(and I am not saying this to talk about me),
-
2:00 - 2:03I started to think about what kind of institutions would be able to make
-
2:03 - 2:05the same changes that happened to me,
-
2:05 - 2:07happen to a greater number of people.
-
2:07 - 2:11Athenians were very good at this, mind you. In other words, humans are sensitive...
-
2:11 - 2:14The majority of humans are sensitive to the way others view them.
-
2:14 - 2:19We are driven by what others expect of us
-
2:19 - 2:23and we are held back to a certain limit.
-
2:23 - 2:26Often, that limit is in the suspicious or disapproving look from others.
-
2:26 - 2:30Meaning that the look of others,
-
2:30 - 2:36benevolent or reproachfull, helps us behave well or badly.
-
2:36 - 2:40And this is what happened in a way for me, I think.
-
2:40 - 2:43At least in regards to my decision to act,
-
2:43 - 2:46to engage in politics, trying to understand, and putting myself to work for the greater good,
-
2:46 - 2:54and finally after the intense emotions that I lived
-
2:54 - 3:02for two or three months during the time of the referendum,
-
3:02 - 3:10March, April May and June 2005, I did not stop.
-
3:10 - 3:16Meaning that for the entire period we contested the European Anti-constitution.
-
3:16 - 3:19We will talk briefly about it, maybe during the Q & A
-
3:19 - 3:22I will try, although it is difficult for me, but I will try to be brief
-
3:22 - 3:25and leave time for a Q & A
-
3:25 - 3:28because I come here looking for ideas too, from you.
-
3:28 - 3:32The political Trap
-
3:32 - 3:38So after criticizing an anti-constitution,
-
3:38 - 3:50which was the European constitution, I asked myself: What do we replace it with?
-
3:50 - 3:53Could we build something else instead?
-
3:53 - 3:57And so several schools of thought emerged in my head
-
3:57 - 4:07I am looking to decipher, enumerate, the variables of the political trap
-
4:07 - 4:12in which we are all trapped throughout the world.
-
4:12 - 4:14We are in a political trap that has shared characteristics
-
4:14 - 4:18in all the countries around the world, especially by inverting the meaning of the words
-
4:18 - 4:24by literally inverting the meaning of the words like Orwell argued in 1984.
-
4:24 - 4:28You know, Big Brother and the Newspeak deprived people that they wanted
-
4:28 - 4:31to dominate from the possibility of resisting
-
4:31 - 4:34by inverting the meaning of the words and by suppressing the words entirely
-
4:34 - 4:39that would highlight the problem. They weaken us.
-
4:39 - 4:42Thus we need a real effort here, that we should all do,
-
4:42 - 4:47which is re-appropriating the real meaning of the words
-
4:47 - 4:50that contain solutions. We aren't even able to find them
-
4:50 - 4:55because we were giving them an inverted meaning.
-
4:55 - 5:03In addition, I am working on an alternative, I am researching
-
5:03 - 5:08(Oh here you go! That's nice, does this work? Can you hear me now? Note: Etienne is handed a microphone.)
-
5:08 - 5:14I am researching in a constructive way, realistic way, not at all utopian.
-
5:14 - 5:20I am looking to institute, to imagine a system of institutions
-
5:20 - 5:23that would finally protect us against the abuse of power.
-
5:23 - 5:28So in fact, the back bone of my work,
-
5:28 - 5:33in fact of all the work that I have done politically for the last six years
-
5:33 - 5:40is.. finding what are the causes of the abuse of power? What makes social injustice possible?
-
5:40 - 5:49And I am going to share with you what I have found today
-
5:49 - 5:53on this project and what we could do
-
5:53 - 5:57to protect ourselves efficiently and for the long term.
-
5:57 - 6:05Here again I believe I found some paths... By searching I found...
-
6:05 - 6:11But, I don't come with polished ideas, fully conceived, finished and packaged, I am not here to sell you anything
-
6:11 - 6:14because I am not a candidate for anything. Many people asked me to run,
-
6:14 - 6:17it is simply, absolutely not an option.
-
6:17 - 6:24I refuse even the notion of power the same way one would refuse drugs.
-
6:24 - 6:26I know that if I used drugs, it would be delicious
-
6:26 - 6:28I clearly see that drug addicts live in a world..
-
6:28 - 6:31But I also know that it is a dangerous world, so I don't use drugs
-
6:31 - 6:35Well, it is the same with power. I want to stay alert,
-
6:35 - 6:41trying to be of service without hurting myself in the process
-
6:41 - 6:44When we study the history of humankind, there is practically no exception
-
6:44 - 6:47that power corrupts, power changes people for the worse,
-
6:47 - 6:54money too, but power corrupts. So I am not here
-
6:54 - 6:57to try and convince you, I am not here for your votes
-
6:57 - 7:01but instead I believe that we are all in need of
-
7:01 - 7:04each other, to implement and to desire the success of
-
7:04 - 7:10the idea that I am going to defend before you and which could work.
-
7:10 - 7:14It is about implementing a real democracy.
-
7:14 - 7:20Seeking the root cause
-
7:20 - 7:23What I would like to focus on is:
-
7:23 - 7:26What is a constitution?
-
7:26 - 7:30What link does it have to social injustice?
-
7:30 - 7:36The nature of the social injustice, the battles against the social injustices,
-
7:36 - 7:41will inherently divide us if we burden ourselves with the consequences instead
-
7:41 - 7:44of focusing on the causes.
-
7:44 - 7:49What should we have to change so that we finally have
-
7:49 - 7:54a true constitution? I am a beginner in politics.
-
7:54 - 7:57It has been 5 years that I have been practicing
-
7:57 - 8:01and I crossed paths with activists, old activists
-
8:01 - 8:05that have over 40 year of political life. Every Wednesday
-
8:05 - 8:12they distribute flyers in the markets, they run meetings non-stop
-
8:12 - 8:16they think non-stop about the greater good and this for decades.
-
8:16 - 8:21To each one his or her sector has a priority,
-
8:21 - 8:28and this one's priority is the corporate injustices, because to him this idea appears of utmost importance and is essential.
-
8:28 - 8:32This right, unjust, which gives power to the owner of companies
-
8:32 - 8:36and none or very little to employees whose only power is their work,
-
8:36 - 8:39for this activist, it is essential and he fights against that.
-
8:39 - 8:45He tries to improve the workers' situation in companies.
-
8:45 - 8:47But also, so is the case for another activist, who is working hard
-
8:47 - 8:51on ecological catastrophes
-
8:51 - 8:55that are becoming more and more threatening. For another, the problem is nuclear energy
-
8:55 - 8:59and its danger, for another person, it is the GMOs etc.
-
8:59 - 9:05I don't want to get into more details. What am trying to say, is that I met
-
9:05 - 9:11hundreds of people with their own specialty
-
9:11 - 9:19in activism and protests and they embraced, heart and soul, social injusticel - it is the word I use
-
9:19 - 9:27to group all protests - a social injustice that he fights
-
9:27 - 9:31and in which he becomes expert and knowledgeable of the mechanics of injustice
-
9:31 - 9:40and the cunning of those behind it, and is often driven to
-
9:40 - 9:46consider as an enemy another activist, which surprises me
-
9:46 - 9:51that he fights someone who is also fighting social injustice that has nothing to do with his,
-
9:51 - 9:55but is as important. The first example that comes to mind
-
9:55 - 10:00when I tell you this, is the anti-nuclear activist
-
10:00 - 10:08who perceives nuclear as an imminent threat
-
10:08 - 10:15and has made it a priority, and this activist when he is side by side
-
10:15 - 10:21with an activist fighting financial fascism or
-
10:21 - 10:27predatory finance, and which is a priority for him,
-
10:27 - 10:32but he happens to be pro-nuclear because he considers that it is progress,
-
10:32 - 10:36Well, for now he thinks it is dirty, but in the long run it will be clean
-
10:36 - 10:41These two activists can hate one another to the extreme,
-
10:41 - 10:48when from where I am standing, I consider both activists
-
10:48 - 10:51relatively heroic, alone in their corner, where they spend most of their time,
-
10:51 - 10:55all their energy, and their fight is worth it on both sides.
-
10:55 - 11:00Their disagreement deserves a debate, a discussion
-
11:00 - 11:02And then we will vote, we will have a referendum, and we will see what comes out of it.
-
11:02 - 11:04It is not worth banning each other when we should be resisting.
-
11:04 - 11:08So what I want to say, I could elaborate on this, but I am going to summerize
-
11:08 - 11:17What I would like to say is that all these activists have a common goal
-
11:17 - 11:22that they are fighting over, what I call, consequences.
-
11:22 - 11:29The consequences of a cause, which in fact is common.
-
11:29 - 11:33I think that ALL these social injustices,
-
11:33 - 11:35but I could be wrong, I am not perfect,
-
11:35 - 11:39but it appears that all these social injustices
-
11:39 - 11:45have a common point, a common cause which is none other than our political powerlessness / impotency.
-
11:45 - 11:50And you are concerned too, like me, I believe, unless you are ...
-
11:50 - 11:55even if you are from the parliament. I find our common political impotency
-
11:55 - 12:03to be the common cause.
-
12:03 - 12:06behind our inability to resist all social injustices,
-
12:06 - 12:12practically all. And if you would like, I follow a precious method
-
12:12 - 12:15that I think will serve me all my life.
-
12:15 - 12:17I discovered this, I find it very helpful.
-
12:17 - 12:21I found out an advice from a guy named Hippocrates
-
12:21 - 12:24in Antiquity, he was a doctor and put forward, in a few words
-
12:24 - 12:27an idea he left us, which is very helpful.
-
12:27 - 12:31It is very logical, very practical and very pragmatic
-
12:31 - 12:35Hippocrates left us with these few words: "search,
-
12:35 - 12:39"search for the root of causes." Then he died and disappeared
-
12:39 - 12:43but he left us with this "search for the root of causes"
-
12:43 - 12:46and it is very shrewd, I believe.
-
12:46 - 12:53We can take one or two examples: We don't cure a disease
-
12:53 - 12:56by attacking symptoms, everyone understands this I think
-
12:56 - 13:00We cure a disease by looking for the cause of the disease
-
13:00 - 13:03and by attacking the cause, we fix the disease.
-
13:03 - 13:05And when we are faced with several causes, which is often the case,
-
13:05 - 13:08practically everything is multifactorial, if there are several causes
-
13:08 - 13:11we don't attack just any cause, we try to locate
-
13:11 - 13:17the source, it is a different image, we try to go back to the source
-
13:17 - 13:21to locate the cause of origin, in other words, to detect and
-
13:21 - 13:26destroy cause "zero" (the root cause) which controls the other causes.
-
13:26 - 13:33And I integrated this research method
-
13:33 - 13:36and it is this method that I use. So when I look at all these social injustices,
-
13:36 - 13:39I don't limit myself to fighting corruption,
-
13:39 - 13:43I try to find the cause of corruption.
-
13:43 - 13:45I fight however, the bankers who are bankrupting us.
-
13:45 - 13:49I try to understand, what gives these bankers
-
13:49 - 13:53all the power and none to me. Do you understand what I am trying to say?
-
13:53 - 13:58I don't attack a banker by saying "he is evil and we are good".
-
13:58 - 14:01Not at all. I don't think along these lines. I try to understand
-
14:01 - 14:08what is the cause, the principal cause of my total political powerlessness.
-
14:08 - 14:11I think of course in terms of the greater good, for the city,
-
14:11 - 14:13for our social society.
-
14:13 - 14:18A true constitution
-
14:19 - 14:22When we graduate from law school we are under the impression
-
14:22 - 14:25that the constitution... is a tool that protects people
-
14:25 - 14:31but I think we don't know much, most importantly what is bad
-
14:31 - 14:34is that we are only taught this in law schools.
-
14:34 - 14:41I think that every citizen should know from a very young age,
-
14:41 - 14:44people should learn
-
14:44 - 14:52what they could win or lose from having a good or bad constitution.
-
14:52 - 14:55Let me explain in a few words: The idea of the constitution is simple ...
-
14:55 - 15:01it is simple and it is fabulous. It is there to save us.
-
15:01 - 15:03We need it, this is what we need today.
-
15:03 - 15:06I will get back to it later, I will come back to the link between this and our problems.
-
15:06 - 15:10But to say it in two words, to say what we ought to explain to our children
-
15:10 - 15:14when they are little,
-
15:14 - 15:20but we should later keep in our minds, between us, so as not to lose sight of its importance.
-
15:20 - 15:25If I put the citizens on the bottom, the group of people who want to create society,
-
15:25 - 15:30if there is no written law, no State of law,
-
15:30 - 15:34we will be hitting each other and will live by brutality.
-
15:34 - 15:38But to create peace, and this over 2500 years ago,
-
15:38 - 15:44they decided to submit to law
-
15:44 - 15:48which would be superior to this society and would prohibit the powerful
-
15:48 - 15:54from imposing "their law" which in essence was not a law.
-
15:54 - 15:56The law of the fittest is not a law, it is a perception
-
15:56 - 16:04To prevent that the most powerful abuse the rest of us,
-
16:04 - 16:08humanity put in place a law, a written text of rules
-
16:08 - 16:12which are produced, written by people in power
-
16:12 - 16:20who are above us. So we consent to putting in place,
-
16:20 - 16:23we say "to institute" powers, that will have
-
16:23 - 16:30the important duty of producing the law to which we will consent.
-
16:30 - 16:32This is very important but at the same time very dangerous
-
16:32 - 16:35Meaning these powers that we accept to govern us
-
16:35 - 16:41are at the same time very useful and very dangerous.
-
16:41 - 16:44Therefore, given this context, thousands of years ago,
-
16:44 - 16:46the people who were aware of this danger,
-
16:46 - 16:49because they were not insane,
-
16:49 - 16:55put in place a set of rules above these powers.
-
16:55 - 17:00Rules that were superior to these powers in order to protect us.
-
17:00 - 17:05These rules are called the law of law, the Constitution
-
17:06 - 17:13The constitution, is law, but it is a higher system
-
17:13 - 17:16whose charge is to question the powers and to weaken them,
-
17:16 - 17:20to weaken the powers so as to protect us.
-
17:20 - 17:26This, any kid could understand. A kid should know this.
-
17:26 - 17:30An adult also understands this. We should have in our heart
-
17:30 - 17:38this protective organization and we should defend
-
17:38 - 17:46this precious ideal, this protective, appeasing thing that is this Constitution.
-
17:46 - 17:52Beware! A true constitution, not a fake one.
-
17:52 - 17:55We will see what I call "power thieves" are champions
-
17:55 - 17:58in word inversion, including the word "Constitution"
-
17:58 - 18:00They are champions for using the word Constitution when
-
18:00 - 18:03in fact it is exactly the opposite,
-
18:03 - 18:06because it is not because you put together a text that you have solved the problem
-
18:06 - 18:10This text, I repeat, this higher text
-
18:10 - 18:12shouldn't just organize the powers.
-
18:12 - 18:14Because powers in place don't need us to get organized
-
18:14 - 18:17A constitution does not serve to organize the powers.
-
18:17 - 18:22A constitution is meant to weaken the powers, to make them
-
18:22 - 18:26protect us, to protect everyone from any abuse of power,
-
18:26 - 18:29to protect us at all times, rich and poor, young and old,
-
18:29 - 18:33to protect us from the maximum amount of abuse of power
-
18:33 - 18:41there is a constitution. Once we understand this
-
18:41 - 18:47normally, we are ready to understand that a person
-
18:47 - 18:51that is going to write, the people that are going to write this higher text
-
18:51 - 18:54to keep in check those who will produce the law,
-
18:54 - 18:59meaning those of parliament, the judges, the ministries, the presidents,
-
18:59 - 19:03even those of the media. If the constitution covered the media too,
-
19:03 - 19:05journalists would fear the Constitution too.
-
19:05 - 19:09The banks, because financial systems should be covered too
-
19:09 - 19:12by a modern constitution in which powers would be separated
-
19:12 - 19:15We may talk about this later. Right now, these powers
-
19:15 - 19:19produce rules that we fear.
-
19:19 - 19:23These powers, you understand now, should fear the constitution which is designed to protect us
-
19:23 - 19:27Do you see how since they are useful and dangerous
-
19:27 - 19:35It is necessary that they have something to fear.
-
19:35 - 19:39It is absolutely insane to grant to these people (in power) the role of writing the constitution.
-
19:39 - 19:43I hope you see that if the people in power write the rules that they should
-
19:43 - 19:49be following and that they should fear, it won't work.
-
19:49 - 20:00Is this clear? If you bring it back to basics, it is simple
-
20:00 - 20:05and very important. And I am surprised
-
20:05 - 20:07that it is not in public debates more often. But that it is not
-
20:07 - 20:10in the debates of parliamentarians, ministries, and men in power
-
20:10 - 20:15this does not surprise me. That it is not discussed by
-
20:15 - 20:20people in parties... Well I know that there are great people in parties.
-
20:20 - 20:22I have many friends in political parties, but at the head of each party
-
20:22 - 20:23there are people that are ... it is like a filter
-
20:23 - 20:29it seems as though the parties choose amongst us those who lie the best,
-
20:29 - 20:34who are the most resilient to ill treatments, the biggest traitors, the most...
-
20:34 - 20:40Well not all of course, I know some are not, however, it seems
-
20:40 - 20:42that the people at the head of parties are in no way similar to us.
-
20:42 - 20:45It looks like they went through a filter. So I am not surprised that amongst these people there is no talk of constitution.
-
20:45 - 20:52But for us and to me, the current context is favorable
-
20:52 - 20:54to explain this. Nowadays, the abuse of power is in open daylight
-
20:54 - 20:56We see these abuses on a daily basis. It is impressive when
-
20:56 - 21:01we have 4, 5 new and considerable abuses.
-
21:01 - 21:08And always, something that we can no longer formulate
-
21:08 - 21:14so much we have became used to it, always our political powerlessness / impotency is there.
-
21:16 - 21:23Stop me if am exaggerating, if I am saying something that
-
21:23 - 21:31is .. if I am extremist. This "democracy" that they show off
-
21:31 - 21:38as if "it was the best on earth in terms of politics",
-
21:38 - 21:43what does it leave me as a fundemental right? The right to designate every five years political masters
-
21:43 - 21:49that will decide everything for me. I don't votes the laws
-
21:49 - 21:53so I select people who will vote them for me
-
21:53 - 21:58and who are my political masters. I elect among them people
-
21:58 - 22:03I have not been able to choose: These are false choices.
-
22:03 - 22:08When my choice is dreadful candidate A and terrible candidate B, in this case it is a false choice.
-
22:08 - 22:11I am not allowed to choose people I consider good around me.
-
22:11 - 22:17Not at all, freely I cannot do that.
-
22:17 - 22:21This "democracy" supposedly leaves me only with the possibility,
-
22:21 - 22:24the right to designate masters, among people I have not chosen
-
22:24 - 22:29and against whom I cannot do anything.
-
22:29 - 22:31For five years, I will say it again, I cannot do anything for 5 years.
-
22:31 - 22:36I can march in the streets if it amuses me, they could care less.
-
22:36 - 22:39I can't do anything if they betray me,
-
22:39 - 22:43even if they betray me to the extreme
-
22:43 - 22:47I cannot do anything. All I can do
-
22:47 - 22:53is at the end of their mandate, not re-elect the scoundrel that just betrayed me for the past 5 years.
-
22:53 - 22:57I exaggerate here, I am pushing it, but it is just to make a point.
-
22:57 - 23:02I am not saying that they are all scoundrels. Although....
-
23:02 - 23:04No, I am not saying that. But what I am saying is that
-
23:04 - 23:08even if he is a top quality scoundrel - and there are a few, you know it -
-
23:08 - 23:12even if he is the finest scoundrel , all I can do
-
23:12 - 23:17is not re-elect him. The poor guy ! The poor scoundrel.
-
23:17 - 23:20Because, in fact, it does not matter what will happen to him
-
23:20 - 23:24because if I don't reelect him, I will elect another one,
-
23:24 - 23:28the one I refused to elect five years earlier because he betrayed me the five years before that
-
23:28 - 23:32and I only have this choice. I only have one choice between two larger parties.
-
23:32 - 23:34When I am not happy with one, I take the other one
-
23:34 - 23:35and when am not happy with the other one, I retake the one I just rejected.
-
23:35 - 23:41They are part-time workers. And they have voted some sort of unemployment benefit, you wouldn't believe it
-
23:41 - 23:43I don't know if you realize this, they voted unemployment benefits
-
23:43 - 23:48that lasts five years. Which means they continue
-
23:48 - 23:51to be paid as if we had elected them
-
23:51 - 23:55when in fact we did not reelect them. They continue to be paid full-time for a half-time job.
-
23:55 - 24:02Just waiting that the one elected gets sacked ... Right? And they call this "democracy".
-
24:03 - 24:07The political awakening
-
24:09 - 24:14At 50 I did not understand very well what a democracy was.
-
24:14 - 24:18Thus, I accepted, I accepted like you, like everyone,
-
24:18 - 24:24some sort of an incredible lesson, that they told me since I was a kid.
-
24:24 - 24:29"Election = democracy". Boy, repeat after me: "Democracy = election",
-
24:29 - 24:34"Election equals democracy, democracy equals election."
-
24:34 - 24:37And they repeated this at school,
-
24:37 - 24:41they repeated this in the newspapers, on TV, in the books
-
24:41 - 24:44Books that speak of democracy, I have... I don't know,
-
24:44 - 24:48specifically about democracy, the organization of democracy,
-
24:48 - 24:54400 or 500 books maybe. Well let's just say out of 400 books
-
24:54 - 24:58there were 10 that really speak of true democracy.,
-
24:58 - 25:01that speaks of a democracy that deserves this name, of democracy
-
25:01 - 25:07"demos kratos", "the power of the people". The other books speak of our actual regime,
-
25:07 - 25:14the one we should refuse to call "democracy". The regime in which we live
-
25:14 - 25:17carries a different name. It is called representive government;
-
25:17 - 25:20We should say the so-called representative government.
-
25:20 - 25:23But let's call it by its official name.
-
25:23 - 25:30Back in 1789, 1776, the USA, founders of our regime
-
25:30 - 25:32set up something totally different from what a democracy should be.
-
25:32 - 25:34They knew exactly what democracy was, but they didn't want it.
-
25:34 - 25:38They were prominent citizens. The 99% didn't make the French Revolution happen.
-
25:38 - 25:42When Sieyès writes: "What is the Third Estate ?"
-
25:42 - 25:44you know, the Third Estate, during the French Revolution
-
25:44 - 25:50You had the nobles, the clergymen, and the rest.
-
25:50 - 25:54The rest was the Third Estate. The Third order.
-
25:54 - 25:58You could call it nowadays the 99%.
-
25:58 - 26:02The problem is that Sieyès
-
26:02 - 26:06in 1789, a great thinker, bishop Sieyès, a great thinker of
-
26:06 - 26:10the French Revolution, when he wrote "What is the Third Estate ?",
-
26:10 - 26:16and when he thought of what should come as replacement of the Old Regime,
-
26:16 - 26:25Sieyès thought about the 1% of the Third Estate. He was thinking of the rich businessmen,
-
26:25 - 26:29the bankers of the Third Estate. They financed
-
26:29 - 26:31the wheat wars, the baking flours wars, that starved the people
-
26:31 - 26:33for over three years before the French Revolution.
-
26:33 - 26:40This pushed the people, the folk, to rise against their masters that they couldn't stand anymore
-
26:40 - 26:43to take their place afterwards. The people were manipulated.
-
26:43 - 26:46That's when Talleyrand, and I must watch my language,
-
26:46 - 26:50that scoundrel Talleyrand did what he did.
-
26:50 - 26:52I said I wouldn't leave my main thread, but I'll make this one exception.
-
26:52 - 26:58I strongly recommend that you
-
26:58 - 27:04discover the historian Henri Guillemin.
-
27:04 - 27:08Look on the internet for "Guillemin", or "Guillemin Napoléon"
-
27:08 - 27:13"Guillemin, the Commune". "Guillemin 1914 - 1918"
-
27:13 - 27:17You will find televised lectures/shows. The man is dead.
-
27:17 - 27:20But he left us fabulous treasures.
-
27:20 - 27:23The man is a diamond. I listened to two lectures on my way here.
-
27:23 - 27:27Two or three. They are half-hour conferences.
-
27:27 - 27:31He explains how representative governments were born.
-
27:31 - 27:34He explains the Third Republic (NT: 1870 - 1940 in France)
-
27:34 - 27:37The Republic of Businessmen. The Republic for kicks & laughs.
-
27:37 - 27:42The Republic of "honest men". That meant the wealthy.
-
27:42 - 27:46The Republic of the "moderate". The Republic of the "Center-Left".
-
27:46 - 27:49That just meant the bankers, the colonialist bankers
-
27:49 - 27:53who went to willingly pillage the countries of Africa.
-
27:53 - 27:56They called it "Center-Left" and called themselves "Democrats".
-
27:56 - 28:00They called themselves also "Progressive".
-
28:00 - 28:02All were businessmen and bankers. It had nothing to do with the people.
-
28:02 - 28:05Or at least the idea you could have of a people's party.
-
28:05 - 28:12So it's very important. I see many young people, who are 20 years old,
-
28:12 - 28:1820 years old or 30 it seems, not even. I woke up, I was 50 years old.
-
28:18 - 28:24I am so angry to not have begun earlier. You need time to discover all this.
-
28:24 - 28:29You need time. If you start when you're 20 years old, you are lucky.
-
28:29 - 28:32There are so many things to find out, it's true.
-
28:32 - 28:38You can only understand the current situation if you study it and you need to work on it a bit.
-
28:38 - 28:41But it's delicious! History feeds us with so much information.
-
28:41 - 28:45When you discover how Bonaparte, Napoleon,
-
28:45 - 28:52was pushed by the private bankers to take power in France,
-
28:52 - 28:57to assassinate the ideals of the Revolution, to create the so-called bank of "France"
-
28:57 - 28:59which isn't at all from France, but the bank of bankers
-
28:59 - 29:04that pushed Napoleon... It sheds some light on what is happening today.
-
29:04 - 29:08It helps you understand the current situation. It hasn't changed at all.
-
29:08 - 29:14But it is very important so that you are able to imagine a solution; to correctly understand
-
29:14 - 29:16the basic situation of the problem at hand. As long as we are being manipulated with words,
-
29:16 - 29:22and use words but give them their opposite meaning,
-
29:22 - 29:29you are lost. When you accept giving the words
-
29:29 - 29:35an opposite definition to what they are, you won't even be able to formulate the solution.
-
29:35 - 29:38We don't live in a democracy. We voluntarily live [in a lie].
-
29:38 - 29:44Sieyès knew fully well what he was writing when he made the representative government.
-
29:44 - 29:48That is: a regime where the people don't get to vote their own laws.
-
29:48 - 29:53The people are not autonomous. The people don't vote their own laws.
-
29:53 - 29:58The people are heteronomous. The people submit to laws written by others.
-
29:58 - 30:03At the bottom of page 11, I have written for you the quote of Sieyès
-
30:03 - 30:11that lets you understand what kind of regime we live in since day one.
-
30:11 - 30:13We never lived in a democracy that slowly sank and became different.
-
30:13 - 30:18From day one, we live in a regime that renounces democracy.
-
30:18 - 30:22It is very important that we know this
-
30:22 - 30:26so that afterwards, we can imagine alternatives. What bishop Sieyès said
-
30:26 - 30:32back in 1789 was: "The citizens who nominated for their
-
30:32 - 30:36own sake representatives" - so, they nominate themselves -
-
30:36 - 30:40"[the represented citizens] renounce and must renounce making the law themselves.
-
30:40 - 30:45They have no particular will to impose.
-
30:45 - 30:48If they dictated their will, France could not be that representative State.
-
30:48 - 30:53France would be a democratic State. The people, I repeat,"
-
30:53 - 30:57- says Sieyès - "in a country that isn't a democracy,
-
30:57 - 31:02and France can't be one, the people can talk,
-
31:02 - 31:06can act, only through their representatives."
-
31:07 - 31:11Democracy and the Random Draw / Common Lot
-
31:13 - 31:17If, when you discover this book
-
31:17 - 31:20that I strongly recommend,
-
31:20 - 31:24- and I've been talking about this book for over a year in conferences -
-
31:24 - 31:29this book has shaken me, transformed me. I beleive it will transform you.
-
31:29 - 31:32It is a very important book. This book that I will talk about
-
31:32 - 31:35doesn't have a very "sexy" title at all.
-
31:35 - 31:39If you see it in a library without having been told that it is great,
-
31:39 - 31:41you'll probably just miss it and think:
-
31:41 - 31:48"That one, maybe another day." The auther is Bernard Manin
-
31:48 - 31:53and the title is "Principles of representative government."
-
31:53 - 31:56It is an essential book. It is a book
-
31:56 - 32:00that talks about election and of random draw / common lot. It is a book that is surprised
-
32:00 - 32:02that the random draw completly dissapeared
-
32:02 - 32:07from the political scene. And with that tone, the book tries to
-
32:07 - 32:14make an honest inventory of the pros and cons of democracy,
-
32:14 - 32:17of the random draw and of the election. When did we start using the election process?
-
32:17 - 32:20How does it work? Has it given us satisfaction? Who talked about it
-
32:20 - 32:23and when did the transformation take place?
-
32:23 - 32:27And since we have never heard of the random draw,
-
32:27 - 32:29- well maybe you have heard of the random draw -
-
32:29 - 32:31but I, during my whole education, including law school,
-
32:31 - 32:33I never heard of the random draw / common lot.
-
32:33 - 32:35And when democracy was debated
-
32:35 - 32:38with the existence of the random draw, it was described as an odd ball
-
32:38 - 32:40and we passed quickly to another subject. I absolutely didn't see
-
32:40 - 32:46how central the random draw was to democracy. And we discover it with Bernard Manin
-
32:46 - 32:51in a very lively, tonic, and passionate litterary way.
-
32:51 - 32:53And there is a whole bibliography
-
32:53 - 32:57that will make you discover other books on democracy, the true democracy!
-
32:57 - 33:00The true one, the one the Athenians had. The one that could be ours
-
33:00 - 33:04if we wanted it! We need to want it for it to become true.
-
33:04 - 33:10I will talk more about it. But books like the one by M. H. Hansen,
-
33:10 - 33:15that describes Athens in detail, and who spent his life working
-
33:15 - 33:17on all we could know about Athens and all the documents
-
33:17 - 33:20from far or near on the topic... a great scholar
-
33:20 - 33:24who wrote many great books on athenian democracy.
-
33:24 - 33:28Concerning the period of Demosthenes, he compiled it all in one book.
-
33:28 - 33:31So it's a summary and it's captivating. It is about the life of Athenians
-
33:31 - 33:35who go to the Assembly in the morning... Well when they go to the Assembly that is.
-
33:35 - 33:38The Assembly is about 6000 people and 2000 present themselves for the random draw.
-
33:38 - 33:44And every day, people are randomly drawn.
-
33:45 - 33:50So I'll explain this in very few words,
-
33:50 - 33:53and I will let you argue as to why this could be wrong. I know many possible objections.
-
33:53 - 33:55I am getting used to them now,
-
33:55 - 33:58but I hope you will find objections that I haven't seen yet.
-
33:58 - 34:01I actually appreciate that ... I am looking for it. I am not trying to be right.
-
34:01 - 34:06I am trying to imagine a robust system that could work
-
34:06 - 34:10and that wouldn't be a utopia. And if you show me that I am wrong,
-
34:10 - 34:13I will adapt, I will change, I will work on it or on something else.
-
34:13 - 34:15For now, I am under the impression that I have a hold on something strong.
-
34:15 - 34:18And I want to see it under fire from your objections.
-
34:18 - 34:23The Athenians
-
34:24 - 34:29So Athenians, 2500 years ago, had
-
34:29 - 34:34a small city-state of 60,000 citizens, give or take,
-
34:34 - 34:40depending on the period, depending on the plagues and so on. It lasted 200 years.
-
34:40 - 34:45The Athenians, after 800 years of tyranny and when a reform came along
-
34:45 - 34:52by one of the prominent citizens - someone of the high society, Solon -
-
34:52 - 34:57- who started to reform Athens and started to change
-
34:57 - 35:04the mechanisms of power to protect the social body and core from abuse of power -
-
35:04 - 35:08the Athenians started to put in place a regime under which
-
35:08 - 35:14they wrote by themselves the laws and also voted their own laws...
-
35:14 - 35:19the laws that they obeyed. They would gather
-
35:19 - 35:22in an assembly, a great assembly, 6000 seats,
-
35:22 - 35:27and whoever was willing could come. And same as nowadays,
-
35:27 - 35:29many did not come. And it wasn't always the same who showed up.
-
35:29 - 35:33You had a daily agenda that was published on the Agora,
-
35:33 - 35:37and you came to the Assembly if the subjects of the day were of interest to you.
-
35:37 - 35:41And I'll diffuse the first objection that generally pops up
-
35:41 - 35:46and that is that the Athenians, the people of Athens, so the citizens
-
35:46 - 35:51or at least those who were the citizens of Athens weren't all the Athenians in Athens.
-
35:51 - 35:53You had half of humanity that was set aside:
-
35:53 - 35:59women back then had no political right. And you also had slaves,
-
35:59 - 36:01and slaves had no political rights either.
-
36:01 - 36:04Foreigners also had no political rights either.
-
36:04 - 36:07Of course, children and animals had no rights either.
-
36:07 - 36:09What I am getting at is that there are common points
-
36:09 - 36:11that you still find today: children, animals, the insane people...
-
36:11 - 36:16or even us, living human beings who have no political rights.
-
36:16 - 36:18So what I want to say to diffuse that objection
-
36:18 - 36:22so that it doesn't bother you the whole while because I know
-
36:22 - 36:26some of you know this and it stops us from moving forward.
-
36:26 - 36:30I know fully well that they were slave traders and they were male chauvinists,
-
36:30 - 36:32but I am not interested in that. Personnally, I am neither
-
36:32 - 36:35a slave trader nor a male chauvinist. What I want to say
-
36:35 - 36:42is that you shouldn't transpose that system as if it were a model to our present day.
-
36:42 - 36:45The Athenian regime is of course not what I am pointing out here.
-
36:45 - 36:50What I am pointing at here is that all the civilizations at the time
-
36:50 - 36:52- remember 2500 years ago isn't the same as today -
-
36:52 - 36:55all the civilizations at the time ill treated their women
-
36:55 - 37:02and had slaves. It was not specific to democracy.
-
37:02 - 37:06And emocracy can fully well work without those elements.
-
37:06 - 37:08Or at least, today it could. Maybe back then, it couldn't have worked without it,
-
37:08 - 37:11because women worked so much that the men could
-
37:11 - 37:14free their time and take time
-
37:14 - 37:16for politics. Slaves too freed up time
-
37:16 - 37:19for men. But today, we would have with the help of oil and machines,
-
37:19 - 37:22we would have more than enough to free some time in our schedules
-
37:22 - 37:25to make room for politics, all of us, without the need for slaves.
-
37:25 - 37:28And we would have women along side us in the assembly.
-
37:28 - 37:31So as you can see, that objection is not worth the trouble.
-
37:31 - 37:35Objectively, that objection is worth nil.
-
37:35 - 37:40I understant that an elected representative, who wants us to stop talking about the random draw
-
37:40 - 37:43that is going to put him out of a job, is going to tell me:
-
37:43 - 37:46"But Mr. Chouard, you are defending
-
37:46 - 37:47a slave trading regime ?
- Yes, yes, I know. -
37:47 - 37:51- And you wouldn't happen to be a slave driver, by any chance?
- No, no, I am no slave trader or driver." -
37:51 - 37:56What I observe in Athens, in the small community of Athens,
-
37:56 - 37:59and of course I am only talking about athenian citizens,
-
37:59 - 38:03therefore excluding women, [slaves & foreigners], OK
-
38:03 - 38:09So in that community, you had many poor citizens.
-
38:09 - 38:13Almost all of them were poor and you had very few rich,
-
38:13 - 38:20very rich. And this looks oddly like today.
-
38:20 - 38:27And listen closely: for 200 years, 200 years of randomly drawing people,
-
38:27 - 38:29- and you will see how random draw garanties this -
-
38:29 - 38:36for 200 years of randomly drawing people every day, the rich never governed.
-
38:36 - 38:41Not one day. And the philosophers, Plato, Aristotle,
-
38:41 - 38:45spent their lives spitting on democracy. To say how wrong democracy was.
-
38:45 - 38:46Because how dare you imagine a regime
-
38:46 - 38:49where the poor, the rabble, the poor lead and govern. They govern poorly.
-
38:49 - 38:54They lie, they learn how to lie. So Plato slandered,
-
38:54 - 39:00and the word isn't strong enough, Plato invented wrongs
-
39:00 - 39:06that someone who then studies democracy can easily break.
-
39:06 - 39:09He can easily undo the lies. Plato should have been
-
39:09 - 39:13- and he was a noble - should have been a company boss.
-
39:13 - 39:17One of the city bosses, and bad luck for him, he lived at the time
-
39:17 - 39:20when democracy was around. So he missed his political career altogether,
-
39:20 - 39:23because of demcoracy. So he spent his whole life writing how bad
-
39:23 - 39:26democracy was. You need to know this. Mind you, he said some very interesting things,
-
39:26 - 39:33about us, our condition. You won't hear me reject entirely the works of Plato.
-
39:33 - 39:40I invite you just to be aware of Plato's situation when Plato speaks about democracy.
-
39:40 - 39:42He had a score to settle, a personal score,
-
39:42 - 39:45and in my eyes it didn't correspond at all with the greater good.
-
39:45 - 39:47Plato actually respects quite poorly the greater good when he talks about democracy.
-
39:47 - 39:50So you need to keep it in mind when you read Plato. Aristotle is in the same situation too.
-
39:50 - 39:56Most philosophers despised democracy.
-
39:56 - 40:04So Athenians protected themselves from abuse of power.
-
40:04 - 40:07And this happened after having seen over 800 years that power changed people,
-
40:07 - 40:10transformed them. People who were good at the start
-
40:10 - 40:13ended up becoming madly insane and started to serve
-
40:13 - 40:15personal interests rather than the greater good.
-
40:15 - 40:20So noticing that it was the case and quite pragmatically - not at all idealisticly -
-
40:20 - 40:25with their priorities set right, they made something very robust
-
40:25 - 40:28that could still work very well today. The Athenians put in place
-
40:28 - 40:34a system of rotating responsibilities. You can actually still find it in our conversations.
-
40:34 - 40:40I am sure that when you are having a conversation, often you say:
-
40:40 - 40:42"The problem is that politics is now a question of professionals.
-
40:42 - 40:46It is always the same people who end up leading us, and there is just not enough renewal in politics."
-
40:46 - 40:49Often, we say that or hear it, nowadays. Well the Athenians
-
40:49 - 40:53solved the problem by making an institution where the responsibilities rotate.
-
40:53 - 40:56You have short mandates, one year maximum,
-
40:56 - 41:01often six months, even shorter. Even the boss of Athens
-
41:01 - 41:06was randomly chosen every day. Every single day, the chief of Athens was randomly drawn.
-
41:06 - 41:09So you had short mandates, non-renewable,
-
41:09 - 41:14which garanteed to Athenians and others
-
41:14 - 41:17that you had political amateurism.
-
41:17 - 41:21The Athenians did not want professionals politicias to run the show.
-
41:21 - 41:24They did not want it. They absolutely did not want it
-
41:24 - 41:28to protect themselves against abuse of power.
-
41:28 - 41:32They said, and they knew, then... or they had as first hypothesis
-
41:32 - 41:38that at the beginning, you have real political equality.
-
41:38 - 41:41That is why it is at the center of your schematic. A real political equality.
-
41:41 - 41:43Athenians knew very well that they weren't equal.
-
41:43 - 41:45They knew fully well that you had intelligent people
-
41:45 - 41:48and idiots. They knew you had people with virtue
-
41:48 - 41:51and dishonest people. They knew you had strong people and weak ones.
-
41:52 - 41:55They knew that. They knew that there were people capable
-
41:55 - 41:58of governing a ship and others who weren't capable of it.
-
41:58 - 42:00That wasn't the question at all. Here, the question is politics.
-
42:00 - 42:04"Concerning politics," said the Athenians, "there is no necessary skill.
-
42:04 - 42:10We are all competent." To give strength
-
42:10 - 42:17to this central principle, of true political equality,
-
42:17 - 42:22you had to put political amateurism in place. And we are all,
-
42:22 - 42:27as said Aristotle, in a democracy where the citizens are alternatively
-
42:27 - 42:30governing and governed. Governing and governed,
-
42:30 - 42:38at random. The central procedure that made Athens possible
-
42:38 - 42:43was the rotating responsibilities and so political amateurism
-
42:43 - 42:46and political equality all held together!
-
42:46 - 42:48If you take random draw away, it all falls apart.
-
42:48 - 42:52You loose democracy. The procedure that makes it possible
-
42:52 - 42:56is the fast rotating responsibilities and political amateurism.
-
42:56 - 43:04It is the random draw. On the contrary, the election is by definition
-
43:04 - 43:07- and it isn't even subject to a debate -
-
43:07 - 43:12the selection of the best one out of us. An election isn't choosing
-
43:12 - 43:15the worst, this we agree on, and I am not exagerating.
-
43:15 - 43:18The goal of the election is to choose the best. Whether you achieve this or not,
-
43:18 - 43:25you are looking for the best one. The best one, "aristos" in Greek.
-
43:25 - 43:30Aristocracy is the regime of a government led by the best.
-
43:30 - 43:33So what Aristotle observed 2500 years ago,
-
43:33 - 43:39was that aristocracies degenerate, degrade over time, always. That was what Aristotle said.
-
43:39 - 43:42So already 2500 years ago, we saw that an aristocracy never stays for long.
-
43:42 - 43:48An aristocracy becomes an oligarchy, said Aristotle.
-
43:48 - 43:53So this is nothing new. So if you will, up to 200 years ago,
-
43:53 - 44:00until Rousseau, Montesquieu, every one knew,
-
44:00 - 44:03and this was general knowledge, everyone knew
-
44:03 - 44:11that the election was aristocratic by nature. And that the procedure of democracy
-
44:11 - 44:15was the random draw. Everyone knew this.
-
44:15 - 44:17What I like about democracy is that it is not about finding something
-
44:17 - 44:20that is perfect. I know fully well that it isn't perfect.
-
44:20 - 44:23That's not the topic here. I am not looking for a utopia... Something that is perfect.
-
44:23 - 44:27I am looking for a way out of an awful situation in which people are [trapped].
-
44:27 - 44:30We are going back to war here. You find the same signs
-
44:30 - 44:33that were present just before the previous World Wars.
-
44:33 - 44:37But for the same reasons, with the exact same political impotency of the greater mass of people
-
44:37 - 44:39who don't want to go to war, and the same political power
-
44:39 - 44:43of those who have money and who want war.
-
44:43 - 44:46Listen to Guillemin, you will see the geneses of the wars:
-
44:46 - 44:49the genesis of the Napoleonic Wars, the genesis of the Commune (NT: period 1871 in France)
-
44:49 - 44:55and that of the war in 1870, the genesis of the 1914-1918 war,
-
44:55 - 44:59and the genisis of the Second World War. And every time, those were unecessary wars,
-
44:59 - 45:03manipulated wars, wars that were only wished by the 1%.
-
45:03 - 45:08It is very important that you listen to Guillemin.
-
45:08 - 45:11You will see clearly what is happening to us today.
-
45:11 - 45:13And you already know it, or at least you already partially know it,
-
45:13 - 45:17but you will see how strong it is and how strong it can become.
-
45:17 - 45:20I mean by that that it doesn't only seem clear to you but it becomes powerful.
-
45:20 - 45:24You tell yourself: "Hang on, we've got to do something about it!"
-
45:24 - 45:29I won't go further into details... I don't have much time.
-
45:29 - 45:32But what I still need to explain
-
45:32 - 45:35is that the random draw scares. It scares us today.
-
45:35 - 45:37When I talk to you about randomly drawing people, the first reactions are:
-
45:37 - 45:40"But what on earth is that thing ?! The random draw,
-
45:40 - 45:43yeah right! You want to put power in the hands of randomly chosen people ?"
-
45:43 - 45:49No! That's just it. Random draw isn't used for giving power;
-
45:49 - 45:54it is used to keep power for us, us all, the 99%.
-
45:54 - 45:58Up to now...and last year still, I was saying "the rich & the poor"
-
45:58 - 46:00and that was a problem. But it is in effect very simple,
-
46:00 - 46:03I was thinking about the ultra-rich, and the poor were everyone else.
-
46:03 - 46:06So they are not really poor, but they are us. And we are having a hard time
-
46:06 - 46:09imagining that we are the poor ones. We can't identify with that term.
-
46:09 - 46:12So it wasn't the correct image. And then the rich,
-
46:12 - 46:13we are all rich compared to someone else.
-
46:13 - 46:15So that wasn't right. But when I say:
-
46:15 - 46:191% the rich, 99% the others, everyone gets it.
-
46:19 - 46:21And the Protestors / Occupy movement gave us those words,
-
46:21 - 46:26it is useful, it describes better the fact that it has always been the same problem.
-
46:26 - 46:29And so, in a democracy, or a democracy that is worthy of the name,
-
46:29 - 46:31What the Occupy movement / Protestors are looking for today is:
-
46:31 - 46:34"We want a real democracy". Well, Athenians
-
46:34 - 46:36had already found exactly what they needed,
-
46:36 - 46:39what they were looking for. But sadly, you don't find the random draw
-
46:39 - 46:41present in the Occupy Movement. It is still missing.
-
46:41 - 46:43They haven't discovered it yet. But listen to
-
46:43 - 46:49how it was back then, in Athens, for the 99%,
-
46:49 - 46:52that is all those who want to write the laws.
-
46:52 - 46:55Well no, not write the laws because we are not all capable of writing them.
-
46:55 - 46:57Here, in this room, we would already be too many to write laws.
-
46:57 - 47:00To write a law, you need to build a small group.
-
47:00 - 47:03But we want to vote for the laws. That is we want to say,
-
47:03 - 47:08for every single law, not bit by bit, but law by law,
-
47:08 - 47:11we want to say, if we are autonomous, if we are citizens,
-
47:11 - 47:15and not simple voters but autonomous citizens,
-
47:15 - 47:20we want, we the Athenians, we want to vote ourselves our own laws.
-
47:20 - 47:25So how did it work ? Well we would get toghether in a great assembly
-
47:25 - 47:29where people would come up. So you had speakers
-
47:29 - 47:31who would come to the floor of the assembly and say:
-
47:31 - 47:34"We need this law because of this reason". Then another speaker comes.
-
47:34 - 47:36When you are 6,000, you don't all talk. The people in the assembly
-
47:36 - 47:39can ask for permission to speak and go down to the floor and talk.
-
47:39 - 47:42But there is no debate or discussion. Everyone is silent during the assembly.
-
47:42 - 47:45You vote. It is outside of the assembly that you will do the talking,
-
47:45 - 47:47to prepare. But once you are in the assembly,
-
47:47 - 47:52you vote. You listen to the speakers. You listen to the successive debates.
-
47:57 - 48:03And so that the system can work, the assembly can't do everything.
-
48:03 - 48:06The assembly can't prepare a law. The assembly won't prepare them.
-
48:06 - 48:10The assembly can't carry out the laws either. The assembly is not going to be the police,
-
48:10 - 48:15or the judges. So the Athenian assembly, the democratic assembly,
-
48:15 - 48:19it would be neighbourhood assemblies. Here, we're in Montpellier.
-
48:19 - 48:21You would have multiple neighbourhoods, and in each,
-
48:21 - 48:26you would have assemblies. But for each assembly, we need representatives.
-
48:26 - 48:32Our own assembly needs representatives.
-
48:32 - 48:35And a democracy worthy of the name has representatives,
-
48:35 - 48:39but they are not masters. They are the servants
-
48:39 - 48:42that we must constrain so that they remain servants,
-
48:42 - 48:46So that they never become our masters. And the random draw was there for that.
-
48:46 - 48:52The random draw is there to give a very small bit of pwoer, and never twice in a row,
-
48:52 - 48:58and never for long. So the randomly drawn in Athens were,
-
48:58 - 49:01for example, the Counsel of the 500 that were randomly drawn.
-
49:01 - 49:06The Counsel of the 500 prepared the laws. They made parlementarian study groups and think tanks.
-
49:06 - 49:09They didn't vote the laws. The representatives never voted the laws.
-
49:09 - 49:12So for the random draw, you are afraid of it when, at first,
-
49:12 - 49:14you think: "We are going to randomly draw people who are going to vote instead of me."
-
49:14 - 49:18Not at all. A democracy doesn't work that way.
-
49:18 - 49:20Representatives aren't the ones who are going to vote for the laws.
-
49:20 - 49:23Do you see what I am getting at ? We will always vote for the laws.
-
49:23 - 49:28The 99% who want to build a real democracy,
-
49:28 - 49:30a democracy woth of its name, they will put in place
-
49:30 - 49:33the random draw because they know they need representatives
-
49:33 - 49:36to write the laws, or to carry them out, or to be the police.
-
49:36 - 49:40Policemen were randomly drawn. Judges were randomly drawn.
-
49:40 - 49:45Short mandates, non-renewable, and at the end, you were accountable for your actions.
-
49:45 - 49:50There were a serie of control mechanisms added to the random draw, and they were fabulous!
-
49:50 - 49:57To be randomly drawn didn't mean that you did nothing. You had a collection of responsibilities
-
49:57 - 50:00and you were in danger. People could loose their life at the end of their mandate, since they were accountable.
-
50:00 - 50:03I'll grant you that it's a bit brutal, but life was more brutal at the time.
-
50:03 - 50:05We wouldn't have to be so brutal today, of course.
-
50:05 - 50:08We could simply punish, without sentencing someone to death.
-
50:08 - 50:11We could punish instead. But what I want to say is that since you were held accountable,
-
50:11 - 50:14it was quite strict! What did he do during his mandate? Why did he do it?
-
50:14 - 50:16And you kept asking questions until you were sure that he had correctly served the greater good.
-
50:16 - 50:20And if he had correctly served the greater good,
-
50:20 - 50:24you built an arc of triumph for him. You treated him with the highest honors,
-
50:24 - 50:31you looked at him with gratitude, and he would make a reputation for himself.
-
50:31 - 50:34And with the eyes of society on you, and its appreciation,
-
50:34 - 50:38you didn't need a money reward. Only insane people try their very best for society
-
50:38 - 50:41only if you reward them with money. Most of us
-
50:41 - 50:45we work really hard for the greater good, without the need of money rewards.
-
50:45 - 50:48We need money to live, and that's it. Afterwards,
-
50:48 - 50:50the simple fact that people are grateful and are happy
-
50:50 - 50:52with what you have done keeps us going and makes us happy.
-
50:52 - 50:55For most normal people, that's enough. Of course, you have crazies
-
50:55 - 50:57who need a million euros a year to actually bother working hard,
-
50:57 - 51:02but you should throw those in jail. That's absolutely not the general case.
-
51:02 - 51:07That was just a joke. So the randomly drawn were filtered.
-
51:07 - 51:13Well, not filtered, they were slightly selected.
-
51:13 - 51:15In your schematic, what I am going to tell you
-
51:15 - 51:18is on the left part... the vertical line there...
-
51:18 - 51:21that was the checks done on randomly drawn people,
-
51:21 - 51:25because Athenians were afraid, as you are, to randomly draw idiots
-
51:25 - 51:29or dishonest people. Of course they were afraid! But they put in place a large set of control mechanisms
-
51:29 - 51:33that made sure they had nothing to be afraid of from those randomly drawn.
-
51:33 - 51:35So at the start, it is on a voluntary basis.
-
51:35 - 51:37That was the first filter. So already, those who thought themselves
-
51:37 - 51:40to be incapable of taking up the responsibilities didn't come forward
-
51:40 - 51:43to be randomly drawn. So that was your first filter.
-
51:43 - 51:48Then, you had ostracism that pushed out those
-
51:48 - 51:51you didn't trust. And Athenians didn't trust most of
-
51:51 - 51:56those who could speak well. Athenians, who had strong political experience,
-
51:56 - 51:59and it is very interesting to discover it - you learn so much from it -
-
51:59 - 52:06yhey built up a political system to protect themselves from the abuse of power.
-
52:06 - 52:10From demagogues, from corruption. They put in place
-
52:10 - 52:13many institutions that are absolutly incredible.
-
52:13 - 52:18So ostracism today has a very negative meaning. But ostracism,
-
52:18 - 52:20back then, not only was it not negative,
-
52:20 - 52:23but it was a very important word for Athenian democracy.
-
52:23 - 52:26It let you put someone aside that you were afraid of.
-
52:26 - 52:30So since they were looking for agreement, in order to pacify society,
-
52:30 - 52:35you absolutely had to push aside individuals that could cause hate
-
52:35 - 52:40or fear, or panic. So for individuals who worried them, Athenians
-
52:40 - 52:43could, with the help of a procedure call "ostracism"
-
52:43 - 52:45put those individuals aside. I'll talk about it later
-
52:45 - 52:49if you are interested, you'll just have to ask. So you had a method to put aside
-
52:49 - 52:52people that you feared. You also had "docimasy" [Greek].
-
52:52 - 52:55I keep the word because I like it a lot. There is a certain form of poetry in some greek words,
-
52:55 - 52:57like "isegoria", the right to speak for all at every moment,
-
52:57 - 53:02or like docimasy, that sort of test, not of skills,
-
53:02 - 53:06since I told you earlier that all Athenians believed they were equally skilled in politics.
-
53:06 - 53:09That was their hypothesis. They knew there weren't equal [in skills]
-
53:09 - 53:11But the hypothesis was equality in politics, however,
-
53:11 - 53:17they could understand that there was the issue of aptitude.
-
53:17 - 53:20For example, an insanely disturbed person, a mad man, you had to have a
-
53:20 - 53:22mechanism to put him aside. So docimasy served to put mad men aside.
-
53:22 - 53:25They also had criterias - and we could think of what criterias
-
53:25 - 53:28we could choose as ours, modern criterias - but they had their criterias
-
53:28 - 53:33that I find fun. You couldn't be randomly drawn
-
53:33 - 53:35and pass the docimasy
-
53:35 - 53:39if you weren't someone who took good care of your parents.
-
53:39 - 53:44It is curious to see that. You couldn't take care of the greater good
-
53:44 - 53:48if you weren't even capable of taking care of your own parents.
-
53:48 - 53:58So this simple assessment should lead us to study the athenian system.
-
53:58 - 54:02They practiced it for over 200 years.
-
54:02 - 54:06If it were so bad, if there were so many faults, if there were so many problems,
-
54:06 - 54:11if it were even suspicious, they would never have lasted 200 years.
-
54:11 - 54:14200 years, that's a very long time. It's the same length of time as us trying out the election system.
-
54:14 - 54:21Since 1789 (French Revolution), you have approximately 200 years. A 200-year long trial of elections.
-
54:21 - 54:25And in Athens, you had a 200-year long trial of random draw.
-
54:25 - 54:30If it were so wrong, if it had so many objections, without any answers to them,
-
54:30 - 54:33it would never have lasted 200 years. So have a look, you will see.
-
54:33 - 54:36If you feel you have an objection, when you dig slightly deeper...
-
54:36 - 54:38you need to work on it a bit... if you just work a bit on the subject, you'll find out
-
54:38 - 54:42how passionate it is. If you work, you'll see that the objections
-
54:42 - 54:49all find a solution. When I weigh the pros & cons,
-
54:49 - 54:52and this is not an opinion, but facts,
-
54:52 - 54:55when I look at 200 years of random draw,
-
54:55 - 54:58and when I see that during 200 years of random draw
-
54:58 - 55:02it is the citizens in their vast majority, almost exclusively
-
55:02 - 55:06the 99% that voted their laws and who for over
-
55:06 - 55:11200 years voted their laws that put forth a society
-
55:11 - 55:17that knew prosperity, was rich, politically stable. They weren't miserable.
-
55:17 - 55:19They weren't more miserable then their neighbouring societies.
-
55:19 - 55:22It wasn't chaos at all. They had their problems, for sure.
-
55:22 - 55:25Democracy had problems that would be interesting
-
55:25 - 55:29for us to study to try and avoid them and make the system better.
-
55:29 - 55:34But over 200 years of practice, the 99%, the poor were in power.
-
55:34 - 55:36And they didn't squash the rich either. They didn't kill them.
-
55:36 - 55:40They didn't steal from them. The rich lived a very good life back in the time of Athens!
-
55:40 - 55:42They lived much more comfortably than the poor.
-
55:42 - 55:45They had great villas, many slaves,
-
55:45 - 55:49and lived wealthy lives but they didn't have political power.
-
55:49 - 55:52We have a hard time imagining it.
-
55:52 - 55:55We grew up in a regime, since we were children,
-
55:55 - 56:02where all the societies in the world
-
56:02 - 56:05have rich people in power and they have everything. And if we are poor,
-
56:05 - 56:08we don't have power. We have nothing. And there is a synchronisation
-
56:08 - 56:11to which we have becomed used to.
-
56:11 - 56:15I want you to become aware that in Athens, for 200 years,
-
56:15 - 56:22because of random draw, the political power and the economical power
-
56:22 - 56:26were desynchronised. You did not have the same people who were politically rich
-
56:26 - 56:32and economically rich. And today, it is the opposite, for 200 years,
-
56:32 - 56:35the false universal suffrage, in our false democracy,
-
56:35 - 56:41with false citizens, these elections with their false choices,
-
56:41 - 56:43for over 200 years [have left us powerless]. Listen to Guillemin, you will
-
56:43 - 56:45find the details of what I am telling you. For 200 years,
-
56:45 - 56:50it is always the 1% who have been in power,
-
56:50 - 56:55voted laws of ultra-rich people for the ultra-rich. It is without a single exception.
-
56:55 - 57:03And the 99% have never been in power, not even during the Popular Front [1936-1938], not even in 1981 [Women's emancipation].
-
57:03 - 57:10So the simple assessment that the random draw gives power to the poor,
-
57:10 - 57:12that democracy, the true democracy, gives power to the 99%
-
57:12 - 57:17and that representative government gives power to the 1%, the rich
-
57:17 - 57:23that should normaly stir you. I am not saying adopt it right away.
-
57:23 - 57:26I know fully well that you will need time to get used to the idea
-
57:26 - 57:28because it is so shaking, upsetting. You'll need time to shake off the habits.
-
57:28 - 57:31It's been 50 years that I have been taught "Election equals Democracy",
-
57:31 - 57:35"Democracy equals Election". That's not true!
-
57:35 - 57:39The solutions.
-
57:43 - 57:48So I'll stop talking about athenian democracy until further questions.
-
57:48 - 57:53So I would like to talk about our concerns,
-
57:53 - 57:56the problems we face today, and the solutions
-
57:56 - 58:00that I have come up with because I am interested in your opinion.
-
58:00 - 58:03Do you think that it could be possible, doable ?
-
58:03 - 58:06What wouldn't work ? What are your objections?
-
58:06 - 58:11I am in need of your objections.
-
58:14 - 58:16Over the past 6 years, I have been living with controversy.
-
58:16 - 58:19Endlessly, I rub against opposition. Almost every day,
-
58:19 - 58:21I am in a controversy, people contradict my point
-
58:21 - 58:26and you move so much faster when people contradict you, oppose you.
-
58:26 - 58:30We need that. Today, there is a good chance that most of you
-
58:30 - 58:37won't completly agree, but most often, in an assembly,
-
58:37 - 58:40we come together because we share more or less the same point of view.
-
58:40 - 58:42The progress made in such an environment isn't as good.
-
58:42 - 58:45What is better for moving forward is when we [disagree]
-
58:45 - 58:50That's the gamble of democracy. In Athens, the general idea of democracy
-
58:50 - 58:55was to get people together, and most importantly people
-
58:55 - 59:02we dislike, to bring up conflictive situations. That's what is important.
-
59:02 - 59:05To make the best possible decision, the Athenians beleived
-
59:05 - 59:08that we should give everyone a say. That was isegoria.
-
59:08 - 59:12To give everyone a chance to speak up, the right to speak for all, concerning any subject, at any given moment.
-
59:12 - 59:19Isegoria... a beautiful word. That right of speech and the setting for conflicts
-
59:19 - 59:24let them shed light on which were the correct decisions.
-
59:24 - 59:27What I observe everywhere is that in the Constitution,
-
59:27 - 59:31the rules that organise our power are not planned at all.
-
59:31 - 59:34That is, they are anti-constitutions.
-
59:34 - 59:39The institutions that organise our power are missing.
-
59:39 - 59:41That is why we are powerless, politically impotent.
-
59:41 - 59:46Because nothing is programmed to give us any kind of power.
-
59:46 - 59:49That is a cause. You know, I was telling you
-
59:49 - 59:52about the tree of social injustices earlier, with all its consequences.
-
59:52 - 59:57All the branches that are types of political corruption,
-
59:57 - 60:00abuse of power in companies, ecological catastrophy,
-
60:00 - 60:05unemployment, low income, and so on. All those social injustices
-
60:05 - 60:10all the discrimination, the racism... All those social injustices,
-
60:10 - 60:16to me, they are all consequences of our political powerlessness / impotence to fight against them.
-
60:16 - 60:18We are many, very many, (and we don't need all),
-
60:18 - 60:21we are many ready to fight against these injustices.
-
60:21 - 60:26But we are without power. I propose that we take on
-
60:26 - 60:29the cause of our powerlessness and get rid of it.
-
60:29 - 60:32Like someone who is sick isn't going to just take some aspirin
-
60:32 - 60:34when his head hurts. He is going to try and find out why
-
60:34 - 60:36he has a headache. So for very serious diseases,
-
60:36 - 60:39where it isn't just a headache that goes away with aspirine,
-
60:39 - 60:43and by then, the cause has dissapeared, but for serious diseases,
-
60:43 - 60:48the doctor is going to have to search for the cause of the disease. The root of the issue.
-
60:48 - 60:50So that political impotency, where does it come from?
-
60:50 - 60:53It comes from the Constitution. You see, I go back to the source of things.
-
60:53 - 60:55I go back to the root. It stems out from the Constitution.
-
60:55 - 60:59Ah! The Constitution. So how come these Constitutions
-
60:59 - 61:02are bad Constitutions? So I try to understand this.
-
61:02 - 61:06But, but, but, but... who writes these Constitutions?
-
61:06 - 61:09Who wrote them? Who voted them in? It is still we, the people.
-
61:09 - 61:12It is always the people who vote their Constitution in.
-
61:12 - 61:13So now we see that it isn't suffisiant to solve the problem,
-
61:13 - 61:16since the Constitutions, as I told you, program in almost every country,
-
61:16 - 61:19the powerlessness of the people. So voting for the Constitution doesn't change that.
-
61:19 - 61:23You musn't just accept a Constitution you are asked to vote on.
-
61:23 - 61:26That's a scam. That's not where the game is played.
-
61:26 - 61:28What is important is not who votes for the Constitution.
-
61:28 - 61:31What is important, is who writes it. So who writes it?
-
61:31 - 61:34Everyone around the world, no matter the historical period, the question is who wrote the Constitution?
-
61:34 - 61:36Do you remember what I told you earlier?
-
61:36 - 61:40You have us, you have the powers who are capable of producing the law,
-
61:40 - 61:46useful for us but also dangerous, and then you have the institutions that they should be afraid of.
-
61:46 - 61:50Who writes the institutions that they never fear?
-
61:50 - 61:59They do! That's my point. And I work hard, and I come here to meet with you,
-
61:59 - 62:02because it must absolutely become your point as well.
-
62:02 - 62:07It must become your thesis, our soul focus point.
-
62:07 - 62:09If I alone fight this, it won't work. But if we are millions,
-
62:09 - 62:12billions even, we can say: it is not the place or the role of people in power
-
62:12 - 62:13to right the rules of their power. We must stop having
-
62:13 - 62:16professionals in politics that find a seat in Constitutional Assemblies
-
62:16 - 62:20for the following to stop: the simple fact that these political professionals
-
62:20 - 62:22program the impotency of their people. But it's normal,
-
62:22 - 62:26they have a personal interest in that. I am not saying they are scoundrels.
-
62:26 - 62:30I say that, since they are professional politicians,
-
62:30 - 62:34even virtuous, even very noble, even very generous professionals,
-
62:34 - 62:37that when they will be writing a Constitution that they should fear,
-
62:37 - 62:41and that will hinder their interests, in essence,
-
62:41 - 62:46in that specific moment, they are in a conflict of interest.
-
62:46 - 62:48Conflict of interest is a concept that is very important to understand.
-
62:48 - 62:52It is the key. It is the key to all this mess.
-
62:52 - 62:56It is the source of the catastrophic situation we are in.
-
62:56 - 62:58I will give you an example of conflict of interest,
-
62:58 - 63:01and I'll come back to our professional politician writing the Constitution.
-
63:01 - 63:05Conflict of interest occurs like this: you have a judge, a very good judge,
-
63:05 - 63:10an honest judge, who worries about the greater good, about justice.
-
63:10 - 63:17More detailed, more conscientious than him, you won't find. Not an ounce of dishonesty.
-
63:17 - 63:21A good judge. In his role, in the agenda of cases to do during the day,
-
63:21 - 63:30comes along his son, or his daughter, either as a victim or accused of a crime.
-
63:30 - 63:34Everyone on earth understand that this judge,
-
63:34 - 63:39even a good judge, is incapable of producing justice
-
63:39 - 63:42for his daughter or his son. Do you understand?
-
63:42 - 63:44That is called conflict of interest. The conflict of interest
-
63:44 - 63:47doesn't mean that he is dishonest, not at all,
-
63:47 - 63:50it doesn't say he is a corrupt scoundrel, not at all!
-
63:50 - 63:58It just says that for that specific moment, he can not be fair.
-
63:58 - 64:00So what do we do, for that specific case, accross the world?
-
64:00 - 64:03It is not even a problem, not even for the judge!
-
64:03 - 64:06He makes it a point of principle and honor by recusing himself.
-
64:06 - 64:13You declare him incapable of doing that particular trial.
-
64:13 - 64:19Why ? Because he would be judge and jury, he would be in a conflict of interest.
-
64:19 - 64:23So you can't have that. It is very important that you understand that this is wrong.
-
64:23 - 64:28You understand it? Well I say that our political representatives,
-
64:28 - 64:34our ministers, our judges, our presidents, our news reporters,
-
64:34 - 64:38our bankers, all those who hold important power, [are in conflict of interest].
-
64:38 - 64:40Media and banks, you must also put them in the same bag
-
64:40 - 64:44as parlementarians, government, judges. It's a whole.
-
64:44 - 64:46You don't have three powers but you have five powers
-
64:46 - 64:49that threaten us and that we must weaken and control through a Constitution.
-
64:49 - 64:54So all these people, including candidates for such positions,
-
64:54 - 64:57including people who aren't parlementarians yet,
-
64:57 - 65:00who aren't ministers yet, but who see themselves in the future
-
65:00 - 65:03as candidates for a party, for power, they are included.
-
65:03 - 65:07Do you see? So all these people, even the kindest ones,
-
65:07 - 65:12the virtuous ones, the good ones, the devoted to greater good,
-
65:12 - 65:18when we are in the constitutional process, when we are writing a Constitution,
-
65:18 - 65:21when we are writing the text they should fear,
-
65:21 - 65:26if that Constitution is well written, they are in a radical situation.
-
65:26 - 65:32It is a strong conflict of interest. They will have a personal interest contrary
-
65:32 - 65:36to the greater good of us all. We have let them deactivate
-
65:36 - 65:39a great tool that is the Constitution, that could protect us
-
65:39 - 65:43efficiently today against bankers, against oligarchs.
-
65:43 - 65:47We have let the word lose its meaning:
-
65:47 - 65:51a concept, an essential tool that legally protects us.
-
65:51 - 65:55We have let the word lose its meaning by letting
-
65:55 - 66:00the Constitution be written by exactly those who should be fearing it.
-
66:00 - 66:05The solution is not with those people. If we wait and want them to make things change,
-
66:05 - 66:08it will never change. That isn't the root cause,
-
66:08 - 66:13they aren't the cause of the problem.
-
66:13 - 66:16The root of the issue is the people who let them write the rules.
-
66:16 - 66:22That's us.
We are the lazy ones or the uncultivated. -
66:22 - 66:28I know : lazy, uncultivated, afraid, coward.
-
66:28 - 66:35I am saying it nicely but you see what I mean.
-
66:35 - 66:36But wait, wait, wait...
-
66:36 - 66:44If you recuse yourself from writing the Constitution, you shouldn't complain
-
66:44 - 66:47about your political impotency. It is your fault.
-
66:47 - 66:51It is our fault. And I beleive that I found the cause. So it gives us hope.
-
66:51 - 66:55If it is in us, then we can change it!
-
66:55 - 67:01If it only depended on others, and they are scoundrels who double the stake by being in conflict of interest,
-
67:01 - 67:06then we'd be stuck! But if it is us, then it's simple finally.
-
67:06 - 67:10It's not complicated at all! Beleive me when I tell you it isn't complicated.
-
67:10 - 67:12It is complicated only if we are few. Voilà.
-
67:12 - 67:15If we are 1,000, 2,000, even if we are 100,000, it won't work.
-
67:15 - 67:19They'll butcher us. When I say "They", I mean the "people from Versailles".
-
67:19 - 67:21Listen to Guillemin, he will explain what happened during the Commune.
-
67:21 - 67:22You will understand who "the people of Versailles" are.
-
67:22 - 67:33It's awful. They still exist today and they still squash
-
67:33 - 67:37us! When you look at the Greeks nowadays, just look at them. They are us!
-
67:37 - 67:39When I look at Palestinians...we are Palestinians!
-
67:39 - 67:47If we don't do anything, in the long run, it will end up with work camps. We have to wake up.
-
67:47 - 67:51Internet Revolution
-
67:53 - 67:57It seems to me that the Internet is a revolution as important as .
-
67:57 - 68:01the first printing machines. The printing press gave us the power to read.
-
68:01 - 68:03It gave the people the incredible right to emancipate.
-
68:03 - 68:06That you have the right to read is good but not sufficient.
-
68:06 - 68:10Even with the printing press, you can only read
-
68:10 - 68:14the books that have been written, in general, by the elite,
-
68:14 - 68:21by oligarchs, by people who are no longer part of the mutlitude.
-
68:21 - 68:23What the Internet has given us, what the Internet has given to the people,
-
68:23 - 68:28and by that I mean the people of the earth, is the right to write.
-
68:28 - 68:31And that is probably [the breakthrough]. We have not yet seen the full consequence of this,
-
68:31 - 68:33and maybe I am wrong, but I am under the impression
-
68:33 - 68:36that it is at least as important as the first printing machine.
-
68:36 - 68:38It will give us the possibility to educate the people
-
68:38 - 68:43that we need, and to put powers back on top,
-
68:43 - 68:47above our elite. It will let us put a text on top
-
68:47 - 68:51that they will fear. And in my eyes, it can change everything.
- Title:
- True democracy, the Random Draw / Common Lot - Etienne Chouard (Montpellier, March 14th, 2012)
- Description:
-
For all, this 55 year old teacher reveals that "our misfortunes" (ecological catastrophy, destruction of civil services in public administration, work slavery, the reign of money...) have been made possible "because of our incapacity to resist". He indicates "I will do like Hippocrates did. I try to find the root of the causes. It is vain to fight against consequences." He believes that this "impotency to resist", this "infantilization", is "programmed in the Constitution". Since "those who write the Constitutions first think of how to preserve their own interests", to "change things" and put in place "a real democracy", he sees only one way forward: to randomly draw citizens who will write by themselves a new Constitution.
Original video from http://vimeo.com/39060391 & www.Sud360.fr (Many Thanks to them for letting us use the video)
If you want to help translate this video in other languages, you can:
1. Work here:
http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/h8ZFgjyLGeXS/info/la-vraie-democratie-le-tirage-au-sort-etienne-chouard-montpellier-14-mars-2012/
And / Or
2. Join the translator group on Facebook to work as a team (and have proof reading):
https://www.facebook.com/groups/virustraducteurs/ - Video Language:
- French
- Duration:
- 01:08:56