-
Which means our representatives
do not have power
-
and those who have the power
of the european institution
-
are not elected
-
and this is planned in part I.
-
It seems to me that this,
deserved a debate.
-
The fact that there wasn’t led me to think
-
that the European institutions
are illegitimate.
-
So, in the points I want to
talk to you about,
-
because I know you will
not hear about this otherwise
-
if I don’t talk about it,
-
there is what I call :
« laws without parliament ».
-
It the point E in the middle of the page
-
« the ministers and presidents accumulate
-
executive and legislative powers
-
which means they are legislators
-
-the ministers – are at the same time
legislators and executives.
-
On a serie of areas hidden from people,
-
and I can prove that it is
hidden from people.
-
I mean, the articles I will show you,
-
you will see how it is hard to realise
-
that these are topics on which
-
the European MPS – people you elected-
-
are left out in purpose.
-
Not clearly left out,
-
they are left out in purpose
-
and I would like to get
your attention on this.
-
So I read this with you
-
in order to make sure
I don’t forget a thing.
-
So « the ministers and presidents
-
accumulate powers on a serie of
areas hidden from people
-
under the abusive name of
– take note of the name –
-
“specific legislative procedure”
-
and it is the article 289 of TFUE.
-
It is in the middle of page 4.
-
You see, there is the article 289
-
and, I have highlighted here,
I have underlined the definition.
-
The 1/ It’s the ordinary
legislative procedure
-
which consists in the adoption of
a rule, a directive, a decision
-
by the European parliament
together with the council.
-
This is the ordinary procedure.
-
It is not the parliament
which makes the laws,
-
it is not the people you vote for
which make the laws.
-
It is : the people you vote for
-
with the council of the ministers,
as co-legislators,
-
which means the ministers
who decided to be co-legislators.
-
They decided to be co-legislators
beside your MPs.
-
And NEVER, really NEVER,
-
Iin not one rule,
-
at least I didn’t find any,
-
in no rule, in no area
-
the parliament can’t write the laws alone,
-
without having
a sort of « tutor » behind him
-
which is the council of the ministers.
-
First thing… but it’s not all of it!
-
So, the parliament, you know that already-
-
We talked a lot about it in 2005,
-
the European parliament
does not have the initiative of laws.
-
Which means it is not it which decides.
-
It cannot decide on topics
-
on which it wants to legislate.
-
Which means it can only vote
-
for topics which are presented to it.
-
This is VERY important,
absolutely IMPORTANT!
-
The one who has the initiative,
has a big part of the power.
-
The one who doesn't want a law
-
and who has the power of initiative,
will not suggest this
-
and this law he doesn’t want,
-
he will get rid of it that way.
-
It is very important, the initiative!
-
For a sovreign parliament,
-
for a parliament worthy of the name,
-
it is very important –
it would be very important -
-
to have the initiative of laws.
-
You know that, in France,
the initiative is shared.
-
Most of the laws in France,
come from the Government
-
It is called the “projects of law”
-
whether, when it comes from an MP,
-
it is called a « proposition of law ».
-
But at least, the MPs have
a little initiative.
-
In the european institutions,
they don’t have it AT ALL.
-
So, it is in the article 2 that we find
-
the beginning to understand
what is this thing.
-
« In the specific cases,
foreseen by the treaties
-
The adoption of a rule, a directive,
or a decision
-
So it is the three possible levels
-
of the law in Europe
-
by the european parliament
-
with the participation of the council,
-
by it, with the participation
of the parliament
-
which means that one of the two.
-
You understand they are 2 co-legislators
-
and the specific legislative procedures
-
say : following these articles
-
sometimes it will be the one
and not the other
-
and sometimes it will be the other
and not the one.
-
So sometimes, it will be the council of
the ministers which decides
-
only with the opinion of the Parliament
-
and sometimes it will be the parliament
-
with only the opinion of
the council of the ministers.
-
Here is what we’re told!
-
and it will be called :
« the specific legislative procedures ».
-
Although, there is no, there is no list
-
of the topics on which it is
to the council to decide
-
with only the parliament’s advise
-
the advise… and even if he disagrees
-
it can be done without him
-
because it is only an advise
-
and then, the list of topics on which
-
the parliament can decide
-
and only with
the council of minister’s advise.
-
There is no list!
-
I wonder :
-
« Why is there no list ? »
-
because, we have to go and look for it..
-
So I, I did this job,
-
ae did this job, we searched
-
a list of … well, you have to look
into hundreds of articles
-
sometimes you find an article and
you think
-
"Here, I found a specific legislative
procedure"
-
and a specific legislative procedure
-
all the one I could find, they are ALL...
-
It is areas on which
-
the ministers council can decide
-
with the opinion of the Parliament
-
and I found no specific
legislative procedure
-
where the parliament decides
with the council’s advise
-
and, I will give you an example,
-
in order for you to understand
how this system works,
-
which are the topics,
a kind of topic on which
-
we have a specific legislative procedure.
-
So, I gave you several.
-
You can see one just below:
-
the article 153 – here is an example –
-
yes, I put it between brackets,
in the middle of the page
-
just beneath what I read to you
-
inside the brackets : it’s me who talks
-
as an exemple of non legislative act,
-
see the security policy
-
in the box on the side,
-
for the foreign affairs, it’s incredible.
-
Everything is happening
without the Parliament,
-
the Parliament can’t say a thing.
-
But well, I’ll take another topic
which is more social
-
which concerns us as employee
-
in order to understand
the specific legislative procedures
-
which we should call instead,
laws without parliament.
-
It is the name I give those
-
because it is clearer,
-
it would be clearer
-
as “laws without Parliament”.
-
We have to read one by one,
-
hundreds of the treaty’s articles.
-
The fact of refusing to present a list
-
of these laws without Parliament is
-
in itself, suspect,
why hide this reserved areas?
-
So here is an example of
an ordinary legislative procedure
-
and of a specific legislative procedure
-
regarding social politic.
-
The areas of codecisions
between parliament and ministers
-
are underligned in grey
-
and the areas where
the executive legislate alone
-
are underlined in black.
-
So, you see the article 153 TFUE
-
which means you have
already read 152 articles.
-
You are looking for
-
the specific legislative procedures
-
and you arrive to the article 153
-
where you find :
“in order to realise the objectives
-
indicated on article 151.
-
The union supports and completes blabla
-
in the following areas
-
and there, for now, we don’t see,
-
we don’t see yet why it is
a law without parliament.
-
You will see that in this other article,
-
which you will realise
-
and you will see the serie of areas,
-
so, you have:
-
a/ the improvement to the individuals
-
b/ the work conditions
-
so all the laws on social security
-
the social protection of the workers
-
all the laws on the protection of worker
-
in case of resignation
-
all the laws on…
-
and you have a list like this
-
Well, you see that the union supports
-
and completes the States actions
-
but here you can’t see yet
that it was – we can’t see that–
-
this is a specific legislative procedure.
-
So, wait, at what moment can we see it…
-
So I keep going
-
for this purpose, the Parliament
-
I am at the end of this page 4
-
2/ For this purpose, the parliament
and the council
-
can adopt measures
which aim to encourage (a/)
-
b/ can stop in the areas
-
indicated in paragraph 1. a/ to i/
-
by directive ways, minimal prescriptions
-
applicable progressively
-
taking in consideration the conditions
of the technical rules
-
priorily existing
-
these directives avoid the obligation
of administrative restrictions
-
and you see that in the areas
-
-third paragraph of page 5-
-
In the areas aimed at by paragraph
-
.c, d, f and g of the present article
-
The council can decide in accordance with
-
a specific legislative procedure,
-
unanimously after consulting
the European Parliament,
-
the said committees...
-
Wait! I don’t know if you see the clutter,
-
in which we have to –
and the constant concentration it needs-
-
to see that : “hey!”
-
- and here I have underligned in black –
-
There are the areas indicated
-
in the paragraph blablabla
-
so we need to go backward
and find it highlighted in black,
-
the areas we are talking about,
-
these areas there,
-
the council decides… And this means
without the Parliament
-
and here you have a legislative procedure
-
where the council decides on
a simple advise of the Parliament.
-
Here, we have on points c/ d/ f/ and g/,
-
we have laws without Parliament.
-
So, what are these point there?
-
Maybe it’s unimportant points…
-
Maybe it’s points where
it is not really important
-
that our representatives discuss them
-
and are able to – publically – debate
-
of the discussions of
the European union on the topic.
-
Are they topic that do not count ?
-
The social security,
the social protection of the workers,
-
the protection of the workers
-
in case of termination
of the work contract.
-
Why MPs have no decision power on this?
-
Why ministers have to decide about that?
-
Maybe I am wrong…
-
I repeat, I am very « open » on this,
-
I just say we didn’t get
a debate on this topic.
-
We don’t manage to get a debate on this
-
and what I read, I find…
-
I don’t like it.
-
I don’t understand at all.
-
I try to put myself in their shoes,
-
I don’t understand why.
-
Why have we put in place
specific legislative procedures
-
where the ministres,
-
it’s the MINISTERS who decide
-
and not my parliament.
-
Participant : Wait… Where do
these ministers come from ?
-
They are not elected,
how did they become ministers
-
who took the decision
to put them as ministers?
-
Etienne : This depends on the governments.
-
It depends on the countries.
-
In some countries they are taken,
-
in England, they are chosen
amongst the MPs
-
but in France maybe…
-
How is he called the one who is candidate?
-
It can be people
who have never been elected.
-
It depends, it depends on the countries,
-
it depends on the circumstances
-
but it is not always elected people
-
and it is not people who are
accountable in front of a parliament.
-
Participant : In the specific topic
of social security
-
It will be minister of every country?
-
Etienne : Yes
-
Participant: one for each country ?
-
The decision will be taken unanimously?
-
Etienne: Yes
-
Yes it says unanimously here.
-
At the minister's unanimity.
-
Of every country ?
-
Yes, that’s it, without Parliament !
-
Well, with the advise of the parliaments.
-
… "After consulting"...
-
Participant : In France, the ministers
are not elected.
-
Etienne : Yes but wait, in France,
-
the laws are voted by the Parliament
-
but you are right to highlight
-
that the worm was already in the fruit.
-
We already have laws
without Parliament in France.
-
Yes all the regulatory power:
-
decrees, orders, …
-
There is already a lot of rules
in the constitution
-
of the 5th Republic.
-
That would make Montesquieu
-
spin in his grave !
-
Which are the most total confusion
of powers
-
and in fact all the regressions
-
of the last 20 years of labour law,
-
they happen very much
by the regulatory power,
-
which means without the parliament.
-
It is the regulatory power
-
which is for me, an aberration.
The regulatory power...
-
There shouldn’t even be
a regulatory power.
-
We need to find something
which allows to decide
-
in all details, the application of laws.
-
I understand this,
I understand the purpose
-
I understand the aim, the justification.
-
You see, in France, in law,
-
you have the law which indicates
the general rules
-
and then the argument,
is that we cannot ask
-
to the parliament,
which is an assembly which discuss,
-
we cannot ask them to foresee
to all the little details,
-
the application of laws.
-
It is the official explanation
-
but it is a lie…
-
Because it is all more serious
-
what we do with the rules.
-
This is the official explanation
of regulatory power,
-
of the power that we give –
which should be only the executive –
-
and which makes it the government.
-
We give him a power
-
of production of mandatory standards,
-
with no limitation of time
and so serious and dangerous,
-
as dangerous as laws.
-
We give to the government
a power so powerful
-
that the Parliament,
with much less guarantees
-
that the public discussion
there is in the Parliament
-
with the possibility to put up, to discuss
-
with the assembly
-
a complete public debate.
-
When it is the government which decides
-
throught the regulatory power,
-
it is a lot more obscure.
-
There is a lot less counter powers,
-
a lot less possible resistance.
-
It is fertile ground
-
to infinite power abuse
-
with the regulatory power
-
but I am not saying
-
that we are going from the paradise
of French institutions
-
to the hell of European institutions.
-
I know that there is already,
-
that the situation is already
very serious,
-
in the 5th republic institutions
-
very unknown, unknown.
-
I studied a lot of constitutional law
-
and when I read manuals of
constitutional law,
-
I don’t see this revolt
-
against regulatory power for example.
-
The regulatory power
in the consitutional law
-
is presented like :
« Well, that’s how it is…,
-
That’s how it is, and
it is how it is since a while,
-
since 1958, and we get used to it…
-
And then, there were reasons,
-
here is what was invoked,
-
and then we switch to another topic
-
because a constitutional law’s manual
-
is very thick,
there are a lot of things to read.
-
I think it is against the common good
-
to give to the government
-
a regulatory power so powerful.
-
I remind you that in
the institutions of 58,
-
it’s incredible! The power of the law,
-
the areas of the laws are listed,
-
there is a list of what the law can do.
-
So if it is listed, it is limited
-
and the regulatory power,
it is all the rest.
-
One can clearly see
-
that it is De Gaulle
who wrote the rules.
-
Participant : Excuse me,
I would like to ask a question,
-
perhaps more subversive.
-
If you have a car breakdown,
-
you don’t start voting
-
to decide what to do.
-
You know an expert, a garage
-
who fixes your car.
-
I have the feeling that we await
from a constitution of laws
-
to solve problems,
-
to avoid people acting wrong,
-
as 2000 years ago or more,
-
we believed in spirits or religion.
-
In the end, you don’t believe that
-
it is the human behaviour the issue?
-
Do we need laws
-
to solve humans problems?
-
That’s what I am asking…
-
Do we really need representatives?
-
Etienne : Ah, it is not the same!
-
Participant : I talk about laws,
representatives, all that.
-
It is an absolute mess
which hides completely
-
our incompetence to manage problems.
-
Etienne : So I point out –
I did not bring that book-
-
but I recommend it very warmly,
-
maybe I should think of taking it
with me all the time.
-
There is, on the competency of people
-
on the competency of humans
-
and the alleged, perhaps real
-
incompetency of the people
-
to decide about its own business.
-
There was a very interesting controversy
-
in the middle of the twentieth century,
between a guy
-
who was called Lippman,
who was a journalist
-
at the international level, a big name
-
a brilliant brain which discussed
-
with all the greats of this world
-
who was a hardened liberal
-
who had a book called
-
“The phantom public”,
-
which has been recently republished,
which is a wonder.
-
Very smart, quite depressing,
-
which pretends we are not able,
-
that no one is able
-
to have an informed opinion on matters,
-
given the complexity of human problems.
-
So it is important what he says
-
and he shows it
-
and it’s true that it is very well argued
-
and we feel, we feel that
he is entirely right,
-
but what said Lippman,
-
he didn’t only say that
people are unable,
-
he said that the governers TOO are unable.
-
That no one, on his opinion
is able to have…
-
To pretend taking the good decision
-
and the interpreters,
the people who followed Lippman,
-
they forgot that Lippman had said
-
that not only the people was unable
-
but also the princes and governers.
-
Machiavel said that, Machiavel said also
-
that the people was
as virtuous as the princes,
-
that the princes were not
more virtuous than the people,
-
that the princes were not at all
-
more able to take decisions
-
than the people.
-
We find, in Machiavel,
-
much more than his caricature.
-
I recommend really to read Machiavel.
-
It’s a lot more interesting
-
than the caricature
we make of him usually.
-
He was also looking for the common good,
it is very surprising.
-
So of course, there are features
specific to the time
-
which seem very brutal
-
but it’s much more nuanced
-
than the caricature often made.
-
But, to come back to what you were saying,
-
so Lippmann has written this book
-
“the phantom public”
-
defending the idea that we are not able,
-
and it’s totally linked to my topic,
-
I open the bracket because it is
completely linked to this thinking on
-
if we organize a democracy,
-
are we able to take decisions
by ourselves?
-
On our problems, on what concerns us.
-
So Lippmann pretended that no
-
and he pretended that
our representatives couldn’t neither.
-
A great thinker who was called
Dewey (John)
-
who was a mathematician, a logician
-
and who was a survey theorist
-
who has worked a lot on the improvement
of people competence
-
from the survey method,
-
a little like Socrates led us to
-
progress by the thinking about ourselves,
-
Dewey was confident in the survey virtues
-
in a working method,
he was a mathematician, a logician,
-
to improve our competency
-
and I think…
-
So the controversy between Lippman
and Dewey is brilliant,
-
absolutely exciting for us to understand,
-
furthermore in a very
comprensible language,
-
it is not complicated words,
-
these people there discuss about
the greater good in concrete terms.
-
Lippmann says : “ Humans are
not able to take decisions”.
-
So he tends ultimately
-
to justify a tyranny,
-
an enlighted despot who will be better
-
and then Dewey says :
“Not at all, if one has the means
-
to institutionalize the conditions
of a real survey,
-
honest and complete,
-
we will raise the level of people
-
which will allow for them to take
-
not so bad decisions.
-
In addition to this controversy,
-
with both these points of view,
-
I would like to highlight that
-
in drawn assemblies
-
and we have hundreds of examples
of drawn assemblies,
-
in the history of men,
-
the draw is not at all a newness,
-
we test the draw since a while,
-
I will talk about
the Athenian time later on
-
but today in the modern time,
-
there is a lot of assemblies,
citizen juries,
-
deliverative polls,..
-
Any kind of assemblies
-
composed of ordinary people
-
to judge of technical topics
-
existed, and are an observation field.
-
An observatory which allows for knowing
-
and so there is a book
which makes the summary,
-
a modern anthology called
-
« The power to the people »
-
from Yves Sintomer.
-
This book here I recommend it to you.
-
It is a book which concerns the citizen
-
because it is the history…
-
First, there is a good part
-
of how the Athenians
were drawn in Athenes,
-
so the procedure they were using.
-
Because every morning they drew
-
and so he explains how it worked.
-
The draw every morning
-
is very interesting!
-
The athenian example, you will see
-
I am enthusiastic about this.
-
So Sintomer explains
in a part of his book,
-
a little quarter, he explains very well
the procedure.
-
But he also explains the experiences
-
of citizen juries, of deliberative polls,
-
in which we study
the competency of people,
-
we study the decisions they take
-
and in the end we realise
-
that far from being the incompetents
we were promised,
-
far from being the drunken moron
who understand nothing about nothing,
-
who take care only of
their personal interest,
-
instead of taking care… and who are unable
to take care of the general interest.
-
It is not AT ALL what we see,
-
what we see when we put people together,
-
to take care of, to talk
about the greater good,
-
people CHANGE
-
when we give them … Care here…
-
When we give them the power
-
of CHANGING things.
-
If you take the piss …
-
If you laugh at them…
-
–no bad words-
-
If you laugh at them
-
and that you give them only
an advisory power
-
which means you let them work
-
and then it’s other people who
will decide,
-
for sure you will not get the effort.
-
You can't catch flies with vinegar.
-
You will not get from them the investment,
-
the efforts, the personal implication
-
which will change them
-
because you didn’t trust them.
-
I am a teacher.
-
I often talk about it in my conferences
-
because this is really
what makes me believe.
-
I know because I experience it.
-
That when I trust someone,
-
he changes! In a good way
-
and in the opposite, when I don’t,
-
if I don't, he changes, in a bad way!
-
And people are not black or white,
-
they are not always the same,
-
it depends on the circumstances.
-
There are institutions which
push people in the good way
-
and institutions which push
people in the wrong way.
-
What I pretend is that
-
our institutions are closed
-
and they deter us from doing politics.
-
They deter us from making efforts
for the greater good
-
and that is why we look like
passive citizen
-
who don’t care about anything;
who are individualists
-
It’s multifactorial,
that’s not the whole of it.
-
But I think the role of
closed institutions
-
is important
-
in this situation of passive citizen.
-
I know it is not a panacea
what I'm talking about
-
but I think more open institutions would
-
let people discuss on sorted assembly
-
or partially drawn if that scares you.
-
We'll talk about it in a minute.
-
Institutions which would allow people
-
to discuss and DECIDE.
-
Really decide
-
and therefore take the risk of being wrong
-
with the possibility
-
when we realized they made a mistake
-
of changing decision to modify.
-
So, it's Institutional Assessment -
-
which allows for decisions assessment
-
and change.
-
These institutions there
if they were open ,
-
they'd transform us, I claim it.
-
Voilà, I ...
-
and the institutions,…
the experiments of draw
-
that I observe in Sintomer's book
-
I found them exciting
-
because they point in the same direction,
-
they show that,
when a meeting of Malians ,
-
so in Mali get together to ...
-
they are drawn to talk about … anyone ,
-
There is a little of everything in there,
-
there is a lot of farmers because
they have a lot of farmers
-
but there is not only farmers
-
there is people of all socio-professional
categories.
-
and when these people get together
to talk about GMOs ,
-
they know nothing about GMOs
-
and they are given credits
-
and for months they work on the topic
-
they bring in experts from
all around the world
-
They have credits for that
-
They listen to the experts
-
then they bring in experts
with opposite opinions
-
in order to hear ...
-
to hear all sides of the story.
-
They hear them publicly,
-
all of it is broadcasted on the radio,
on TV, on the internet.
-
People can attend
these deliberations ,
-
they can intervene and ask questions ,
-
they can say - you forgot to ask
this question
-
well the question is asked
to Monsanto when it comes
-
to explain why it wants GMOs
-
then we will listen to the people
of the peasant confederation
-
to know why they don't want GMOs,
-
then they listen to the peasants of
Latin America
-
Who are using GMOs and tell them
-
"why did you decide to use GMOs?
-
Are you happy about it? "
-
and we hear all this, and after months,
-
people who knew nothing become competent.
-
Here. And that's exciting!
-
that's to say that practical experiments
confirm
-
what I tell you theoretically :
-
humans are political animals
-
but not at any price,
-
If there is no stake, we do nothing
-
because we have no reason to do so
-
but if there is a stake and that
-
if one tries hard, he can change things,
then we do it
-
You have seen in 2005, we were told that
we wouldn't discuss the institutions ,
-
that the constitution was a dusty text,
annoying ,
-
which pisses off everybody,
and noone would even care
-
that it wasn't worth bothering
with a referendum taratata...
-
There was a referendum,
-
we felt we could say yes, no;
there was a stake,
-
we started talking,
we were said we could change
-
but look how much we talked.
-
It could have been better,
it was not long enough ,
-
we have not spoken of Part I as
we should have, in my opinion.
-
We should have been 80%, 90% to say no
-
but because we have not had
the needed debate.
-
I think there are many people, friends ,
-
with whom I discussed at length,
-
Who have voted yes because we did not
have time to discuss as we should have,
-
I think it is…
-
look how it changed us.
-
So,about competence, I think we need laws
-
I think when there is no law, it is
the law of the strongest that prevails
-
and it seems to me less fun
-
The law of the strongest is everywhere .
-
Our regime ruled by law is,
in the nature, quite exceptional ,
-
it is only human which makes prevail,
which imagine and enforce the rule of law.
-
and I think it's far from perfect
-
and we'll see why when we'll speak of
the representative government
-
which is not democracy.
-
But still, it seems to me that
we have a tool
-
Which should help protecting us
-
Pacify us, give us a less painful life
-
But do we really need representatives ?
-
This really deserves a discussion.
-
Representatives as we have today
-
these representatives to whom,
every 5 years ,
-
we give all powers without being able
to choose them
-
Because the choice is a false choice,
-
people I vote for, I have not chosen
them at all.
-
I chose between people I have not chosen
-
This example, is an academic example of
a false choice
-
The examples presented to us
during elections
-
are not real choices, it's not me
who has chosen these candidates
-
So, you give all the powers,
-
because that is exactly what is it,
I give absolutely all powers
-
to people I did not choose,
-
and then without being able,
during the mandate
-
without having the slightest possibility
of revoking ,
-
Or put into question, or even
challenge their laws ,
-
without having any mean of ...
-
It doesn't seem at all, at all,
at all desirable to me.
-
But this, it is not at all democracy ,
-
they call it democracy because
they know that we want democracy.
-
and because they have understood,
and this is fabulous ,
-
that's really smart to play with words
like that.
-
By calling a regime that is the absolute
antithesis of democracy ,
-
which is the opposite ...
when you choose your masters ,
-
people who will choose everything
for you ,
-
it means that mechanically, it is not you
who decide
-
so this is not democracy
-
If it is not you who decide, it means
that we are not in a democracy.
-
The democracy, I'm sorry,
it's a matter of definition.
-
Well, we can discuss this if you want
because everything can be discussed
-
but a democracy worthy of the name is not
what the current system is.
-
The current regime is the opposite:
it is a regime ... ,
-
perhaps defensible but it should not
be called democracy
-
and when it's called democracy,
we get intellectually stucked,
-
consciously or not, I don't care but
we find ourselves bogged down
-
in a situation in which,
we call a situation
-
which is problematic
with the name of its solution.
-
So we don't manage to formulate
the solution.
-
We can not say "I want democracy"
-
because we're told
"but you already have it"
-
"but gnagnagna you play with words"
-
We have to stop using the word
"democracy"
-
when talking about the current regime.
-
The system we live in is not at all
-
and was never intended as a democracy.
-
It is allegedly democratic since
the early 19th century
-
but it was not thought of, to start with,
as a democracy ,
-
it was thought as an elective aristocracy
where the best ones are designated ,
-
where people refers to those
who will decide in their behalf
-
and the designers of the current regime,
-
which is to be called
representative government ,
-
knew it very well ...
they did it knowingly ,
-
it is not by chance, they knew very well
they were not instituting a democracy.
-
They wanted it not to be a democracy ,
-
They knew democracy, they knew what it is
-
and they did not want it.
-
and today we call this regime a democracy.
-
When we will talk in a minute
about what characterizes a democracy
-
and which allowed for the Athenians
to make
-
a democracy worthy of the name work
-
during two hundred years
-
and what it had of extraordinarily
attractive for today ,
-
you will see that the workings
of a democracy ,
-
have absolutely nothing to do
with what we are living today.
-
So I think I answered the bracket
for a little too long ... but hey
-
Presenter: Etienne,
I will suggest a short break ,
-
we said we would make a break at 7:30
-
we passed the time quite a bit.
For those who want ,
-
there is something to eat, sandwiches ,
-
beers, juice, water, etc. next door.
-
and we come back at,
let's say, at ten to, a quarter to ten
-
Etienne: you 're not getting bored yet?
-
(Laughter) (din)
