Looking for the mother of all causes: Étienne Chouard at TEDxRepubliqueSqare

In 2005, before the European referendum, while teaching economics and law, Etienne Chouard took a close look at a draft version of the European Constitution. What he discovered changed him forever. It was his political awakening. Since then, and independently from any political organizations, he warns us against our apathy, denounces our responsibility and wants to restore the true meaning of democracy. His motto : a Constitution written by citizens and representatives selected by sortition.

I'm here to talk about democracy.

But the real one.

The one that doesn't exist at all.

The one that, I think,
would get us out of this mess.

I am a teacher in Marseilles,
and, in 2005, I started to exist.

I woke up, politically speaking,
thanks to a public debate in France.

A referendum about a so-called
'constitution' (NT: a European treaty).

While reading it, I became angry,
I found it dangerous.

I wrote a response
of about ten pages, plus notes.

Then, I published it on my website.

Sent it to my tiny contact list,
a message in a bottle.

Then, something happened
and changed my life.

People grabbed onto it,
it filled a need.

For months, I spent my nights
trying to reply to them,

particularly to those
who didn't like me,

trying to prove them wrong.

Little by little, newspapers
took on the topic, then TV, radio…

They visited me at home.

The site's visit counter
turned like a fan.

40,000 visits per day!
12,000 emails in 2 months.

Now I realize that it was the eyes of others
that changed me,

giving me incredible strength.

First, positive eyes expecting
something that I couldn't disappoint.

Then, those who didn't like me, at all,

the suspicious ones who called me
an impostor, a bum, illegitimate.

I wanted to prove them wrong.

All these eyes added to my motivation,
giving me considerable energy.

It still propels me today.

I discovered that this was an old issue.
Athenians called it shame.

A very interesting and essential concept.

For the Athenians, a good citizen
was sensitive to the looks of others.

It pushed them to virtue.

When others were counting on them,
rewarding them by their look,

it gave them the will to be virtuous.

And, when they sensed reproving eyes,

it encouraged them to stay
on the path of virtue.

And indeed, it works!

People who have shame,
are more virtuous.

Conversely, those who don't,
are very dangerous.

In those days, life was more brutal than now --

well, no need to put them to death, but

we could avoid giving responsibilities
to the dangerous.

Since 2005, I work hard,
for… For what?

First, I try to understand
the cause of social injustice.

I try to find out the common cause
of all social injustice.

Then, I discover, with wonder, the brilliant ideas
founding the Athenian democracy.

A real democracy.

I recover many important words
and turn them right side up,

They have been turned upside down,
for at least 200 years.

Finally, I try to imagine
this work in progress.

I don't have the truth.

I'm building and reinforcing an idea.

I try to think of institutions, good ones,

which would protect us all
against the abuse of power.

I rely on good institutions
to push us to virtue.

I don't count on virtuous citizens.

We all contain good and bad.

But good institutions
could lead us to virtue,

in the same way as
they can pull us away

from the general interest
and the common good, like today.

To do so, I use a great method,

recommended by an old doctor: [Hippocrates].

He said: look for the cause of causes.

I use this all the time.

Why did he say so?

For a problem, an illness,

don't fight its effects.

You won't fix anything.

Neither its causes.

There are too many factors.
It's not that.

Among all causes:
seek the main cause.

At least a decisive one,
one that determines the other causes.

It's the one we need.

The one I look for.

So,

all the activist friends
that I met in politics,

with whom I share battles,
are endlessly struggling and resisting.

I drew a schedule showing
the range of topics on which people resist.

It looks like a tree.

I'm surprised to see all these fighters
focusing on very important things,

but things that are only consequences.

I think no one tries to understand
the cause of all of this.

I think I found… I could be wrong.

I think I found a common cause
to all that impotence, and injustice.

I try to understand
where social injustice starts

I think it's the lack of control
over political power,

that produces
the impotence in the people.

Social injustices are there
because "normal" people,

don't have the power to resist.

All the people I know,
all these activists,

spend their entire lives struggling…

They don't change anything!

How come?

Because their political impotence
forbids them to take action.

Where does this impotence comes from?

My analysis is that it's
from the constitution,

the text that makes elected officials
not liable to annulment nor accountable.

We can't choose our candidates.

There is no referendum
based on popular initiative.

We can't decide anything
on our own initiative.

We let the currency being privatized
because the constitution

doesn't require it to be public.

Etc. Not time for a detailed list.

But, in the constitution,
all our impotences are established.

It didn't happen by magic!
It's written somewhere.

I try to understand
the cause of causes.

Why do all constitutions, worldwide,
program the impotence of the peoples?

It isn't a conspiracy, it can't be,

not every time, in every country,
it's not that.

A universal process
must have a universal cause.

I think that what makes
bad constitutions,

by prefiguring our powerlessness,
instead of our power,

not guaranteeing against abuse of power,
but programming our impotence,

is the fact that those
who write constitutions, the authors,

have a personal interest
in not writing a good constitution,

not to mention the people's power.

They are judge and defendant,
they are professional politicians.

This gets closer
to the cause of causes.

It's not their fault,
they aren't crooked.

It's us who let them write.

To measure the importance of this mistake,

let's remember
what a constitution stands for.

People, us, for about 2500 years,

have needed to put
representatives above us,

in order to produce
and apply a written law

that protects us
from the arbitrary rule of the powerful.

So, these people
are very useful, of course.

They establish the laws
that bring peace to society.

But they are also very dangerous.

If they start to abuse their power,

serving the interests of a select few,
instead of the common interest,

if they abuse power by going mad,

since power drives them mad,
systematically -- (Laughter)

we have known that for 2500 years.
Power drives people mad.

All powers tend towards abuse.

Always -- said Montesquieu.

Like laws of physics, implacable.

And there is a brilliant idea
to protect us from it:

the constitution.

So, what is it? It's a text,
standing above the powers.

Not to organize the powers,
they don't need us to get organized.

Any citizen should know that its purpose
is to weaken the powers,

to worry the powers,

in order to protect us
against abuse of power.

Wait… (Laughter)

If representatives
must fear the constitution…

they mustn't write it themselves.

If they do, they will plan their power
and our powerlessness.

A child understands that.

The main and essential idea is:

men of power mustn't write
the rules of power.

Don't wait for them to renounce
their power, they won't, never.

The solution won't come
from them, but from us.

We must forbid them to write it.

I think this is the essential idea
that we need.

So, in the scuffle
between normal people

and those who wield power
at the moment, there are --

Oh, there is a timer there, good! --

words turned upside down.

First, I'm not a citizen.

A citizen is autonomous,
voting his own laws.

I am just a voter,
I'm heteronomous.

I'm a subject of the laws
written by someone else.

To call us citizens
is to take us in with fine words.

We show off,
but we are nothing. (Laughter)

What do we have
in this so-called 'democracy'?

What rights?

We can choose political masters
who decide everything for us for 5 years,

selected from people not chosen
by us, but by the richest.

And, when they eventually
betray us to the marrow,

there is no way to resist!

We have freedom of speech, right,

but absolutely no power of constraint.

We can jabber, even if it has
no effect, it's allowed.

If it changes anything,
it's a massacre.

We call this democracy?
It's our fault.

We should boycott these bogus words,

refuse to call democracy
what is in fact its strict opposite.

We feed our political impotence
by allowing ourselves to call

democracy something that is
the very negation of our rights.

When we call it democracy,
we can't even express the solution,

We need democracy, but we cannot say it:
the word is hijacked by its opposite.

Reversing the words is genius.
Big Brother, absolutely! (Laughter)

It didn't happen by accident.

It's not that it was good, at first, in 1789,

and then deteriorated, not at all.

Sieyès, a great thinker
of the French Revolution,

a top dog, not a supporting actor,
wrote, in 1789 --

quote, these are the words of Sieyès --

"Citizens who choose to have representatives

cannot write the laws --

must give up making the law themselves.

They don't have any
particular will to impose.

If they were dictating their will,
France wouldn't be

a representative state,
it would be democratic. (Chuckles).

The people -- this is still Sieyès speaking --

in a non-democratic country, and France
cannot be so, cannot speak,

can only act through their representatives".

He wasn't a democrat!

He knew very well what
a democracy was. I'll show you.

Everyone knew, before 1789,
Montesquieu, Aristotle,

that the election is aristocratic,
thus, oligarchic.

Aristotle said it explicitly,
I skip the quote.

Montesquieu as well,
I skip too.

You can look it up online,
I must save time. (Laughter)

Let me underline
the two most important things:

for 200 years
of designation by sortition in Athens,

where there were rich and poor --

okay, I know they set aside
slaves and women.

That's not my point. I'm talking
about the citizens of that time.

There were rich and poor citizens.

For 200 years of designation by sortition,
the poor governed, always.

Always.

Then, another historical example,
no opinions, facts.

200 years of designation by sortition
the poor governed.

There were rich people.
But they didn't govern.

And 200 years of representative government --

that is what we call our regime,

not 'democracy',
but 'supposedly representative system' -

in this regime, for 200 years,
it's always the rich who govern. Always.

Since designation by sortition
gives power to the poor, to the 99%,

and since elections
empower the 1%, the ultra rich,

how long will the poor, the 99%,
defend elections

as if it were a sacred cow!

It's untenable, the poor
defending the election process,

while designation by sortition
would give them back their power.

Why do we value elections so much ?

It's not due to reason,

the facts show
that it's not in our interest.

But, we have myths.

The so-called 'Republican school'
has been teaching us since we were toddlers:

elections = democracy = election, etc.

We have believed it
since childhood.

We need a detoxification from
the lies of these robbers of power.

Turn words the right side up.

We are not in a democracy,

we need one with designation by sortition,
one that would free us from power-seekers.

To change things, we can't rely
on those who are in power now.

The solution won't come from them.

It will come from normal people,
simple people,

People who don't want power.

You must know this thought of Alain,

a great thinker, I recommend him,
who said:

"The most visible sign
of the righteous man,

is that he doesn't want
to govern others, at all.

He seeks to govern only himself."

This seals everything.
In other words, the worst will govern.

If righteous people
don't want to govern,

and if we give power,
as in representative government,

to those who want it,
the worst will govern.

This despairing trap of representation -
Alain is right:

as long as we give power to those who seek it,

the righteous ones,
who don't seek power,

will not be included.

But we can escape from this trap, I think,

through a real democracy,

by granting power to anyone,
-- and the best of us are among them --,

those who don't want power.

Democracy is what we need.

But we must want it.

Don't wait for our elected officials
to want it.

They will never want it.

True democracy means
unemployment for them.

Designation by sortition in Athens
meant giving away a little bit of power,

but not for long,
and never twice in a row,

with many controls,
which I have no time to explain.

Athenians were giving up a little bit of power,

to keep the power for themselves.

Randomly selected people
weren't voting on the bills.

They served in the police force
and applied the law.

They prepared the bills,
because the Athenians

couldn't prepare them in the assembly.

Representatives were weakened
by designation by sortition --

weakened! --

which served as a guarantee to citizens
that they would remain sovereign.

Don't fear designation by sortition, we would,

all of us, be greatly empowered
through designation by sortition

It implies that our representatives
remain our servants,

and can't become our masters.

(Applause)

One last word…

Have a look at le-message.org,
which was created by one of you.

Like viruses, as a grassroots movement

-- don't expect anything
from the media or the powerful --

let's spread the word,
based on this principle:

"our constituent assembly should not be
elected, but selected randomly".

Everything will follow from this.

I think this idea is valid for the entire world.

Thank you for listening.

(Applause)