There's also American Indians, if I may say, some tribes...
- So, in America, democracy... - The chief who was elected by tribesmen was just there so that complaints could be made
but they really had no power.
- That's great ! The American Indians, it's another example of Democracy
other than Athens ; but we're more on the Constitutional process here but... yes it's still very interesting
Another example of Democracy other than Athens, which is a Big example of 200 years,
that was something sturdy where they were organised and the organisation
would be interesting for us today... It was namely the Iroquois, but it was almost
all American Indian tribes, so let's just say the American Indians. So they had chiefs, but these chiefs
only had power during war time. Only during a war did the chief have power.
But in peace time, the chiefs had no power. So, they had the feathers,
they had the throne, or at least a special seat for the chief... In truth, it was as if the Indians
were afraid of those who steal power. And so it's as if they planned everything so that the position of
chief existed, so that someone could be in it, so that those who wanted to steal the power
just couldn't go and take it, since there was already a chief... But the chief, he's there,
he has the spot of Chief, but he has no power. He has no power and we're going to show him every day
that he has no power. He has to give us presents. First, when he is nominated Chief,
we are going to nominate him and he can't refuse - that's why it worked -
and then once he's nominated, he had to give us presents. And all day long,
the chief, there, he talks, he negociates, he talks, and he goes on an on... and we walk by him
without even giving him a look. We just ignore him. We ... just to show him that he's the chief,
but he's not a real chief, you see. It's strange isn't it ? You see there all the procedures
that the American Indians put in place to protect themselves against abuse of power.
It's something else than the Athenians, but it's of the same... it's of the same family, that's what it really is.
It's interesting for us... So, in my opinion, it's less sturdy. I don't see well how
we could apply the same thing. You'll see that the Athenian Democracy,
there are many ideas who come along and you just think: now that's interesting, and this is too, and that also...
There are many things that we can just take as they are from the Athenians whereas from the American Indians...
I don't see well, or I don't see us well with a chief just there and talking, and we'd just walk on by, ignoring him.
That's good for small societies, really small societies... So where was I ? So...
I'll just pick up my thread again... I had stopped at the election. 200 years ago, everyone knew that an election
was aristocratic. Today, we completly forgot that, because every day
we are reminded that an election equals democracy, democracy equals an election... 200 years ago, if we had said
to someone, or to Montesquieu, or to Rousseau, if you had said
to any political thinker of the 18th, 17th, 16th century... or even back 2000, 2500 years, if you had said
to someone, a political person: "election equals democracy", he would have said: "This guy's not feeling well, is he?"
Everyone knew that election was aristocratic. By definition !
Election, to elect, that means to choose! It's true, isn't it ? Electing is choosing;
and choosing, you're not going to choose the worst: you'll choose the best. By definition,
you choose the best. And the best, that's aristos. Aristos means the best (in greek). Aristos, it's...
Aristocracy, it's the power of the best. So... it's not surprising ! It's not surprising
that with a regime founded on an election, you have an aristoractic regime at startion. Meaning, at start,
you effectively choose the best ones and then, slowly but surely, there are biases, and we get off track
and don't elect the best anymore, we start electing a small cast... Aristotle at the time said: "All aristocracies
deviate, degrade, degenerate into an oligarchy." That means that power goes to a small number of people,
but not the best. If we manage to... And this we can maybe achieve together... It's...great indeed.
Really interesting because we could maybe manage to imagine a better system
than democracy ! An aristocratic system so well knitted, locked down, thought through that we would always have the best !
The best between us all ! And they should prove every day
that they are the best! And when they aren't the best anymore, they get fired! Then we only have the best,
and no longer inherited aristocracy, because that's just a mortal drift.
When aristocracy is inherited, it's no longer the best! The child of the best one...
Or maybe the best one, he was good at warfare...
We judged that he was the best, alright, but his child, there is simply no reason
that he also be the best... When it starts to be inherited, the system efficiency collapses.
But we could imagine... I'll try to stay brief about aristocracy,
but keep it in mind somewhere. I am, almost against my initiative,
through conferences, the one who defends the random draw and even the purest form of Athenian Democracy,
to show that it's possible, that it wasn't a bad system, and that there are many things to learn from it.
But I am just as able to imagine an improved representative government,
or even an aristocracy, why not ? I'm sure I'm going to make you jump
at the idea, but I'm pushing the limits just to show you that I am open to ideas.
Why not even consider a royal system ! But not a royal system like with Versaille,
because that was just awful, but a royal system with a royal constitution
where we have thought things completly through... us ! Everyone, not just some elite cast.
They musn't write the rules for themselves. But if the People
invent sturdy rules, clever enough so that the king - because the People want a king - never crosses the line,
and when he does, we get rid of him and put another one instead.
That doesn't bother me at all. What I'm interested in, what I'm looking for, is a sturdy regime
that can last, that protects us from abuse of power. Democracy just happens to work really well
on that point. I really must get to talk about the... We'll soon put up a schematic,
and I'll talk to you about Athenian Democacy; and there are many useful things
against oligarchy in Athenian Democracy. Yes ?
- If it was so good, why did they move on to something else ? Did they abandon it or...
- Ah ! That's one of the objections. I can answer that one because it's really short
There will be objections of course, but most are: if it was so swell,
we would have carried on. So wait, if it was great for the 99%, it wasn't for the 1%.
And the 1%, they are rich. They were the philosophers, the Platos, the Aristotles,
all those people talked about democracy, described democracy, but Hated democracy.
Plato, Aristotle and almost all philosophers ! Only the sophists
actually liked democracy and taught people to... taught them how to speak, taught them how to
debate and defend. They were democrats and made people pay for their teaching.
Plato actually made fun of it. He mocked: "Yes, those are the ones teaching people how to speak,
teach them how to lie ?" No, they didn't teach them how to lie; that was just Plato
saying that because he didn't like democracy. Sophists taught how to express oneself, expressing
ideas and defending your point of view, by putting your arguments in the correct light...
And most philosophers were against democracy. So for 200 years,
the Athenians were armed. This is not just some detail, they weren't just armed, they were armed
and they were soldiers. That is equiped and know how to use their weapons.
And to me, it's one of the soul conditions. I'm very sorry,
I am myself a pacifist and unarmed; I am completly naked in that sens,
I don't have a weapon... So I was educated that way and I was completly... modeled to fit
and now I'm fifty and I get the feeling that I might have been cheated here.
Really! Because you just keep on seeing unarmed people getting butchered on a regular basis!
You have to listen to Guillemin! I won't talk more on the subject, but those aren't words in vain.
There are periods where things are calm, and just when we are convinced we need to stop
oppression by saying: "Enough Oppression !" Those who aren't armed end up regretting it dearly.
Enough on that subject; it's an interesting source of debate, because many people...
progressive people, of the left wing and who have said no to weapons:
"It must be non-violent, absolutely" And when I say what I just said, they answer "What on earth is he saying ?!"
And I know, yes, I was like that myself before... but I'm starting to think that...
Enough, it's a debate! Maybe I'm wrong, but we'll see, we'll talk about it. Anyhow, those people
who were armed managed for over 200 years to impose democracy by getting rid of oligarchic systems.
And when one came along, they just finished it brutally or they put...
Well they didn't brutally end it everytime, they could also ostracise it; we'll see, it's a procedure.
So they got rid of it, but they were busy with it, kept watch, they had their white blood cells.
So for 200 years the philosophers methodically wrote hundreds of pages
to explain that the heart, the central element, the sine qua non condition of democracy,
was the random draw. Perfectly indentified by the philosophers, and that's my explanation.
Athenians, they made... well we could also plan for it in our own democracy,
we should fear that threat: that is that they had jealous neighbours or enemies around them,
so the rich actually made alliance with outsiders. The army of Philippe of Macedonia became a monster,
and it became invicincible for them. The ended up loosing the war. But that's secondary,
it's not a necessary conclusion, it's not... It's not an obligation: it could have not happened.
It's contigent. Anyhow, it just happens they lost the war. They lost a war
when the ideological matter, the intellectual basis for it never to happen again was there.
They had understood. After 200 years, the thieves, the power cravers who had never been able to steal away power
for 200 years through a random draw... That's my explanation. It's "chouardesc" as I said before.
I'm not backing what I'm telling you now with a book. Well, it's what I read in books
that makes me guess this, but it's my explanation. Maybe I'm missing other explanations, surely,
because I'm not omniscient, evidently. It seems to me that if democracy
never appeared again, it's because the central process, essential
- when you'll see the schematic, it will appear that it's essential -, it's central procedure
had been very correctly identified by the philosophers, who all talked clearly about it. All these philosophers
point very clearly to random draw as the ground rule for democracy.
And if you take out random draw and that you put an election instead, it's no longer a democracy.
- My comment is not to say that it wasn't a good thing, my comment
is to try and make you understand that it takes a lot of effort...
- Yes, yes I know that it will ask for a lot of efforts, I'm quite sure of it...
- ...and that human nature maybe tends to go towards where we are now...
- Yes, yes, yes absolutely!
- ... and that it has always been that way, because we are...
- So maybe you're right, I hope not. So I'll repeat with the microphone
so that all can hear. The objection points that it's no about saying democracy is bad.
It's more to say that since it never appeared again, maybe it's
in human nature to not be in democracy and to be more in an oligarchy, and that it strives for...
So I really hope that you are wrong. Maybe you're right, I know that.
And I know, I know well, that it's not about imposing democracy.
If we have... It's like in communism, if you impose communism,
it just ends in a blood bath... Every time we impose it, it ends in an utter blood bath !
We'll have democracy only when we'll have it. First, when we'll stop understanding
"democracy" as it's opposite. So we first must learn what we're actually talking about, so we must absolutely
put the words back in their place, and that we want to ! We must have weighed the pro's and
the con's. It's going to ask quite a lot of work from you. It's going to bring us more protection
against abuse of power and injustices, but it's going to ask a lot of work from us.
Are we ready for it ? Do we want it ? Have we been enough to ask
and convincing enough to get the mass to agree and adopt it ?
It's not because we're not there yet that we'll never be. I repeat, Internet
is a tool that let's us discover.
We would have never met before Internet. Internet makes connections and group progression
infinitly quicker... it makes possible and so quickly that it let's us have hope and dream.
Because there are many people who are able to weigh pro's/con's and draw a conclusion:
"Alright, I'll work a little more but at the same time, I'll get rid of parasite bankers...
And so I'll free up thousands of billions of ressources ! I am going to need
to work a lot less when I'll have taken the control of money creation again. " It's a subject...
It's all connection, you see. I'll talk less about it tonight, but you should look at other conferences.
They're on the Internet. But what I'll say on money creation is not something that has nothing to do with this.
It's completly intwined like two organs of a same body.
We won't get money creation back without a Constitution, without writing ourselves our own Constitution.
And we won't have prosperity and a bit of work... with a reasonable amount of work, by working
two times less, maybe two days a week for example ; we won't achieve a prosperity
with an intellectual emancipation... If we work less, we'd be able to learn philosophy,
or musique, or love... many things that at the moment we do little of, or quite badly, or not at all
because we're dumb struck by work! But you know, productivity has quadrupled, fivefolded, tenfolded
since the 2nd World War. Productivity, our work has become more and more efficient,
but in enormous proportions ! In less than 40 years. Do we work less ?
Non, we work the same... almost... give or take 30 min /week. We work the same
but because we have parasites on our back. I'm saying it quite harshly, but when I'm listening to you...
Well I could call them the people of Versailles, like they used to say during the Commune period, those who were...
those who formed a group around the Commune of Paris [just after the French Revolution]... so the rich, in short,
those who had been caught... no, not those who had been caught... the rich who had left
power ; because the Communards didn't take the power. I'm leaving my thread again.
So the people of Versailles, in reality, it's the people of power, those who made people beleive they were of the folk
and had left and deserted Paris. They were afraid, the army didn't obey, and they said: "Oh la la,
the army is not obeying, we have to leave!" And they went to Versailles. There, they created
a huge army to come back and butcher the Communards.
So... yes, yes, maybe you're right, maybe it's won't come to be because we want it,
but it seems to me that the enthusiasm that I find around this idea is growing over the last year,
It's moving forward, it seems. Many people see... they see
what a real democracy is, who discover the lessons from Athens
We won't take everything from Athens. There are things we don't want from Athens, obviously,
but there are things that are "sexy", attractive, interesting in Athens, so...
I find that there is a novation, something new that gives us
a possible perspective and in the end, doesn't make me fight a lost battle.
- In the case of Athens...
- Yes ?
- In the case of Athens, what was the percentage of people living in Athens
who were likely to take decisions ?
- That's going to be a hard one... What was the percentage of Athenians who were likely
to take a decision ? Are you talking about the people living in Athens or are you talking about citizens ?
- I'm talking about living human beings, of course.
- Ah...no well...Why ?
Sorry? Well yes but...
- ... living people who are less human beings than others ?
- Well of course. - Women, slaves...
- Women, slaves, dogs,
cats, children, strangers, there are...
- We've understood each other: we're talking about living human beings.
- Ah you see... I'd put animals in there too. But that's a debate,
as there are debats on: what is defined by the People ? I hope you don't imagine
that I'm a slave trader or a phallocrate. I don't imagine for a second a democracy
without women or with slaves. Don't go imagining otherwise! It's almost an hour now that I'm talking,
you've understood what I meant, it's not... What I'm interested in Athens,
it's what was in the folk at the time. And you must understand that it's not reasonable
to judge, to juge in the terms of value judgement, a folk of 2500 years ago with our own values
of today! That's an anachronism. It's a mistake, we're doing something
that doesn't make sense. When we'll be, us, today, judged by our grand, grand, grand
grand children, who will have long stopped eating meat and killing animals ;
they'll just make artificial meat that will be a lot better than the meat we know today,
and by far ! And they won't need to kill animals at all. Animals
will be their friends, their brothers, they will maybe even know how to talk with them... they will have learned,
finaly, to talk with animals and they will talk with them. And when they'll know, when they will judge us today,
we who ate then, who put them in nazi concentration camps!
That's not an exageration, it's real torture that we impose on animals
to be able to eat them cheap. When they will judge us, they'll say: "But they were,
they were monsters!" Are you a monster ? Non! But you must be judged
with the criterias of your era. I'm saying this so that you understand, but I'm sure that you would have done it
without me. At the time of Athens, all the populations in the world were also slave traders.
All the people around the world ill treated their women. By the way, this treatment, this bad behavior towards women,
it's still going on today. I don't know if this has passed by you that women
are still not treated like men, not at all. And just a few years back,
they didn't have the right to vote! So that's... Let's say that the Athenians weren't the only barbarians
so we should be afraid. No, it's just the people of that era. It was... there weren't any women
or slaves or métèques - métèques, that's what they called strangers - all couldn't vote
What I want to say is that it's not what's interesting for me,
and evidently not what I want to duplicate. This is a trial... and I know you're not putting me on trial for it.
I understand that, but it's a trial that our elected representatives do all the time!
They say: "But Mr. Chouard, you are defending a slave trading regime!
Are you a slave trader?" Non, I'm not a slave trader. I say: "Those were criterias,
caracteristics of that era who weren't necessary to democracy. Democracy
however, at that time, there were 99% of poor and 1% or rich. Aha ! That's a stricking
ressemblance! Ah yes, because that, in all the countries of the world and in every era,
it's a common situation, the 99% / 1% already existed. "Ah, that already existed! So what ?" Well,
for 200 years, those people...alright I know, they didn't have women, there weren't the...
...but listen ! In the citizens, there were 99% of poor and 1% of rich. Who ruled for over 200 years ?
And during those 200 years, the rich existed. They existed and lived their lives of rich people,
they lived really well! They lived with a lot more comfort than all the others.
They had more slaves, they lived better than the rest, but for 200 years of random draw.
Those who ruled were the 99%! For 200 years, the 1% never ruled.
They lived, they lived well, they lived richly, they lived amongst others,
but they didn't have political power. The random draw managed for 200 years to... listen closely,
it's my way of saying it, but it's also why I'm giving so much to understand it,
to be sure that it works or doesn't; and that's what keeps me interested because that's what is transposable.
So for 200 years, the random draw permitted human beings of that era who made up the society...
So "smaller" than us today, but it would work just as well on a bigger scale today!
The random draw let them desynchronise, or clearly seperate economical worth
- so just wealth - of the political worth, of the political power. People who were poor,
who worked in the fields, when to vote the laws. And at the same time, people who were living
in palaces, couldn't vote the laws. They went to the assembly like everyone else,
but they weren't many, they couldn't sway the laws.
- Were they excluded or...
- No, they weren't excluded, they were citizens but since they weren't many,
they couldn't decide. Yes ?
- In a random draw, you can have a real idiot.
- You can have a real idiot or a backstabber. Yes. - We'll talk about it afterwards, if you want... -
Yes, yes, surely yes ! By drawing randomly to have an...
- It's not because you'll have a farmer that you'll have an idiot.
- Yes of course ! No no, this is a misunderstanding. Give me... please let me have
a second so that I can explain, but you'll see that I have a perfect answer for that, you'll see!
A sturdy answer that you'll be able to use yourselves when you'll leave to...
You'll see! It's a powerful objection, surely; it comes to mind to all of us!
"Well, if we draw an idiot! Come on! Or a jerk!"
There are many answers to that. So I'll finish on that... Yes ? Sorry.
- Yes... In Athens, it's all nice and swell, but there were maybe 40 000 citizens.
- Ah that's another objection ; it's the number. They were 40 000 citizens and today
we are 40 million. Ah Mr. Chouard, you are trying to drive us...
- They were capable of assembling in one place...
- ... to gather in one place. How do you do to assemble 40 million people ?
I have an answer for that too, but I'll answer it after, in order.
So no, no, those are objections and I have no intention of eluding them. I swear
that I won't avoid them, or even cheat with any of your objections. We'll treat them very correctly. Yes ?
- Someone who masters the tools, too, someone...
...Communication, there must be knowledge too...
- ... that there be knowledge...
- ... and diplomas...
- Popopopop ! Let's talk, let's talk ! - I call them that way but maybe... - He must be competent
- ...that they have knowledge recognised by others... - They must be competent. - Competent...
- Another objection noted. No but this is great, realy great ! We have our objections!
- Words are words, so "diploma" I don't have anything else but...
- Yes, yes of course! I didn't say the objection was a bad one, it's valid and very interesting
and we must talk about it ! We must discuss. One of two things: Either it's solid and irrefutable,
and in that case we can just stop debating, because it's true, you're right, the whole thing is then shattered,
there. An objection showing that it's not possible, that it doesn't work.
It's just serious. Or the objection is a new idea,
a first idea, and then yes, there's this, and yes, there's this too, and that... The Athenians...
So I'll answer globally. I'll answer globally because there are other objections in the line
that you haven't thought of yet and that will come to your mind
when you'll leave. I'll answer and I will give you an answer
to almost all the objections; maybe not concerning the number of people but it's worth for the others
And it's sturdy. The Athenians were like you and me, they had the same fears as we do.
They weren't insane! They weren't stupid because it was 2500 years ago. They were just as smart as we are
and they were a lot more training in politics as we are. I mean they practiced politics,
they knew what they were talking about, they knew the risks.
And those people, well aware, who wouldn't have let such a danger slip past them:
"We're going to randomly draw an idiot. What do we do ?" They wouldn't have let that slip past them and do nothing about it.
Those people, those Athenians, for 200... 200 years, that's really long, ey. It's not two years,
it's not twenty years, it's not a hundred. 200 years is very long !
For 200 years, they still randomly drew.
- And during those 200 years, did they consider, like you do, that the political instrument
it's almost a goal or was it a mean? If for 200 years
they worked with such a political system, that it let in place all the social unfairness...
- They didn't feel like they had social unfairness. Yes ?
- Ah they didn't feel like...ah yes...
- Well yes. Remember, the people of that time, well... No but that's ...
- Athens for 200 years, it was a great city...
- Yes!
- A political system, it's an instrument, not a...
- Yes, it's an instrument, absolutely.
- It's an instrument for making life better for most people...
- Absolutely
- To make sure to reduce social unfairness, for example...
- Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. And by the way if you... I'll just ask you to beleive me
before that I prove it to you, but it seems to me that what I'm struggling for, that is
to institutionalise a real democracy, a modern democracy, that is one where
we would have women, we wouldn't have slaves. If we manage
to put in place a true democracy, that is that we manage to understand
why we have not achieved this before; and I beleive that it's because we have given up
on the constitutional process. And I beleive that if we manager to create a real democracy,
I beleive that we will be able to solve many social injustices
that we are forced to bare with today. I beleive that marxistes, anarchistes
progressistes in general, guys who are a lot more ...a lot more fierce
on... We want justice. We want Kropotkine. We want social justice;
I beleive that those people should... I really don't feel like I am in opposition with them.
That is because I beleive that it's going to work. If we manage to...
The political system that we are now... refining, balancing by saying:
"We must watch out again this power so that it's not abused of, that it doesn't become a tyranny,
that it doesn't become..." This watchsmith's precaution that no power be able to abuse it's power,
that's a democracy! It's a system where we are able to protect ourselves...
It must be a moderate democracy, because the assembly must not be able to squash;
the majority must not be able to squash the minority, for example. So we must thing about the mechanisms
that will also defend the minorities. I am not at all... I am not mad, I'm looking, I'm searching...
I'm not looking to put in place a system that is going to have the name democracy because it's just called democracy,
because it's just pretty in that way, because I like what they had in Athens. No, not at all!
My thread, it's reducing... I know that we'll never get to the end completly...
I'm not full of illusions...I know that we won't manage to go to the end
of social injustices, there will always be there, but my objective is to reduce them drasticly.
And to outlaw abuse of power. So we're on the side, don't misunderstand, I...
I'll just ask you as a personal favor to not... In a controversy, it's Rabelais
that I should have... It's not Rabelais, it's Montaigne that I should have brought, who in "Essays"...
describes in chapter 8 of book 3 "The art of conversation".
You should buy "Essays" in the version translated in modern french, otherwise you just don't understand it.
In old french, you stop at every word, it's incomprehensible the "Essays", whereas translated
by Lanly, it's beautiful. You'll see, it's linked to what we were saying... Yes I know, I'm leaving my thread again,
but it's useful, you'll see. In the "Essays", Montaigne observes himself
with such honesty that what he finds in himself, also helps us understand ourselves.
And when he talks about our conversations, he says: "In most
conversations, by the game of voice tone rising and of our egos, we are driven,
against our will, to try and prove the other is wrong and we are right,
whereas normally we should, if things were ideal,
we should both search for truth..." Phrase it differently if it comes as a shock
because you consider that there is but one truth, that there is... but here we're searching
and trying to make the less mistakes possible. So if we search and make as little mistakes as possible,
when the other points out a mistake, we should be happy! Alright, we lost because we were wrong,
and he was right, but globally we've made progress since we have found a mistake
that we won't repeat agaion. So I will ask this favor of you, it is to try
to not take our controversies, our short-lived disagreements, like a verbal joust
where we are going to win, the other loose, but more like a common research.
I'm looking for something, I'm not going to preach the mass.
I'm not going to say something "ready made", a revealed truth. I'm thinking this through,
but I'm not finished yet. I'm still finding many ideas: "Great, the Iroquois there, recently";
It's a gold mine, a mine of things that we can integrate in our process. So I'm searching if you will.
So I'm completly interested by your objections, but don't take it as one of us
is going to be right and the other wrong. You see what I mean ? In my opinion, we will win
by trying to find together a system that the thieves of power won't want
and will never give us, and that we alone, those who have renounced to power, who want
social justice, but who want to avoid abuse of power, but who don't desire power;
we alone are capable, I beleive, to invent a regime, a mechanism, a clockwork system
that will protect us on the long run. That will protect us against social injustice, protect us all.
So...yes, so... If we have an objection, and I must answer to the objections,
but maybe we should turn the schematic on so that...
You'll see that the objections, they'll... I'm going to need...
- It's not an objection, it's just about Montaigne: I would like to add something,
The problem is that we often say "virtuous example". When we start to... I beleive that
for many years the political debate and even, let's say, scientific debates and others,
have been more turning around the emotional aspect than really the thinking process; we get the distinct impression that
they are always...that they are never, during the debate, in the other person something
that we put in common. They are always in contradiction. It's sure that people are used
to this kind of debate, to this kind of communication, and it's going to be very hard to establish
a different form of communication other than conflictual communication...
- It's going to be hard, be we shouldn't renounce. It's true, we have a tendancy ... probably...
...boosted by shows... shows that are proposed to us on TV and at the movie theatres,
where really emotions and violence are constantly there and...
- ...they never agree...
- ... and they train us to react with emotion. And when we react under the influence of passion,
our reason falls back a step. All this is true. But we shouldn't renounce, I beleive that there,
if we start to discuss, we are going to shed light on such a risk,
this weakness. Forewarned can be forearmed. Maybe we can defeat it, after all.