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