Return to Video

Etienne Chouard. — Part III (Lyon Conference) Mars 2012 - "Is Democracy a trap ? " Roots of our political impotency.

  • 0:39 - 0:42
    I'm afraid that I'll forget to tell you, so I'll just tell you now; even if it's not
  • 0:42 - 0:46
    the moment, it's alright. It hasn't been long since I'm in politics.
  • 0:46 - 0:54
    It's been 5 or 6 years, so I'm the new guy. I see the friends that I've been making in politics.
  • 0:54 - 0:58
    All these people that I meet from the left, center or right,
  • 0:58 - 1:06
    All these people, they fight for the greater good. They're good people
  • 1:06 - 1:14
    who seek the common interest, to best satisfy the common interest. They all fight against social injustice.
  • 1:14 - 1:19
    They come from of all (political) sides... for example, some fight for Global Zero (nuclear weapons).
  • 1:19 - 1:24
    For them, it's the most important. It's top priority, we're going to die! We have to fight against it.
  • 1:24 - 1:30
    So that's what's most important for them. And for them, the guy who fights corruption,
  • 1:30 - 1:38
    or the corruption of elected representatives, but who is for nuclear technology, he's the devil!
  • 1:38 - 1:44
    It's a bit clumsy but alright. At the same time, others who fight against
  • 1:44 - 1:48
    the destruction of schools. It's horrible, school are being destroyed, teachers put aside,
  • 1:48 - 1:52
    hospitals are being all over the country, the country side is becoming a (clinical) desert
  • 1:52 - 1:56
    Farmers are being ill treated. The country side is literally becoming a desert
  • 1:56 - 1:59
    and they are fighting on the subjet. Ok, Great! Others fight for the
  • 1:59 - 2:05
    money and the creation of money and consider, they are right, that money creation is
  • 2:05 - 2:09
    really important. That is that we have abandonned money creation, we have impoverish ourselves,
  • 2:09 - 2:16
    all becomes hard for us because we are becoming poorer. We have put in place a scarity
  • 2:16 - 2:21
    that is chocking us. They are fighting on that subjet. They consider it essential. What I would like
  • 2:21 - 2:30
    to tell you, is that I look at all this. I take part in the debats, I share them;
  • 2:30 - 2:37
    It's not at all contradictory what I am about to say, it's complementary. It's seems to me that all these social struggles
  • 2:37 - 2:44
    are solely fighting on "the branches", the consequences.
  • 2:44 - 2:50
    Ecological catastrophy, it's not a cause - you know, 'Look for the root of causes'
  • 2:50 - 2:59
    The ecological catastrophy, it's only made possible because of our political impotency. I am sure
  • 2:59 - 3:03
    that if you ask people around you, even non-political people, they will tell you:
  • 3:03 - 3:08
    "We should try to solve this problem. We should try to resist. We are all ready to resist,
  • 3:08 - 3:16
    but we have no means to resist, we are politically powerless" And you will see
  • 3:16 - 3:20
    that this policital impotency, so this is a cause. So to me it seems smarter to fight
  • 3:20 - 3:27
    on this impotency than on the ecological catastrophy, the corruption of our representatives, work injustice
  • 3:27 - 3:33
    in the companies, that extravagant "lordly" ownership on the people who work.
  • 3:33 - 3:39
    It's a reason to fight, but it's just a consequence
  • 3:39 - 3:46
    It's not the cause. The issues on water, and the ownership of water by multinationals,
  • 3:46 - 3:55
    it's extravagant, we have to fight against it. But again, it's just consequences. And for all that, it seems to me that the cause... And after that,
  • 3:55 - 4:00
    we should climb higher because the cause itself has yet another cause and that he has also another root.
  • 4:00 - 4:08
    You have to find the root of causes. If we manage to escalate, if we manage to find
  • 4:08 - 4:13
    a common cause, and to find from it the cause that makes it possible,
  • 4:13 - 4:19
    and so on. We manage to find something that is central to all these social injustices
  • 4:19 - 4:27
    and that is determining, that dertermins. I mean that if it exists, the social injustices are possible,
  • 4:27 - 4:31
    and that if it doesn't exist, they will no longer be possible or they will be limited, then we have found
  • 4:31 - 4:37
    something of very important because, at the same time, we have found the mean to really solve the problem;
  • 4:37 - 4:43
    because you are not on ecology, you are on our political impotency,
  • 4:43 - 4:50
    and you've made the link.
    If you fight less directly for ecology but more against our political impotency,
  • 4:50 - 4:54
    you are still fighting for ecology. It's not incompatible ; we can fight
  • 4:54 - 4:59
    on both fronts. But if now you are fighting against political impotency, because you have managed to realise the link
  • 4:59 - 5:03
    you have then realised that if the multinational companies can hog so much
  • 5:03 - 5:09
    while we are seeing them doing it. And we protest, and that's all we can do, since we have no political power.
  • 5:09 - 5:15
    If you make the link and that you tell yourselves "OK, I'm looking for the root of causes and I'm building up
  • 5:15 - 5:22
    against this root." You will realise that the guy who has done the same intellectual work than you: he works like...
  • 5:22 - 5:29
    ... the two Pinçon-Charlot, he works on corruption... that the lifestyle of the rich
  • 5:29 - 5:34
    and the way the rich manage to gather so much political power to
  • 5:34 - 5:41
    finally be able to influence the making of laws and how favorably they are voted. So all this work on corruption of
  • 5:41 - 5:45
    a groupe of resistants, added to their work - but it's very important to understand that they are fighting
  • 5:45 - 5:50
    the consequences - but if they also start to fight against political impotency.
  • 5:50 - 5:54
    And then you have the nuclear networks, etc. You will have all the resistants there
  • 5:54 - 6:02
    who will say: "But finally, if we had political power, we would be able to resist!"
  • 6:02 - 6:07
    Whereas all their lives... I see these old, these old resistants. They are much more valorous than I.
  • 6:07 - 6:11
    They have spent their whole lives resisting while I was minding my own business.
  • 6:11 - 6:17
    And they went on markets, giving out leaflets. Leaflets ! They had other things to do
  • 6:17 - 6:21
    on a Wednesday than go on a market, but every Wednesday they went, giving out leaflets,
  • 6:21 - 6:28
    organising meetings. They were fighters and they have that feeling that it's not bringing anything.
  • 6:28 - 6:36
    They have the gut feeling that the score of our elected representatives that we want to see up there are becoming lower
  • 6:36 - 6:42
    So when they hear me, when I say: "Wait, there's something better we can do here! If instead of fighting
  • 6:42 - 6:46
    and splitting up because there are so many branches of social injustice that branch out of
  • 6:46 - 6:50
    our political impotency, there are so many different consequences. Each of us
  • 6:50 - 6:54
    who puts so much energy forth... We aren't many, ey; the guys who do politics, what's that ?
  • 6:54 - 7:00
    It's 1% of the population. 2-3% it's not much. But if we are divided
  • 7:00 - 7:04
    because each of us is fighting against consequences that are sincerly serious. And what he thinks serious, him,
  • 7:04 - 7:08
    well it won't be what the next guy thinks is seriously worrysome.
  • 7:08 - 7:11
    Not only are we just fighting the consequences, meaning that even if we manage to solve
  • 7:11 - 7:14
    the problem, we won't have solved all the others. And it'll grow back
  • 7:14 - 7:21
    because the root of the problem is still there. You cut the branch but it will carry on growing. So if you take
  • 7:21 - 7:27
    the problem by its' root, if we were radical, by taking the issue at its' root, instead of cutting
  • 7:27 - 7:34
    the branches, we take care of the root, and we get two birds with one stone. We have found
  • 7:34 - 7:39
    the root of causes and we will be rid of all problems ! We even get three with one stone
  • 7:39 - 7:43
    because in reality, since we have all made intellectual investigation by telling ourselves:
  • 7:43 - 7:46
    "Let's take things logically, let's fight against the root
  • 7:46 - 7:50
    like that we will have gotten all problems in one go, and we will have taken care of our political impotency."
  • 7:50 - 7:52
    Where is our political impotency programmed ? I will come back to it later on,
  • 7:52 - 7:57
    but you see me coming because we have already talked about it a little. With it, thirdly, we
  • 7:57 - 8:04
    will be united ! There is a real stake here ! It's just a great idea, I beleive,
  • 8:04 - 8:11
    to take the problem at its' root. I know, you're going to say, "Chouard, you're a nice guy,
  • 8:11 - 8:16
    but it's your whim ! There ! Him, his whim, it's nuclear weapons. That guy, his wim is industrial corruption
  • 8:16 - 8:20
    and you, it's the Constitution. Yes, well alright, maybe, it's true. It's maybe true that it's a whim.
  • 8:20 - 8:26
    But it seems to me that it's logical. To me, I completly share the whim, that is of the priority of each;
  • 8:26 - 8:31
    I beleive them to be beautiful these priorities. The guy fighting over money creation (debt money),
  • 8:31 - 8:36
    he's working hard, clearing the way, he makes us understand what we could put there instead.
  • 8:36 - 8:40
    When we'll have reconquered money creation, his work will be really useful.
  • 8:40 - 8:46
    By the way, André-Jacques, we always talk about him, he agrees with me. He's actually integrated
  • 8:46 - 8:50
    my piece of the puzzle like I have integrated his, and we become stronger. He hasn't become poorer because of it
  • 8:50 - 8:54
    by giving me his idea and I haven't become poorer by giving him mine. That's what's great with ideas,
  • 8:54 - 8:57
    it's that when we give them, we don't become poorer, we are mutually becoming richer. But what I want to say,
  • 8:57 - 9:10
    is by concentrating on the root of causes, by applying the advice of Hippocrates, and by looking for
  • 9:10 - 9:17
    the root of causes, all, with each of our actual priorities, by integrating the fact that... finally
  • 9:17 - 9:21
    it's true that what stops us from getting rid of
  • 9:21 - 9:32
    social injustices, is that we all, execpt our elected representatives and those who buy them off,
  • 9:32 - 9:41
    we are politically powerless. Really, it's crucial
  • 9:41 - 9:45
    to make social injustice possible and to keep it going on, living on and on.
  • 9:45 - 9:49
    It's not because it's been that way for 200 years and even 2500 years,
  • 9:49 - 9:52
    it's not because it has been that way for thousand of years that it will always be that way!
  • 9:52 - 9:57
    It's a question of conscience. I have the dinstinct impression that we are in prehistorical politics here.
  • 9:57 - 10:02
    That we are like children. Alright, maybe not children, at least unconscious, we haven't tought things through,
  • 10:02 - 10:07
    but it's not a reason why we won't find a solution ! In my opinion, with the accumulated experience,
  • 10:07 - 10:11
    with a Guillemin who explains. You can put things back in order, in the right place.
  • 10:11 - 10:15
    And maybe, through modern tools that we didn't have before
  • 10:15 - 10:18
    because they didn't have TV, they didn't have Internet.
  • 10:18 - 10:25
    Internet is real important ! Internet is a technique, a piece of metal,
  • 10:25 - 10:30
    but a piece of metal that gives us something that we have never had in the whole human history.
  • 10:30 - 10:40
    Remember... out of all the human evolution... the invention of the pressing machine
  • 10:40 - 10:48
    the invention of printing, it enabled the people, as a folk, to read and to discover knowledge
  • 10:48 - 10:53
    therefore to progress, to make giant leapls in learning. We learn faster
  • 10:53 - 10:58
    because of printing, because we have the power to read, but we could only read
  • 10:58 - 11:08
    what other had already written. And others...that was the elite. Elite in the sens,
  • 11:08 - 11:12
    with or without quotes, that could be a true elite, good people.
  • 11:12 - 11:16
    But we only had the right to read. Because to be able to write, you needed a VIP ticket
  • 11:16 - 11:23
    that wasn't for us : for us, the masses. With Internet... it's probably as important
  • 11:23 - 11:26
    than printing. In my eyes, it's really plausible. We don't know if they will
  • 11:26 - 11:34
    maybe shut Internet down, but with it, we have the People, the normal folk. The 99% with Internet
  • 11:34 - 11:41
    get access to writing. And therefore to short-circuit the elite, and eventually.
  • 11:41 - 11:49
    eventually the olgiarchic elite. That means to capture power and to use it for their own purpose,
  • 11:49 - 11:57
    and for their interest against the common good. And so Internet, in that sens, is a tool
  • 11:57 - 12:03
    an extraordinary tool to form ourselves, to self-educate, to educate the people ! And short-circuit
  • 12:03 - 12:10
    our elites. By creating our own experts on this, experts on that and by teaching ourselves...
  • 12:10 - 12:15
    It's incredible the number of things that has taught me André-Jacques, the work of André-Jacques Holbecq.
  • 12:15 - 12:22
    I will show you his book; he has written many. This really good book,
  • 12:22 - 12:26
    a good starting page, you'll see... He asked me to do it, it's great,
  • 12:26 - 12:29
    I was proud. It's a really great book. A little book
  • 12:29 - 12:32
    - easy to read - on the debt. And so André-Jacques
  • 12:32 - 12:40
    the work he has done on money has made me move forward so much and without Internet
  • 12:40 - 12:46
    I would have never discovered him. ...So where was I ? I was talking about
  • 12:46 - 12:59
    Hippocrates... I will take my notes, I made a small thread to follow. It's not a large thread, mind you...
  • 12:59 - 13:03
    We should talk about... Well we have to start to set the word "Democracy" back in it's place
  • 13:03 - 13:12
    We have to maybe put it correctly in it's set. So I'll start by chopping down... the election
  • 13:12 - 13:16
    before talking about Athenian democracy. I will try to talk quickly about Athenian democracy,
  • 13:16 - 13:20
    because, in truth, I can last on hour on that, maybe two on Athenian democray, but I shouldn't here.
  • 13:20 - 13:24
    What we need, as I said, is that you can tell me what scares you in this.
  • 13:24 - 13:35
    I will be able to reassure afterwards. The Election: why ? How come ... ah yes,
  • 13:35 - 13:41
    now I have it, I found the thread again... How come that in every Constitution in the World is organised
  • 13:41 - 13:48
    the impotency of the People ? Don't think of this as a conspiracy. The impotency of the people is written down
  • 13:48 - 13:55
    in these Constitutions, because the people who wrote them - all over the world,
  • 13:55 - 14:01
    at all stages of history -, those who have written the Constitution, they were all professionals
  • 14:01 - 14:07
    of politics : parlementarians, ministers, judges, people of party, that is
  • 14:07 - 14:14
    people who can project themselves in the future and that know that they will soon be in power
  • 14:14 - 14:22
    that they are now institutionalising. And that's really important ! I read a lot
  • 14:22 - 14:26
    of Aristotle at Castoriadis, all the panel, all that... I don't read all but I read those
  • 14:26 - 14:30
    who talk about power, abuse of power, of resistance to abuse of power.
  • 14:30 - 14:35
    And in the literature that I have found for now, I haven't found this central idea.
  • 14:35 - 14:39
    That's "chouardesc" (NT: that's him). At least, to make something central,
  • 14:39 - 14:43
    to make it the back bone, something that will liberate us,
  • 14:43 - 14:46
    that I found "chouardesc. I try to find something to support, to lean on some figures.
  • 14:46 - 14:51
    There'd be a great man who said it, that would help. But I can't find it.
  • 14:51 - 14:57
    At least I have logic on my side. I say that all the Constitutions of the world program
  • 14:57 - 15:01
    our political impotency : so they don't write down citizens' initiative referendum
  • 15:01 - 15:04
    they don't write down the seperation of powers, they don't program the accounting transparency, short office terms
  • 15:04 - 15:09
    non-renewable, don't program respecting blank votes, and so on.
  • 15:09 - 15:14
    You can count the principles with two hands, maybe even one hand. There aren't 10 great principles
  • 15:14 - 15:17
    that you need, so it's easy to understand. We'll come back to it when we'll talk about
  • 15:17 - 15:24
    Democracy, but you just can't find those great protections for people against power, you won't find
  • 15:24 - 15:29
    institutionalising power of the people in all those Constitutions, because those who write them
  • 15:29 - 15:37
    have a personal interest in the fact that it's Not written in the Constitution. That's my explanation.
  • 15:37 - 15:42
    With one thought, an important thought that I need to add, these people
  • 15:42 - 15:45
    are not corrupt, they aren't horrid... Well maybe they are horrid
  • 15:45 - 15:53
    and corrupt as well, but ... Even good people, an honest parlementarian,
  • 15:53 - 16:01
    when he is going to write a Constitution, he is in the situation that we must all know
  • 16:01 - 16:06
    We must all know this expression, they are in conflict of interest. That doesn't mean
  • 16:06 - 16:14
    that they are rotten/corrupt, not at all! I'm not saying that. Conflict of interest means that, in that specific moment,
  • 16:14 - 16:18
    in that precise situation, not elsewhere, there, in that situation, when they are writing
  • 16:18 - 16:25
    a Constitution, they have a personal interest that is going to pollute the possibility of justice, to distance themselves
  • 16:25 - 16:31
    and their detachment in regards to the common good. A little bit like... and this is an important image...
  • 16:31 - 16:35
    for when you'll have to debate outside, if you'll help me
  • 16:35 - 16:40
    make this idea viral. We must carry this idea otherwise we won't get anywhere.
  • 16:40 - 16:45
    If I'm the only one saying it, it's like...wasting our time. It's interesting, it's amusing,
  • 16:45 - 16:49
    but... we won't change anything. But if we start carrying this idea, all of us, we're going to change something.
  • 16:49 - 16:53
    It will be like a snow ball, something that can really change everything.
  • 16:53 - 16:57
    But you need to all become viruses. Well...not viruses, maybe more like white blood cells
  • 16:57 - 17:08
    There are many expressions... and I'm forgetting my thread. What was I saying before ?
  • 17:08 - 17:14
    - Conflict of Interest - Conflict of intest, yes, thank you. A judge... you'll understand...
  • 17:14 - 17:18
    When you'll have to explain, you could use this image
  • 17:18 - 17:27
    that's really expressive : Take a judge, a virtous judge ; I'm not talking about a horrid, or political, or crooked one.
  • 17:27 - 17:33
    I'm talking about a good judge. Someone... that you've made sure to make completly independent
  • 17:33 - 17:40
    To make sure that he is, you made sure he didn't need money, that he wasn't under any kind of external pressure
  • 17:40 - 17:44
    You've made him independent so that he had all possible conditions to be a fair judge
  • 17:44 - 17:49
    And he is effectivly a fair judge. More so, he knows shame, he has a sens of what it the common good,
  • 17:49 - 17:57
    he makes efforts: there, a good judge. This guy, in his role, and in the planning of the court
  • 17:57 - 18:05
    comes across his own child who's in a case. The child can be either a victim or an accused.
  • 18:05 - 18:13
    No matter. There, his child is there. Everyone on eath will understand that there is a conflict of interest
  • 18:13 - 18:18
    in that specific moment. That means that this judge, he's really good, but just for this case,
  • 18:18 - 18:25
    we're going to challenge his authority. That doesn't mean that we'll dishonor him, that doesn't mean he's a crook,
  • 18:25 - 18:31
    that he is a bad judge. It doesn't mean that at all. It means that in this case,
  • 18:31 - 18:38
    this judge can not give justice. He's a judge and jury at the same time. He is in a conflict of interest. So, for that case,
  • 18:38 - 18:45
    we will, you, judge, you very good judge, we will set you aside and place another one. We will put someone else,
  • 18:45 - 18:48
    and then you'll take your job as judge again. Do you understand where I am getting at ?
  • 18:48 - 18:53
    Conflict of interest doesn't mean corruption. It's a situation that we, as a whole, must know.
  • 18:53 - 18:59
    We must be very watchful. Anglo-saxons know better this concept of conflic of interest
  • 18:59 - 19:02
    than we, French, do. We, we're almost illiterate, we have no clue what it is ;
  • 19:02 - 19:09
    or at least not well enough. And on this debat tonight, it's very Very important.
  • 19:09 - 19:14
    So let's come back: when you're about to write... remember, you've understood,
  • 19:14 - 19:18
    the people, the powers that write the law to sooth the people
  • 19:18 - 19:24
    and to which the people submit themselves, the power that come as a benefit but can be dangerous, like double-edged sword
  • 19:24 - 19:31
    It's the same people, they are both beneficial and harmful ; and so we place above them
  • 19:31 - 19:38
    a superior text that they must fear ; they must fear the Constitution !
  • 19:38 - 19:44
    I am at risk to be punished, to be cast away, I, citizen, will be punished by what is in this text.
  • 19:44 - 19:51
    They must fear the Constitution ! It must weaken them, this text.
  • 19:51 - 19:57
    Do you understand that those writing the Constitution, even if they are virtuous, sweet, nice
  • 19:57 - 20:06
    that they are good people, just when they are about to write that text, if it is them that we place to write the text
  • 20:06 - 20:13
    that they must fear as futur men in power... You see the conflict of interest ? And that, I'm the only one defending this position
  • 20:13 - 20:17
    It's surprising isn't it ? It seems to me that we should be more.
  • 20:17 - 20:25
    I wish I would no longer remain the only one pointing to this conflict and that we become many saying: "Hang on a minute"
  • 20:25 - 20:30
    Next time that we do what happened in Tunesia. They didn't say it in Tunesia, they didn't think it through before and they elected a Constitutional Assembly.
  • 20:30 - 20:36
    They elected amongst imposed candidates by the parties. Imposed by who ? The political parties.
  • 20:36 - 20:39
    They're the same ! Imagine : You have a Constitutional Assembly today.
  • 20:39 - 20:43
    Who do you want amongst the candidates ? Who will you have ?
  • 20:43 - 20:46
    You'll have the right wing who'll put forward their candidates and the left wing who'll present theirs.
  • 20:46 - 20:50
    And the press will go on about it, talking about Dassault, of Lagardère, etc...
  • 20:50 - 20:54
    And Bouygues or Bolloré, you'll see the TV channels, who are friends with all those guys
  • 20:54 - 20:59
    who'll just keep talking about the candidates of political parties. They'll be elected ! So you'll have professionals
  • 20:59 - 21:06
    of politics who are going to write the Constitution that they should fear. And it's like that everywhere
  • 21:06 - 21:11
    in the world. - And in Iceland ? - In Iceland too. A little less though. In Iceland,
  • 21:11 - 21:16
    there was a random draw between the two previous chambers, but chamber nonetheless. So they were politicians
  • 21:16 - 21:21
    that put in place the regime, at least the procedure that happened in Iceland. It started with two chambers
  • 21:21 - 21:25
    that were randomnly drawn. The first draw to say : what do we want ? And they said : we'll
  • 21:25 - 21:29
    make another random draw chamber who'll say exactly what's in the Constitution and after that
  • 21:29 - 21:34
    there will be another chamber that will be elected and who will write the Constitution. And that's what happened.
  • 21:34 - 21:38
    So there was a second chamber randomnly drawn who said: "We would like that there be this and that
  • 21:38 - 21:41
    in the Constitution" That's not bad ey ? It's not a bad starter but it's not the cure for all.
  • 21:41 - 21:45
    It's not what I was talking about earlier on. We could dream of better I'm sure.
  • 21:45 - 21:50
    If we imposed a constitutional process that would be correct, it would be a lot better
  • 21:50 - 21:54
    than in Iceland, I beleive. Because, in fact, they had the Constitutional Assembly afterwards.
  • 21:54 - 21:58
    So it was a free election, better than the elections
  • 21:58 - 22:03
    that we are used to. We're used to elections where we don't
  • 22:03 - 22:09
    get to choose the set of candidates we have, and so we're left with, excuse me for saying so,
  • 22:09 - 22:15
    imposed candidates who have interests contrary to the greater good. That are judge & jury at the same time.
  • 22:15 - 22:23
    When it comes to electing Constituant Members, if the parties
  • 22:23 - 22:27
    are imposing on us candidates, we'll end up with... 100% of the Constitutional Assembly that will be
  • 22:27 - 22:31
    in Conflict of Interest. In Iceland, it didn't quite happen that way,
  • 22:31 - 22:34
    because they had a free election. They had a trucker who went candidate, so anyone
  • 22:34 - 22:38
    could be representative. But since it was an election, it's more the local leaders that were elected,
  • 22:38 - 22:44
    and they're not very revolutionary. They won't just change everything and keep to what they know.
  • 22:44 - 22:49
    So they'll just end up probably...Well we'll see, I hope they prove me wrong. It's interesting
  • 22:49 - 22:52
    what's going on: The Constitution in Iceland is actually
  • 22:52 - 22:55
    interacting with it's people via social neworks.
  • 22:55 - 22:57
    They aren't many, they are 370 000 in Iceland, so
  • 22:57 - 23:01
    they actually manage to do it and people write to the Members of the Constitutional Assemble to tell tem:
  • 23:01 - 23:05
    "Think about this, think about that" So it's quite interactive and it's really interesting what's going on.
Title:
Etienne Chouard. — Part III (Lyon Conference) Mars 2012 - "Is Democracy a trap ? " Roots of our political impotency.
Description:

Part III : Political impotency and Constitutions.
Powerless resistance. — The Branches and the root — Things to keep in mind about Internet — Who writes our Constitutions ? — Conflit of interest notions. — Building a Constitutional Assembly — Tunesia & Iceland.

Etienne Chouard, independant researcher.
Conference in Lyon, on March 9th 2012. MJC St Just.
"Is Democracy a trap, an illusion ?"

Mounting & Framing : Matthieu Wadoux — matwad@gmail.com
English translation : Dorian Faucon - hussard_noir@hotmail.com
more » « less
Video Language:
French
Duration:
23:22

English subtitles

Revisions

Our website uses cookies for analysis purposes.