-
Ok, so now I'll talk about democracy
-
What can we do?
-
It is very important,
it is the most important.
-
So, 3/4 of an hour is not a lot.
-
Well, I will hand you 3 documents
-
one summary about money
-
there is a bibliography at the end
to deepen the topic
-
Here, on the money,
hand it to them please,
-
I don't know if there is enough
-
if there are not enough,
there are some left here unstapled,
-
I will give you…. Then, I will give you…
-
because we're losing time
in distribution here -
-
and then, I'll give you also 2 documents
about the draw
-
which is the idea,
-
on wich I base my contesting the election
-
and the alternative idea of the draw
-
the first document which is called :
democracy or aristocracy?
-
draw, or election?
-
who can choose? who can make
this choice of society?
-
who can choose: election or draw!
-
Is it the representative?
-
Because I can tell you right away,
-
if it is,
-
they are going to prefer the election
-
or is it the people itself?
-
this is the first document,
-
and then I deepened my thinking
-
and I made a 2nd document on
-
the centrality of the draw in a democracy
-
where I speak of Athenian institutions
in more details
-
so you understand how it worked in Athens
-
so, we will soon turn on the projector,
-
I'll get up to show you
the Athenian institutions
-
First, I will explain the .....
-
this one is the most important!
-
the 2nd, called centrality of the draw,
-
is the most important,
all this is on Internet, of course,
-
you google Chouard and ....
-
everyone has the document
'centrality of the draw in a democracy '?
-
I'll start with a quote,
-
the quote at the bottom of the first page
-
an important quote
that you should not forget
-
which you may also replicate
-
and display in your living room
-
to talk about it with the friends
who come to see you
-
because you'll see,
what I expect from you anyway,
-
that's how I see a peaceful revolution,
-
but not utopian, is that
we would become virus
-
and we do not content ourselves
to have understood,
-
but we would want to make
other people understand
-
if we did that instead of standing still
and understanding thinking:
-
it's nice this idea, it's good!
-
instead of doing that
we'd become a little militant
-
which means we would try to convince
-
maybe one person a week, or a month ...
-
if we do that, if we manage
to convince one person per week
-
maybe one month if you do not succeed,
-
it should not take a year to be millions
-
you do a cross-multiplication,
the exponential calculation,
-
it goes really quick
-
if you manufacture four viruses yourself
-
if you are a virus yourself
-
a beneficent virus, huh!
Of social justice and democracy
-
and if you manage yourself
to convince 4 people
-
not only people you have convinced,
-
but people which you convinced
to become, themselves
-
trainer of trainers, that thing is
at reach of our hands!
-
So I know that there are chains like this,
-
which have no stake
but we do not care about these chains.
-
Here, it is actually a human chain
but with a stake, I think,
-
a really major stake
-
I do not see how we will get out of
these bankers' clutches without it!
-
but with that, really, you see,
it can work
-
when you study what is
the Athenian democracy
-
and especially the characteristics of
facts it presented,
-
it's spectacular!
-
then I'll start with the quote
-
Can you let me know 1/4 hour
before the end?
-
I must give attention to....
-
it's awful that time is not elastic!
-
Participant : I didn't hand out
this papersheet here?
-
no, someone else handed these I believe
-
You want one? Is there one
remaining for me?
-
Participant : I'll take it later
-
Etienne : yes ... Please leave one
to me so that I ...
-
anyway, I will use the diagram mainly
-
I'll place it between us, no problem !
-
we will read the statement of one of the
greatest constituers of French Revolution
-
one of the thinkers of French Revolution
-
He is not a minion, he is someone
important in the french revolution,
-
who speaks of the regime they established
-
and which is ours today and
the one of every government in the world
-
every government except for tyrannies
-
All parliamentary systems are organized
on these principles
-
so what said Abbe Sieyes in 1789?
-
"Citizens who appoint representatives,
(who call upon themselves,
-
Who give themselves representatives),
give up
-
and must give up making
the law themselves;
-
they have no particular desire to impose,
-
If they dictated wills,
-
France wouldn't be
this representative state anymore
-
it would be a democratic state.
-
The people, as I said, in a country
that is not a democracy,
-
and France could not be one,
-
(He couldn't be clearer than that)
-
people can not speak, can not do,
without its representatives "
-
This is the state of mind of Madison,
in the US,
-
founding father of
the American Revolution,
-
who said the same thing in his own words:
-
the people is not capable of leading,
-
it'll be the leaders who will lead,
said Madison and Sieyes
-
Could that quote be any clearer?
-
I should have put it bigger,
-
I should write it right in the middle,
-
I should start with that,
-
maybe I'll review and I'll put
my stuff in the middle
-
because then we understood.
-
Because the regime that Sieyes implemented
-
the scheme in which
we elect representatives
-
who decide everything for us for 5 years
-
without us being able to dismiss them,
-
nor say that the law they just passed
-
is an appalling filth,
-
nor say that the law they are trying
to deprive us
-
is a law we would like to keep,
-
who they have no account to give to us.
-
This regime there ,
which is absolutely not a democracy
-
which is our current system,
-
it was not intended as a democracy,
-
even by pretending,
-
they knew very well, they boasted,
-
they knew very well that
they certainly did not want
-
at no cost, no way, a democracy.
-
They wanted a representative government
-
that is to say a government
-
in which people are just good at
designating their masters.
-
I weigh my words, I am not exaggerating.
-
I am not exaggerating.
-
You have our representatives, people
we elect who decide everything for us.
-
I do a strike of the word democracy
-
I do not want, at any cost….
-
I speak no more of democracy
-
this is a joke, it's not true,
even representative
-
representative democracy is an oxymoron
-
a contradiction in terms, it's not true
-
it's just not possible
-
like black light, or warm snow
-
it is an oxymoron, a contradiction,
a nonsense
-
Representative democracy is not possible
-
and direct democracy is a tautology
-
a democracy is necessarily direct
-
so we need representatives.
Democrats, we'll see
-
the Athenians had representatives
-
they needed police
-
they needed judges, yes yes yes,
-
all the things the assembly can not do
-
it gets the representatives do
-
but representatives who are
the servants of the assembly
-
and do not become its masters
-
and the tool that can be used to protect
the people, us, that protects us,
-
which gives us the possibility
of writing our laws ourselves
-
those of us who want to write
the laws will write
-
and those who do not want,
well they stay home
-
but those who want to come
to the assembly,
-
they come and participate
in the development of legislation
-
what protects them against
thieves of power?
-
The draw.
-
so, that is what I'll show you,
-
so I made a diagram
-
which I use to illustrate
-
we must turn on that thing
for it to warm up
-
I made a diagram
-
to understand
-
How the Athenians had thought
their system,
-
what their objectives were,
-
and which institutions
-
they have put in place
to achieve these goals?
-
I will be forced to make short,
-
normally what I have to tell you here,
-
lasts an hour and a half,
-
I have not more than half an hour
-
so I'll be forced to make short
-
but I have made lots of conferences
since February
-
So there are several videos
that are on the web
-
which will allow you to work on the topic.
-
What I will do there,
I'll just sow some seeds
-
I'll let you know
-
that something very important is happening
-
we're digging out
-
from the seabed, valuable amphoras,
-
a precious treasure
which is capable, I believe
-
to emancipate us,
which can get us out of penury,
-
which is able to protect us
from the oligarchy
-
What I'm discovering
-
it is not I who invented it
-
I discover something that existed
-
but what I am discovering by reading
-
it's like an antidote
to oligarchic pressure
-
I'm not saying that
the oligarchic pressures will disappear,
-
I'm not crazy, it's very concrete
what I say, it is very pragmatic.
-
I not talking about a theoretical thing,
idealistic
-
that would require ... a dream.
-
No no, not at all, it is the opposite,
-
Athenians set up a very practical system
-
taking in consideration our imperfection.
-
Yes?
-
Participant: Before you begin,
From what you say,
-
I do have the impression
that you get an idea,
-
when I listen to you, a very idealistic &
very false idea of Athenian democracy
-
which... I don't see how you want
to get on without representatives,
-
the democrat ... Let's say, those
who regularly participated in the assembly
-
taking the athenian population
at its maximum
-
they had 50,000 people
-
Etienne : Yes 30 000-50 000
-
Part.: those who were directly involved
in the Assembly 5000 - 6000
-
We are 63 million in France alone
-
I don't see how we can do
without representatives
-
Etienne : But that's
what I will explain to you
-
Part.: and even...again, it is a very
small country, it is only 60 million
-
Etienne: it could work with billions
-
Participant: there are countries where
they are 750 and people living
-
in the depths of Siberia
Etienne: but I'll explain,
-
precisely this is why it is fabulous
-
Yes, and then, there are other things,
there are many other objections
-
in the document that I've handed out
to you,
-
there is a handful of objections
that I regularly find
-
I do not want to be right at all costs,
-
I try to protect myself
-
I try to protect us against
the power abuses
-
and what I'm going
to show you is something,
-
it is not a model.
-
I am not trying to transpose
what happened in Athens.
-
There are things which happened in Athens
-
that I do not want to see today at all!
-
I'll start with the objections if you want
-
that way it will reassure you over ...
-
very classic objections
-
because it's still a topic
that is regularly ...
-
that comes out and which they try to bury
-
always with the same objections
-
so I can start by this if you want.
-
Athens was a pro-slavery regime,
-
there were slaves in Athens.
-
I think with the few words
that I could share with you
-
I think you understand
that I am not a pro-slavery
-
What I'm interested in
about athens is not slavery, so
-
there is something else in
the athenes institutions that interests me
-
We will decide to transpose
-
Part of the interesting institutions
of Athens
-
only if they are functional
-
without slavery, of course.
-
This objection here, can we say that ....
-
Participant: I did not even thought,
you talk about democracy
-
the idea of slavery had
not even crossed my mind.
-
Etienne: Yes, but it's an argument
that representatives
-
use against me by saying "but Mr Chouard
-
Do you realize that
-
you're defending a pro-slavery system "
-
It is blunt hypocrisy
-
Obviously I do not defend
-
a pro-slavery regime, of course
-
but that's not all of it,
-
the Athenians were total machos.
-
They had put half of humanity,
-
that is to say they put women away.
-
Women stayed home
-
while men were doing politics.
-
So obviously, I think you understood
-
that is not what interests me.
-
That is to say, of course,
-
if the seeds of democracy are interesting
-
they will be only if we can apply it
in a society
-
in which the people of today,
-
obviously, would integrate women,
-
it's obvious. So it is that there is
something else which interests me.
-
So this objection there, for me,
-
it would apply only if democracy
-
only worked because of that.
-
Participant: My objection was not
about that, it was about the number
-
Participant: you had very few people
in Athens, how do you apply it
-
Etienne: Now I take this objection here
-
there is no problem, I know it
-
and I thought about it and
what interests me
-
it is whether my answer satisfies you
-
or wether I must push it further
-
you will see
-
The Athenian city was between 30 000 and
50 000 people depending on the period
-
this is exactly the population
of our cities
-
I can not imagine democracy
-
organizable either at a nation level,
-
a continent or the world, as it is.
-
Listen carefully, What I imagine
-
is that : here, we are in Metz,
-
but then Metz is a big city
-
so there are districs;
-
in big cities there are districts
-
and there are boroughs, I suppose,
-
and it may be slightly bigger boroughs
-
but well... We saw on the way, we saw
-
there was a theater not far
from here, around;
-
imagine, in every district of big cities,
-
in every village, there is a large theater
-
which can hold 6,000 people
-
maybe 10,000 , because with modern means
-
we should be able to have sound
-
and to accept ten thousand people.
-
Anyway, there will have to be a discipline
-
which will be discussed later perhaps,
-
there was a discipline at the assembly :
-
everyone could speak but not everyone did.
-
It was only those who had
-
something important to say who spoke.
-
Imagine that in each municipality,
-
because that happens in Switzerland,
-
it is not a theory,
-
there are countries where it is practiced.
-
Imagine that at the municipal level
-
we deal, us, men
-
all the things we can settle at
communal level.
-
I do not say everything, I mean everything
-
we can settle at communal level.
-
Wait, this is already half
-
the laws that you have recovered for you;
-
half of the laws, maybe not everyone…
-
We must discuss.
-
I'm interested to discuss
to know, well,
-
Now let's get sarted: which topics
-
can I handle at communal level
-
effectively, which topics
-
will require for me to group up
with other cities
-
and I associate to this thinking,
the precious thinking
-
of Proud'hon, and here's another one
-
who is contested and is waved away
with a flick
-
because he was a misogynist and
he was anti-Semitic
-
Participant: and Bonapartist
at the end of his life
-
Etienne : and Bonapartist,
ok, but if you want
-
Participant: unfortunately
-
Etienne: Unfortunately, yes!
-
I don't defend Proud'hon for
this three faults
-
I defend Proud'hon because
he defended a people's bank
-
because it defended
the federation of cities,
-
leaderless. Wait ... Proudhon he ...
-
You can not minimize people to:
-
either they'll be angels or either
they will be evil!
-
It is not possible,
it does not work like that,
-
people have faults, they are wrong
-
maybe they even fuck up completely
on one or two topics
-
but then they will have a great idea!
-
So, the work that Proud'hon did
about the federation
-
that is to say the organization
of democracy at the base,
-
between us at the roots, small cells,
-
boroughs, not department,
not communities of boroughs,
-
This is too big already, here they're
-
stealing democracy from us when they do
communities of boroughs.
-
No, the borough, the small structure,
-
the organization of democracy among us
-
and then, there are lots of countries
where it works :
-
Germany is a federation,
-
Switzerland is a federation,
-
the United States are a federation…
-
The political experience of
the federation structure
-
it is not at all: we throw ourselves into
the black hole of the unknown and ...
-
It's not that at all! We know very
well how federations work.
-
However, what would be different
compared to
-
federations we know is that
we would start by the base,
-
by organizing a real democracy
at the base,
-
with people who really decide
on everything they can.
-
In Athens, they decide what they can.
-
It is called subsidiarity.
-
I decide myself, people of the borough,
-
I take care of everything I can
-
And I delegate to an higher level
only what,
-
logically and rationally,
-
I must delegate to a higher level.
-
Participant: ah so there are delegates?
-
Etienne: yes yes, there will be
delegates, absolutely!
-
Participant: ah, that was my question!
-
Etienne: ah yes yes, there will be
delegates.
-
I told you earlier, in Athens,
-
there were representatives.
-
We need representatives.
-
Only, a democracy pays attention
-
that its representatives remains servants
-
and do not become masters.
-
That is very important !
-
Because a representative is ...
-
There is a polysemia in the word.
-
Representative is word with two meanings:
-
there is the representative which has
the mandate to do everything in my place
-
and then, there is the representative
who can be my servile agent
-
which means,, he waits for my orders.
-
He'll do in my place but it is not he
who decides,
-
He does according to my orders
-
and yet it is
the same word "representative".
-
So the democrats, in my opinion,
-
the democrat, gives the word
representative a very limited meaning
-
the minimal meaning of
"I can not do it myself
-
So you are going to do it for me but
-
you are now the man to watch "
-
and therefore the municipal assembly
which delegates to high level
-
topics it can not do otherwise
than delegating,
-
it will delegate one or two members
from itself
-
drawn or elected, it will have
to be decided
-
I have no preconceived ideas,
-
both have advantages and disadvantages
-
but above all, it will monitor him,
-
it will say "you're going to go and
when you need to make a decision
-
you'll contact us and we will tell you
what you must say "
-
It is quite conceivable that! It will
slow down things, yes it will slow down
-
but there is no hurry! We want..
-
There is no hurry!
We will make mistakes,
-
and then? The representatives
don't make mistakes perhaps?
-
yes we will perhaps make mistakes,
so what?
-
Everything that is alive can
make mistakes.
-
where does it come from
that political actors are never wrong?
-
We have already seen it, of course!
-
Representatives are wrong all the time
-
and we are told but a popular assembly
will make mistakes.
-
Yeah, yes it will make mistakes.
-
Well, if it makes a mistake,
it will correct it.
-
So, if you like, in the large-scale plan
-
you will see that ...
-
I'll talk about it immediately because
-
otherwise I feel I'm going
to run out of time.
-
On the large-scale plan, you will see that
-
democracy and the draw are more suitable
-
but really, much more suitable
for the large scale than election.
-
The election is betting that you know
whom you elect
-
otherwise it is blunt hypocrisy.
-
If we do not know the people we elect,
the election is meaningless.
-
Participant: one needs to know
the program, not the person
-
Etienne: that, yes I agree,
the person or his program.
-
The election suppose that I know
the person or his program
-
and that's not all, since the idea
defended by the election
-
is that if I am not happy with the person
who is elected, I will not reelect him.
-
Therefore election suggest that I know
what did the representative,
-
otherwise, it is again blunt hypocrisy.
-
If I don't know what he did
-
how can I judge
-
and say, he applied his program
or he didn't,
-
Okay?
-
Therefore the election,
almost mechanically,
-
requires proximity,
-
it requires that I know…
-
well, it is true that if you stick
to the program,
-
we do not need to know the man but
-
I think, we move away
from the election in this case ...
-
The election is still very
intuiti-personae,
-
the role of the individual has
a strong hold
-
on the idea of the election.
-
People care about the election because
they want to choose the man, often.
-
It is true that it is in the trend
-
to choose the program
-
but it seems to me that the arguments
-
used to defend the election, very often,
-
what is highlighted
-
is the fact that you can choose the man:
-
the most virtuous guy, the best one.
-
The election is aristocratic.
-
And so it is assumed that you know the guy
-
and if you know him, in order to
know him, he has to be close.
-
Do you know the representatives
-
you designate in the European Parliament?
-
Participants: no
-
Etienne: No, and you know what's worse?
-
Do you know what
they have done in your name
-
the European Parliament?
-
You know nothing at all.
-
While the guys in the borough
-
you elected him, and you see
-
as it is easier to control what he does.
-
While the draw ... You understood that
-
nevertheless the election,
the more you go up
-
in scale, the more it is more problematic,
-
the more it becomes mystifying,
mythical, idealistic, unrealistic
-
while the draw, the draw
takes in consideration
-
that we are imperfect,
we might steal from the kitty,
-
we could lie, we could become, with power
-
we could become detrimental
-
to the public interest
-
in a very concrete, practical,
maybe a little pessimistic way.
-
Democracy, acknowledging
these imperfections, instead of saying
-
we trust you and for 5 years you will do
everything in our place
-
Instead of doing that,
-
Democracy says : you, whom I have drawn,
I will give you some power,
-
not a lot, not for long, and never twice.
-
Because I am afraid of you,
I have a little confidence in you,
-
but not too much,
I do not trust you, because ...
-
Because that's how it is
-
And it's not about you
that I'm suspicious,
-
It is about power.
-
And therefore, if you want, the draw
-
it is accompanied by a serie of ...
-
That's why it is necessary
that I speak to you about it,
-
it is accompanied by a range
of institutions.
-
What must be understood is that the draw
-
is a central part,
like the heart of the machine,
-
or like a very important part
of the machine
-
but that's not all of it,
-
there are all the controls
that go with it.
-
When you decide to draw, you decide
-
to retain power for you,
-
you, the people, you decide that
it is you who will exercise power
-
and that, the draw is used to protect you
against power thieves.
-
we say "concretely we know
there are thieves of power,"
-
we know it,
-
we don't say that we will get rid of
them, not at all,
-
we just say that we will assign power
-
in a way that power thieves
-
can not steal it.
-
Therefore, with the draw,
-
the democratic organization,
-
establishes, not one, not two, not ten,
-
it establishes a lot, it can be
a dozen tighter controls
-
before the mandate during
the mandate, after the mandate…
-
I may be able to show you,
-
so I'll stay close to my microphone,
-
I can show you with the mouse.
-
See that? In the diagram you have,
on page 2 of the book,
-
you have the democratic institutions
-
and then you have the institutions
for control of the drawn,
-
and there are controls before,
-
there are three controls before,
-
there is one control during the mandate,
-
controls at the end of the mandate,
there is an account reporting,
-
after that you have ....
-
if I have some time I will
come back to it.
-
What I mean is that,
-
if you decide to establish democracy,
-
if you decide to set up a system of ...
-
offices allocation by draw because
-
you know that, those
who will have power will tend
-
to change and break away
from the general interest,
-
become corruptible. Then, since you know
-
that power corrupts and that
it takes time to corrupt,
-
you have given power for a short time,
-
so they have no time to be corrupted.
-
All the controls that you have set,
-
the brevity of the mandates,
the non-renewal of mandates,
-
All these features will protect you
-
without you having to take care of it
-
and that's why it is more adaptable
-
to large scale.
-
I would be much less worried
-
if my MEPs were drawn
-
and controlled as they are here
-
than with the system where I elect someone
-
I do not know and I do not know
what he's doing
-
I have no way of knowing
-
and when he's trying
to scuttle my system,
-
to scuttle democracy,
-
I can do nothing, I am powerless.
-
It is much more worrying than a system
-
where they would be constantly monitored.
-
What I mean is the draw would be
more coherent to the large scale
-
because I do not trust,
very pragmatically, I do not count on
-
The spontaneous righteousness of people,
while
-
the election does as if,
because they are elected,
-
they were virtuous, which is a myth,
-
two hundred years of experience proove it.
-
Yes?
-
Participant: two questions that go
a little bit ahead of that,
-
on what you said just now :
-
Who is to choose the topics
to be delegated and the topics
-
which can be treated locally
-
and then how we manage
the heterogeneity of different situations
-
So that's my first question and ...
-
Etienne : One at a time, one
at a time to respond because
-
this one is complicated already.
-
I mean, it is complicated,
I will respond quickly and
-
I'll turn it over to you after.
-
Those who decide are the people.
-
It is true that it is difficult
to prepare laws,
-
So there were representatives
who were preparing laws.
-
There was the council of the 500
which was drawn
-
500 people selected at random and,
-
which prepared the laws,
it is not they who were voting laws,
-
it is they who prepared it...
-
much like the work by commissions.
-
Only, it is not professional,
it was amateur,
-
and as it is amateur,
it gives laws that are simpler,
-
it makes laws that are understandable
by everybody
-
because they are made by
people like you and me.
-
You must understand that,
I turn over to you immediately,
-
professionalisation of
the production of law,
-
interpreting ... so parliamentarians,
-
professionalisation of interpretation
of law,
-
lawyers and judges,
-
the professionalisation of
all the actors of law
-
push to complexity ...
-
to complication even,
-
because complexity is a positive word,
-
but the complication,
unnecessary complication of the law.
-
You understand that
a professional that does this all his life
-
it may take in, understand,
and master high complexity
-
but the law applies to us all
-
It puts us in a situation
-
of major legal uncertainty.
-
15 minutes, right?
-
Anyway, it's impossible, It would take ...
-
It would take four more hours,
it is infinite,
-
It is a great topic, it is a topic…
-
Do you feel that this is a major issue,
-
completely disregarded?
-
That is to say we are on,
-
both an understanding of
the basic mechanisms
-
which lead to our political impotence, and
-
a solution, fully operational,
I'm not saying it is perfect
-
there are things I have not seen,
I only ask ...
-
you see, we will be deprived
again of this wonderful moment
-
which is when we exchange we get to…
-
That I manage to improve my ideas,
-
the system improves,
-
it will improve,
-
that is to say, if I sowed
the seed in your head
-
you will continue to think about it,
you'll find stuff
-
and you will write to me and
it will continue, I ...
-
That's the idea, that
it does not stop here.
-
Anyway, there is no time to discuss
the full topic in one evening.
-
So it does not matter that
we do not end. I would just ...
-
Did I answer?
-
You were saying :
who settles the question?
-
Who decides what we delegate?
Who chooses the topics?
-
It is us, it is the assembly,
-
it is the assembly, it is the people,
-
then the assembly, it is not everyone
-
since there are people
who are not interested.
-
The Athenians had
the problem of active, passive,
-
citizens who are disinterested.
-
They already had this problem of
-
how to make it sexy, to make democracy
attractive
-
for people to become active.
-
They had this problem, much less than us,
-
because they had
more active citizens than us
-
but they had this problem.
-
So we will have it too
but it is less serious
-
than the problems we have right now.
-
and so, who decides? It is us,
-
those who come to the assembly.
-
So, is that a problem for you?
No? I do not know?
-
Participant: What people is this, is this
the 50 000, is this the six million …
-
Etienne: oh no no it's at a local level
-
Part.: Let's take a topic
social security for example,
-
we talked about it just now,
-
who manages this? It is managed
at a general level
-
it is managed at the local level,
it is managed in the region level,
-
a department? You see what I mean?
-
Etienne: In my opinion,
it is managed at a local level,
-
and thus see, in the assembly of Metz,
-
or even the district of Metz,
-
and we need to decide what do we do?
-
Do we delegate it or not?
-
And the other assemblies,
they also discuss
-
and those who want to unite,
-
because they feel that
it will be more efficient
-
when they are many, they unite.
-
And those who don't want to, they don't.
-
I think democracy,
-
it can not, it should not be imposed,
-
if it is imposed, it is like communism.
-
Communism when it is accepted,
-
Communism, we see it in families,
-
each family is a communism.
-
Alain makes me understand that
-
Alain, a great book "On powers"
-
a wonder, a marvel,
-
best of all the books,
-
"On powers",
-
do not miss that!
-
Part.: I confirm
-
Etienne: "On power":
-
the best book of all time.
Which I know at least.
-
Alain makes me understand that
-
we live communism in our families.
-
That is to say that all human
-
have had the experience of communism,
-
the successful experience,
often, and great
-
of communism, and it works only
because it is
-
volunteer, because we agree with it,
-
and that whenever it is not voluntary,
it is a butcher,
-
I say nothing else but that.
-
When you say, social security,
who decides?
-
Those who want to, and I have no better
-
answer than that,
-
I will not impose myself
-
on any of the topics,
in the nuclear, GMOs,
-
abortion, the death penalty ...
-
I use my joker because
I have no legitimacy
-
even if I am elected, I have
no legitimacy to decide about this
-
instead of people, people should
decide this themselves.
-
Participant: with such a system,
do we risk moving the scale of the state?
-
Etienne: Do we risk to erase or move?
-
Participant: Yes that's right,
it may exceed ...
-
Etienne: Yes it can exceed
-
and in my opinion, you know what I think,
-
the subject is Europe and
if we had to do it again?
-
I think that an Europe
which would have been built like that,
-
starting from the base, federations
of municipalities to states,
-
to make regions and then states,
-
If there are controls like this
-
that is to say, if we draw the people
-
and monitor them,
-
I think it can be quite ...
-
but there need to be
a popular education before
-
that's what we are doing here, right now.
-
In order, we have to do it first.
-
First we need to talk together
-
and be millions
-
to want it, millions to say:
-
we want a real democracy,
-
we want it to come from the base,
-
so we need a selfless constituent process,
-
we want a drawn constituent assembly
-
because we want it to start by the base,
and we want a federation
-
and if we agree, if we are millions
-
to agree on this simple thing
-
it will be done peacefully,
and it will rise, it will rise ...
-
It can go up to the world level, can be,
I don't know,
-
but I feel that there is nothing,
-
there are no impossibilities,
-
that it rises to the world
-
whereas what we are doing here,
globalization,
-
which is the pyramid where
they will decide everything from above,
-
it is exactly the opposite!
-
It is a terrible tyranny
what they are doing
-
it's just the opposite,
and yet it is the same goal,
-
No, no, it's not the same goal but
-
it will lead to a global leadership where
-
one is tyrannical
-
and the other would be democratic.
-
I come back to the second question
-
because I promised you a second question.
-
Participant: What do we do
about experience?
-
I mean what will say the defensers of
-
representative democracy? They often say:
-
your arguments are advanced,
-
so they need a little experience,
-
so the draw, crack…
-
Etienne: It'll be amateurs,
that is exactly what we want.
-
Participant: All the holders
of power today
-
say "I am legitimate because
I have experience, etc ...
-
Etienne: wait ...
-
Participant: not because
I am an aristocrat of birth
-
Etienne: but because
I became better with my work.
-
Therefore, refuting the objection.
-
The representatives are not
those who decide
-
so it is not they
who need to be competent.
-
Those who need to be competent
-
are those who vote laws,
-
and that is us.
-
If we are every day at the assembly,
-
we become competent
-
and we have experience.
-
If you like, amateur representatives,
-
are not the ones who must be competent.
-
You understand what I mean?
-
They, they just need to be honest
-
and as they are part of ourselves,
-
they are the expression of ourselves,
-
they were ourselves.
-
They were simple people before becoming
police officer, judge or magistrate.
-
They were us and they will be again.
-
The guy who was a police officer
for a time
-
and will come back to being
a simple citizen,
-
he will not behave at all
the same way than
-
when he is a policeman
-
for life and he becomes
a superman who has all rights.
-
You understand?
-
or a parliamentarian who has all rights,
-
or a magistrate
-
you understand what I mean?
-
The idea of the draw
-
which makes the powers rotate
-
so that the authorities remain humble,
-
is absolutely central.
-
Then, is there wire there if I get up?
-
Oh yes it is better that way.
-
What must be understood is that
-
in a democracy worthy of the name
-
which means a democracy in which
-
people decided that enough is enough now,
-
after two hundred years of practice
of election,
-
After two hundred years of
representative government,
-
in which the authors,
who have made this regime,
-
knew very well that
it was not a democracy.
-
They said it will be an aristocracy,
-
we will put in place the best ones,
-
but after two hundred years of practice,
-
one could see that the scheme gives power
-
absolutely only to the rich people,
-
in all countries of the world
where this is applied
-
and in all times since two hundred years.
-
There is almost no exceptions,
-
except for one Chavez, or one Allende,
-
Only tyrants, there is only people
who abuse
-
and are servants of the richs.
-
After two hundred years of practice,
-
people should be able to say
"hey, wait ...
-
how was it before?
-
when we were drawing, how did it go? "
-
For two hundred years of draw,
-
for two hundred years,
-
there were richs and poors in Athens,
-
there were richs and there were much more
-
poor people than rich?
-
When we will tell you, in Athens,
-
there was an oligarchy, because there was
-
sixty thousand people who led,
-
decided everything for hundreds of
thousands of people
-
because there were all women,
and slaves who were not ...
-
This is not true, it was not an oligarchy,
it is not like that
-
and in any case, that's not
what's interesting.
-
Like I said earlier, I do not want
-
to generalize the system
with hundreds of thousands
-
person and 50,000 who lead,
-
that's not what's interesting to me.
-
What interests me is how, among the 50 000
-
which made society, 50,000 citizens,
there are full of poor people
-
and few rich. For two hundred years,
the rich people
-
never govern. They rant but
they live very well
-
their rich life, they are very happy,
very comfortable, they live well,
-
they are rich and they never govern!
-
And the poor, for two hundred years
of draw,
-
they always govern
without stealing to the rich.
-
You see the fear, we say,
the poor if they govern ...
-
not at all! The rich lived
their lives of rich people,
-
there was a kind of pact.
-
This should get to us!
-
In any case, the Athenians,
after 800 years of tyranny,
-
noting that power changed people
-
and transformed them,
have decided that to get
-
political equality, not a social equality,
-
not an economic equality,
not a physical equality or intellectual
-
not at all, one man, one vote at
the Assembly, the real assembly,
-
the true universal sufrage where,
when I vote,
-
I do not vote to nominate a master, I vote
-
each law and one can agree with a law
-
and disagree with another law.
-
Universal suffrage is I always vote
-
so they want real equality, they want
to decide for themselves
-
one man one vote,
-
on all laws, to obtain this result,
-
they needed their political amateurism.
-
They said if what leads to
the idea of democracy is
-
we're tired of professional politicians
who do everything in our place
-
and who are cheating on us,
we want amateurs.
-
Yes, they are incompetent but
that is precisely what we want
-
and for that, we give the power in turns
-
and since power corrupts,
-
we don't give it for long.
-
we make short mandates and not renewable.
-
This goes together,
if you remove amateurism
-
and you switch to professionalism,
-
you lose democracy, you lose
the heart of the democratic idea.
-
I can decide about power myself people,
I can vote myself my laws
-
and participate for real to
the political activity, I can not do that
-
if professionally, if I avoid
-
the professionalisation of politics
-
but in order to avoid
the professionalisation of politics
-
I need the rotation of offices
-
and to practice the rotation of offices,
-
I need the draw.
-
The election, by definition,
consists in choosing the best one.
-
It is aristocratic and it leads
mechanically
-
to professionalization.
-
Yes?
-
Participant: There, you just said
something that strikes me,
-
when you say that, what is important
is the political equality,
-
I agree but I think political equality
is not possible
-
if there is no economic equality
and social equality.
-
Etienne: I think that this is not true.
-
It seems to me that this is not true.
-
Participant: I think it deserves a debate.
-
Etienne: Yes, we won't solve it today, but
-
I think that what is very important,
precisely,
-
really, this is central. And the words
I use here are very important:
-
the election synchronizes political power
-
and economical power,
gives the political power
-
to those who already had economical power.
-
In human history,
we have 3000 years of history
-
and we only know
this concentration of powers
-
these last two hundred years.
-
Capitalism is based on the election.
-
Again, capitalism, which needs
this unfair law, this right
-
which gives power, which gives all powers,
-
to the owners of the means of production.
-
This iniquitous law, whom is it
written by ? It is written by
-
the elected representatives,
who are elected thanks to the rich,
-
who financed the election campaigns.
-
What I am discovering, at 50 years old,
is the link there is between,
-
the appointment procedure
of our political masters,
-
of those who make politics,
who become professional politicians,
-
the link that exists between this
and capitalism.
-
And that in the history of man,
before that period,
-
which should not be called democracy,
-
which is representative government,
-
before this period of two hundred years,
the rich had not at all ...
-
The rich had power, they were
influential, they had power, but
-
they did not have all the powers.
-
A rich could be thrown in jail
by a prince,
-
you could take away all his properties
-
confiscated, it could become a ..
-
Oh yes! Rich needed a ...
-
Participant: The Revolution of 1789
-
it is precisely because there had been
an evolution,
-
the rich wanted more power.
-
Etienne: exactly, the revolution of 1789
-
allowed the rich to take the power
they did not have before.
-
Participant: yes.
-
Etienne: So throughout
the history of mankind,
-
the rich have always had
other powers against them :
-
nobles, princes, clergy,
never all the powers.
-
And this situation has changed
dramatically 200 years ago
-
with a system that
we defend ourselves today.
-
We must realize that we are responsible,
-
well, we are responsible ...
-
I was taught all my life
that election equal democracy,
-
and democracy equal election.
-
It is not a contradiction,
it is a blatant lie,
-
it's not true! Democracy is not
equal election.
-
It's the opposite! Then, for sure,
I learned that all my life
-
so it took me to read, one then two,
then three books,
-
at the beginning you think
"it's a crazy idea, what is that thing?"
-
Then after a while you start thinking
"well, it's not silly"
-
and then you begin to deepen and more you
go in depth and more you think:
-
"I got lied for 50 years, they got me,
-
They described reality to me as
its opposite"
-
I had to get out of this pitch on my own
-
but wait, that means that
if we would quit election
-
we would manage to unsynce?
-
it was unsynced?
How did it work in Athens?
-
How did it work with another
-
system which was the draw?
-
In Athens, there were rich and poor,
-
and there were economically rich
and economically poor
-
there were politically rich
and politically poor
-
and it was unsync,
it was not the same people.
-
There were economic rich, very rich,
-
they were called wogs.
-
They were brought from abroad
with their money,
-
because they had money, they knew,
they knew they would come,
-
they would do their business,
they would get rich,
-
they would live very comfortably
-
they wouldn't cry, they were rich,
-
They were not citizens but
they were not unhappy,
-
they were rich, they lived
very comfortably.
-
They were brought from abroad,
they were rich economically,
-
they were politically poor. Next,
-
you have virtually a slave,
a worker of the ground,
-
who worked side by side with a slave,
they were doing the same job
-
the citizen and the slave, the same job.
-
I swear, you must read Hansen,
-
You should read Finlay, great book,
-
there is the bibliography at the end
of the book I gave you
-
and above all, you must read Hansen
-
Hansen, Athenian democracy
during Demosthene era.
-
It's wonderful that thing!
-
You have the daily life of these people.
-
This guy spent his life on it,
-
he knew a great deal
on this topic and Manin
-
"Principles of
the representative government"
-
Three books, you will change
by reading these books out.
-
You will see you will change,
you will be transformed,
-
you will discover a promising world
-
something that worked,
which was not the black caricature
-
that our MPs are doing because,
for sure, the elected MPs,
-
my idea lead them to unemployement,
so they hate me.
-
Ok but the problem is that
I am not thinking about
-
the sake of the MPs,
I consider the greater good
-
and I do not mix up with their interests.
-
I know some are perfectly virtuous.
-
I am not saying they are all corrupted,
it's not what I'm saying.
-
I know that there are dedicated MPs
who try their best
-
and are not corrupted, I know that.
-
I am jus tsaying that I do not mix up
their personal interest
-
with the greater good and,
if the overall organization
-
of the election leads to widespread
corruption
-
and a government of banks
-
I mean, if you do not see it,
you're blind.
-
If this system leads to that,
I can legitimately
-
without upsetting the MPs,
look for another system
-
wherein, if they are brave,
-
if they are generous, democracy
will give them the means
-
to give the full measure of their virtue.
-
Presenter: we will have to conclude,
it is a quarter past ten
-
Participant: Another fifteen minutes
and then we tidy up all together?
-
It is possible, right?
-
Presenter: the problem is that
the guard is waiting for us.
-
Etienne: I invite you to watch
the Marseille conference
-
or the Montpellier conference
which was held on the 22 of september
-
which I think, are not bad.
-
All the conferences are on internet,
-
you type Chouard in google and then
-
you will find, it is easy,
there are plenty.
-
In fact, you also need to look at several
-
because I don't say
the same things every time.
-
Then you especially have to work,
I expect you to work a little
-
But it's nice, it's true subjects,
you'll see,
-
I see people, you know in
these conferences, I see people
-
campaigning for 20 years, I meet people,
for 30 years they've been fighting,
-
they devote themselves, body and soul,
they are every Wednesday on markets
-
to distribute flyers,
trying to change the world.
-
They feel that they are like flies
on a window, trying hard,
-
there is a trick, they don't manage ...
-
and there, I see, when I talk about this,
"but here, there is an idea that,
-
it can work that thing,
that thing can work! "
-
Today, we stand for universal suffrage,
a false universal surfage,
-
which is to appoint masters.
-
But that's not
the real universal suffrage,
-
the true universal suffrage is
when we vote, us,
-
the laws in the assembly,
the municipal assembly
-
or when we are delegated
to the National Assembly
-
by our communities and under the control
of the assembly which has delegated us.
-
We participate ourselves
to the creation of the laws
-
so when we stand, today,
-
when we defend the vote,
the false universal suffrage,
-
as if it is the alpha and
omega of our freedom,
-
whereas it is the opposite,
-
we are responsible
for our political impotence.
-
Our political impotence,
it comes from the election
-
and mainly of the election
of the constituent assembly.
-
I think we could keep an elected assembly,
-
I make concessions,
I am not completely ...
-
because in my opinion, that's enough.
-
We could have an elected assembly
of professionals,
-
the same one. So it should reassure you.
-
An elected assembly, the same we have.
-
But the other, the Senate,
you replace it by a drawn assembly,
-
with people like us,
and you know when you will draw ,
-
you will have women for half,
mechanically,
-
there's no need for quota, you draw,
you're going to have
-
women for half of the assembly, and
it'll be like that, you're going to have
-
almost half of workers and employees.
-
Mechanically, because you draw,
-
you will have an assembly
that looks like us,
-
and laws, imagine a system like this
-
a system in which you have
the room of professionals,
-
it reassures you,
the chambre of parties and
-
the chamber of drawn citizens, bicameral
-
you take the best of both systems,
and to ...
-
I feel I'm in a hurry,
I start to talk fast, I start detalking
-
When, to make a law, you have
to get both chambers to agree
-
because there is a chamber
that looks like us, this one
-
for it to say yes to one law,
it must have understood it.
-
Therefore it has to be simple,
and it seems to go
-
in the direction of the common interest.
-
But wait, that means that
the laws will change there,
-
If you have a drawn assembly,
-
whatever it is, I do not need
to know who will be drawn,
-
I know that because it's normal people,
-
it will drive the legislative corpus
-
in a way that closely matches what I need.
-
What is very important
-
is that a system like this one
-
and other amenities such as
giving accounts
-
that would make
the representatives being accountable
-
revocable if they fuck up,
-
the referendum of popular initiative is
absolutely central,
-
the respect of the white vote,
the liability of judges before
-
other than judges, etc ...
-
So there is a serie of audit institutions
-
in a representative democracy.
-
I use the word with big quotes,
as a compromise.
-
I drop some ballast to be, it must not be
-
too radical for it to be acceptable,
let's accept this because
-
it could already change everything
but the system there,
-
I tell you, this will never be written.
-
This system of compromise,
I am not talking
-
about a complete direct democracy
-
a democracy that would be one room,
will never be written
-
by a constituent assembly
-
elected among party members.
-
Never. Because they have
a personal interest
-
in it not being written,
-
as they have always done
for two hundred years,
-
in all countries, in all ages,
-
they never write it,
they will continue not to write it.
-
In Tunisia, they have just elected
the constituent assembly,
-
I tell you, they will not write
the referendum of popular initiative.
-
We'll see, maybe they'll prove me wrong,
-
and therefore, the last point of
the conclusion, what really matters,
-
is that if you go home, having understood
something important,
-
putting you to work and developing it,
-
and really understanding it
-
That's it, you understood
something important:
-
Shit, what I called universal suffrage is
not really universal suffrage,
-
what I called democracy is not
true democracy,
-
Finally, the common federation is
an idea that would be worth digging,
-
Finally, which are the laws that
-
I could validly discuss at the local level
-
and then I start thinking about that.
-
"I grabbed a topic, you seize a subjet
-
which you find interesting
-
it is about most of
our political impotence and
-
the happiness and unhappiness of
the generations that follow "
-
But if you settle for that,
having understood and then that's it.
-
It will not happen, we will lose,
-
Here, I think it can happen, really,
-
it can happen but if,
-
all of us, once we've understood,
-
we do not settle there,
we make it clear to others
-
and let's not complicate
the trick by mixing it
-
with ecology, democracy in business,
corruption of representatives,
-
no, we focus on the essential:
who wrote the constitution?
-
Who wrote the constitution?
-
It must not be the men in parties,
-
it is necessary that people can not
write rules for themselves
-
And if we manage to have
a constituent assembly
-
disinterested, it will not be perfect,
ok I don' t care
-
it does not matter: still,
it will be a thousand times better!
-
You will have controls like
you've never had
-
and you'll regain control over politics
-
simply because the constituent assembly
will not be made
-
of professional, it will
be made of amateurs
-
because those who write the right of law,
-
just because you consider
the problem at its roots,
-
the cause of the causes,
-
which is who wrote the damn rules
-
on top of the legal pyramid,
who wrote the damn rules
-
you went back all the way
up there and you said:
-
ok with environmentalists,
even with the royalists,
-
you can take the people with whom
-
you would never have thought
you would agree
-
but there is something that unite us
-
in the fact that we are
powerless politically,
-
is that to get out of
this political impotence
-
there must be disinterested
constituent assembly.
-
So a drawn one.
-
Possibly drawn from non-candidates
-
because the draw of
a constituent assembly scares you
-
you say, "ah shit,
the constituent assembly,
-
I am going to draw donkeys,
I 'll draw morons
-
I'll draw angry people,
I will draw drunkards,
-
so we think
this one is awful.
-
OK why not, I have a good idea for this,
I have an answer to that.
-
You are afraid to draw frightful idiots?
-
Ok, I suggest we will do this
in two stages,
-
this is a procedure that would take
the best of both.
-
You will be able,
we will give us the right
-
to elect, but be careful to elect
people without candidate.
-
Not professionals who are candidates
and who are submitted to you
-
no no not electing like that,
-
electing without candidate.
-
You can choose around you
-
we give the citizens the opportunity
to choose around them
-
two or three people they think,
with their criterias,
-
are brave, competent, suitable for
-
writing a constitution.
-
Such will choose him and him
because they speak well
-
or him and him because they read
-
or him and him because
they're patient during discussions,
-
in general it is not those who get upset,
-
it's those who enjoy
getting closer different views
-
each one will have ...
-
There is one who is going to choose him
because he is cute, because he wears a tie
-
there are some who will choose
with bad criteria.
-
ok, who cares, we don't have better,
-
listen it is not bad already .
-
You let the opportunity
for people to choose
-
those they think are most appropriate
-
the two or three they think are the most
-
adapted to write the constitution
-
freely, and they do not know yet.
-
Maybe they will refuse.
-
You will designate your neighbor that you
-
like and that really seems smart, calm,
-
and rather humanist, so it is someone who
-
is likely to do things well,
-
plus he can read,
he can change his mind and ...
-
no matter what quality
you have found in him
-
and perhaps he will refuse
-
but it does not matter,
we will designate millions like this
-
and there is no need of millions,
we need one hundred,
-
So it does not matter if he refuses,
-
you will designate those
you consider to be the best
-
and in there, there are
those who will accept ,
-
they will accept because it is promising,
-
then they will devote themselves
because already
-
in lots of other situations,
-
they are committed in their family,
they are committed in their profession.
-
They are dedicated, so there
they will commit once again.
-
There are plenty of people who do that,
who will be designated as valorous,
-
freely, by the people around them
and who will commit
-
and this people there, among those
who have agreed after being designated
-
you draw from them
-
and there you will have an assembly like
-
you've never had in
the history of mankind.
-
Athens even, they have not had that
to make their ...
-
and I'm sure ...
-
Hey I may be wrong, you saw
what leads me to believe that.
-
It's a logical thinking, observations,
-
I'm sure we will have historically
revolutionary results.
-
Finally, we will have the first democracy,
at least
-
the first democracy, even more than that,
more than this one,
-
because there will be women,
there will be no slaves
-
and there will be
the permanent monitoring of powers,
-
this fair and incorruptible distribution,
-
which the draw ensures,
-
this fair and incorruptible distribution,
of the little power we want to delegate,
-
knowing that the rest,
we want to exert ourselves.
-
It is a sexy idea, right?
-
Here, then, you must yourself
become viruses,
-
if you want it to work,
-
and if we are millions, it will happen,
-
we will have to go out in the street
and if we are millions,
-
noone can resist to that.
And it will come peacefully.
-
I dream a little but...
-
Presenter: There is a question
-
Etienne: a question ah, great!
-
Participant: M Chouard, I really
appreciate your work, your thoughts
-
I am completely on your line,
I understand when you say that
-
the principles of 1789 are dodged
at the base in the sense that
-
the political powers are synchronized
to economical powers.
-
I appreciate as well
your idea of the draw
-
which would improve somewhat
the democratic life.
-
However, I also think that these are
concepts to be extensively studied
-
and cogitated. These are ideas
that can not ignite a society overnight,
-
it takes time for new ideas to spread.
-
Etienne: Look, I think people
-
understand quickly, they often
get it fast, well not all but ...
-
Participant: Let me ask
a question that goes a little
-
back into political and economic news.
-
Okay, we leave the elective
representation system of 1789
-
Nevertheless, since twenty years,
we are not in this system anymore.
-
You describe it very well
in your theses on the European Union.
-
The Maastricht Treaty,
they said it was the anti - 1789,
-
Etienne: it is the anti democracy, yes
-
Participant: News shows, in the end,
-
I think that things can go very fast
-
in the new ideas you mentioned
-
but things can go as quickly
in the direction of
-
a complete degradation of
the social situation in France
-
And then I come to
when you referred to the Article 50
-
for leaving the European Union…
-
Etienne: To quit the European Union,
get out of Europe, get out of the trap.
-
Participant: out of Europe,
-
Do you consider it consistent,
the idea which would be
-
to develop your concepts
but at the same time,
-
to decide to get out of this Europe.
-
Etienne: I never said anything else
than this: we must leave
-
the European Union urgently.
-
Besides, I probably would not vote
for someone
-
who says he wants to stay
in the European Union
-
even if I like him and
yet there is one that
-
I like and wants to stay in Europe
and it hurts
-
because I consider it so very serious
to remain in the European Union.
-
When Jacques Généreux, which for me is
-
one of the greatest politicians
of the country.
-
Jacques Généreux is an encyclopedic mind
-
You should read Jacques Généreux,
I should have brought the books
-
of Jacques Généreux,
it's better than Montesquieu,
-
it is a great political thinker, Genereux
a guy with a competence in economics,
-
he is a wonder. He's someone important,
and he claims that we can remain
-
in the European Union
and disobey in everything.
-
It hurts because I wish
I could vote for this guy
-
I like Généreux
-
He would make a great president,
he is human,
-
I think he is not corrupted,
he looks good and when he say that,
-
it hurts,
-
because I really feel that
we are on the essential…
-
Finally, I think he is wrong, yes yes,
so I'm going in your direction,
-
I think it's very important to get out
-
from the European Union
-
and I am sorry not to see
people that seem to me
-
the closest, the most
progressives, the most humans
-
locking us into this trap, I find it very
contradictory, I do not understand why.
-
For example the Communist Party keeps
wanting to stay in the European Union,
-
it is extravagant, they will be
at 1% and it's desserves! I mean
-
I no longer vote to stay
in the European Union
-
Participant: Well what do you think
of the idea that spread, there is a party
-
that had the idea, the party
of the Popular Republican Union,
-
Etienne: The UPR of Asselinot
-
Participant: to bring together
the different political sensitivity
-
around the basic project that is
getting out of the European Union.
-
Etienne: no, the resistance of Asselinot,
-
it is very useful. So, Asselinot is
-
a guy who worked for Pasqua, etc.
-
So today the fact he worked for Pasqua
-
makes him the devil
-
but I think he's not a devil.
-
Today his work on resistance
to the European Union
-
he raises scandals, it's amazing...
Fortunately, he is here to denounce
-
extremely dangerous shenanigans.
-
I find that the work of Acelinot is
precious, more than useful,
-
I think he's a great sentinel
-
but I would never put myself in any party,
-
the only party to which
I could participate, is a party
-
leaderless and without program.
-
Participant : or Les Indignés
-
Etienne: yes here, Les Indignés,
it would rather fit me.
-
I see that Les Indignés are
being recovered by left parties
-
and prohibiting
the right parties to appear .
-
What would be nice is that Les Indignés,
-
they could have rightists and leftists.
-
I mean, what we call rightists
and what we call leftists,
-
It would be good that
Les Indignés would stay open.
-
Presenter: Right, here
we have to release the room
-
what I suggest is for you to go
a little bit where we ate
-
with Etienne while we we tidy up the room.
-
(Applauses)
-
Etienne: you didn't get bored?
-
Participant: No
-
Etienne: it was not too long?
-
Participant: No
-
Participant: it was too short!
