-
SORTITION
as a sustainable protection
AGAINST OLIGARCHY
-
Marseille 23rd April 2011
-
I think our political impotence comes
from the fact
-
that what we call “democracy”
is actually the exact opposite.
-
What we call “democracy”
today,
-
is anything but
a democracy:
it is an aristocratic oligarchy.
-
And it hasn’t happened by chance,
or due to corrupt or vicious players.
Not at all.
-
The mechanism which lies
at the heart of our institutions
-
is aristocratic
[and] it is called “election”.
-
The election consists in choosing, choosing the best,
the best = "aristos" => "aristos" aristocracy and...
-
Thousands of years of history have shown
that aristocracy ALWAYS becomes,
transforms into an oligarchy,
which means the power of a few.
-
"Monarchy", is the power of one;
-
"democracy", is the power of the people;
"demos" the people, "cracy" power;
-
oligarchy, is the power of a few,
a very small number of people.
-
We actually are in a situation of oligarchy:
you can easily see that only a few
are ruling.
-
But they are ruling
not because they are particularly evil
or particularly clever.
-
I would like to emphasize that the root cause
is NOT THE VICE of those who are ruling,
not at all.
-
Even if you killed them all,
others would replace them,
if you don’t change INSTITUTIONS.
-
INSTITUTIONS ARE THE PROBLEM.
-
And with our current institutions worldwide,
-
the preferred process,
defended by everyone...
-
... left parties,
corporates,
banks...
-
(and this is a paradox,
I’ll ask you a few questions in this regard at the end,
-
people with nothing in common,
with totally different interests, defend the elections,
that is fishy.
-
Excuse me, but
the fact that Goldman Sachs defends the elections,
proves that this company doesn’t have to fear it.
-
Indeed,
Goldman Sachs funds the whole —
or most— of the election of the president
who will then serve its interests.
-
But it isn’t only the case in the US,
it’s like this in all the so-called
-
"democracies” which are not...
which CANNOT BE democracies.
Because of elections.
-
Therefore, since they managed to call
the current regime "democracy",
the place is no longer vacant.
-
And one cannot designate the enemy
since the problematic regime carries the name
of the one which would solve the issue.
-
That means we call the problem “democracy”.
-
We call the problematic regime
by the name of the solution.
-
We are thus facing a TERMINOLOGY issue.
-
Where does this come from?
-
Is it a conspiracy?
-
Not at all, not at all...
-
First of all,
when those who designed the current regime...
-
(at the end of the 18th century,
-
in Great Britain,
then in the US,
then in France in 1789,
but roughly speaking at the end of the 18th century),
-
institutions were set up
that we called and that they called...
-
they didn’t call them “democracy”:
they perfectly knew what democracy was,
-
they knew the Athenian world,
they were quite educated,
-
they were Hellenists
they knew the Greek world,
-
but they didn’t want it:
-
Sieyès, the one who wrote
"Qu'est-ce que le Tiers Etat"
= What is the Third Estate
-
one of the thinkers, one of the greatest
thinkers of the French revolution,
-
Madison, in the US, who became one of the
greatest thinkers, one of the Founding Fathers
of the American constitution,
-
these people were not planning to
build a democracy at all:
-
they didn’t want democracy:
to them, it was anarchy, government by the
populace ; THEY WERE ELITISTS.
-
They said that “the people are not capable
of managing their own affairs”.
-
The founding fathers
of our government institutions,
so-called “representative government”...
-
"representative government"
=> no democracy at all !
-
These people knew, and thought with honesty
-
They had no wrong intentions, since they wanted
the end of the old regime which was worse
but they didn’t want any democracy at all.
-
And when someone talked about “democracy”
it was almost an insult, it was pejorative,
-
it was not a positive word,
it was not what it became later.
-
So it happened by a switch of wording,
by ...
-
a trick in history: at the beginning
of the 19th century, the term “democracy”
started to designate this [antidemocratic] regime.
-
For instance, when Tocqueville wrote
"Democracy in America",
-
he wasn’t discussing the subject at all
(like you and me), it wasn’t a democracy at all,
-
but the book became a huge best-seller
("Democracy in America”).
-
And he wasn’t the only one:
-
Several authors progressively started to
call it “democracy” … because you’ll see
that there are common points,
-
there is one common point (between democracy
and representative government)
which is EQUALITY...
-
(We will see, when talking about
Athenian democracy,
that its core objective was equality:
-
but but but but but...
Equality as claimed by the Athenian people
was TRUE political equality.
-
Whereas
representative government equality is only FORMAL.
-
It is in fact totally fake.
-
It is not real:
you can easily see that our equality is... It is...
-
based upon auxiliary details, not on essentials.)
-
Anyway, invoking equality as a common point,
policy-makers progressively used a shortcut
-
and started talking about “democracy”,
quickly followed by everybody else.
-
As you can see, it became a perfect way
for political representatives to stay in place
-
using “democracy” to be elected and keep the power...
But elected people are also notables,
-
they didn’t come from the working class.
-
Although it was not a conspiracy,
it certainly happened because
it was in their interest.
-
Those in power had an interest
[a personal interest to go for a “representative
government”].
-
Tocqueville said... (this is incredible!)
-
Tocqueville, an icon of liberalism...
-
said:
"I’M NOT AFRAID OF UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE:
-
THE PEOPLE WILL VOTE AS THEY WILL BE TOLD TO".
-
THEY ALREADY KNEW: 1835,
at the beginning of the 19th century...
-
At the very very very beginning
of the elections, they perfectly knew:
-
Nobody would be overthrown,
Poor people would never have power
through elections, EVER, they knew it
from the beginning.
-
And this is perfect for them,
that we call it “democracy”, because...
-
"democracy” sounds like an ideal:
“demos”, “cratos”, power of the people...
-
"Yeah, great,
we won’t be fooled too bad
if we are ruling”...
-
OK then, but if you call “democracy”
a regime which has nothing to do with it,
which is even the exact opposite...
-
Well, you are being fooled so bad it’s not even funny.
-
So...
-
to... to make it a tool for today,
-
to see what is available today,
we need to understand
what Athenian democracy involves.
-
Then we will refer to the objections
we mentioned when we talked about...
-
xenophobia, phallocracy...
-
slavery... I’ll come back to these
when we talk about objections...
-
But first, I’d like to show you
the core of a true democracy,
of Athenian democracy.
-
with the material I prepared for you
[http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/
centralitedutirageausortendemocratie.pdf].
-
It’s a diagram I designed for these lectures...
-
It was initially handwritten, but now,
for you, for the first time,
I typed it, so...
-
The drawback of the typed one,
is that it is already complete,
-
whereas when I was doing it by hand,
while talking,
I would draw it simultaneously,
-
so everyone had a step-by-step vision of it...
-
but at the same time, since my writing is not good,
and since [when] one writes while talking,
one cannot write well, this is now much better.
-
So let me show you...
You may forget the rest...
-
Let’s start with the beginning:
-
After centuries of tyranny, Athenians
-
have ONE practical objective:
-
Which is real equality, REAL POLITICAL EQUALITY.
-
No social equality, no economic equality,
-
(they know they’re not equal)...
-
no physical equality...
-
No: POLITICAL equality
-
Decisions must be taken collectively,
-
in an Assembly: one person = one vote.
-
Assembly of the PEOPLE,
NO assembly of representatives:
=> assembly of the people
-
Assembly of the PEOPLE, that’s important.
-
So, the objective... which should be highlighted
with a particular colour, because it’s like...
-
the core, the heart,
what should not be forgotten
when thinking about other institutions.
-
Ok.
-
So what did Athenians notice?
-
(and we notice the same thing)...
-
They found out that ...
-
POWER CORRUPTS...
-
09:19,420
and it takes a little time... it takes a little time...
-
but in the end, nobody resists:
even the most virtuous become corrupt.
-
they begin to follow their personal interest
instead of pursuing the public interest.
-
Noting that...
-
(these are facts — and facts that we can still see
today, it is clear that wealth, powers, privileges,
do change people:
-
and even if we’re good at the start,
we’re progressively getting worse [afterwards],
-
like drug addicts who need their drug:
once we get used to it, we want it to continue.
-
and this need goes before the general interest...
-
Noting that...
-
(what elections do NOT allow!),
-
Noting that, Athenians set SUB-GOALS that must be
understood as CORE and essentials:
-
First and second sub-goals
(that go together):
POLITICAL AMATEURISM.
-
(It is grey because it is a photocopy
-
of the coloured original
which shows institutions in green;
-
[the white rectangles,]
show the objectives which make us choose such
or such institution.)
-
So, [second sub-goal:]
"ROTATION OF DUTIES"
=> they rotate powers:
-
since power corrupts
we never leave it to someone for a long time..
-
Powers are rotated
so they don’t have time to corrupt.
-
As a result,
there is no professionalism:
-
"we do NOT WANT ANY PROFESSIONALS at all
[NEVER IN POLITICS]", Athenians used to say,
-
we don’t want them
because they are the heart of CORRUPTION.
-
So,
-
we aren’t discussing institutions yet:
-
We are at the HEART
of what motivated democracy:
Democracy existed to reach these goals.
-
And we could take the same (goals)
for us today,
saying:
-
"We want them to be amateurs,
-
so, they must rotate,
-
it’s because we want them to be amateurs,
that they must rotate;
-
it’s because they rotate
that they’ll be amateurs;
-
it’s definitely interconected,
it goes hand in hand, to protect equality.
-
We must understand
the intrinsic CONSISTENCY of all this.
-
If we let grow politician cartels,
we won’t reach equality.
-
On the contrary,
we’ll have professional politicians
and we’ll lose equality.
-
Politically speaking.
-
Politically, right?
I’m not talking about equality here...
I know we’re not equal;
-
They very well knew we’re not equal.
as far as wealth and intelligence are concerned
-
but we must be politically equal.
That’s it...
-
that’s the democratic project..
-
We must understand,
that these two sub-goals...
-
(we’re not talking about institutions...
or maybe yes,
only with short and non renewable mandates...)
-
But short and non renewable mandates
are not compatible with an election:
-
you’ll never get enough candidates
to fill short and non renewable mandate
positions.
-
You won’t get them with an election...
-
because when you elect someone,
the mechanism which led you to elect this person,
will also lead you to reelect them,,
-
election thus entails
the stablity of the political establishment,
-
it creates professionalisation,
sedimentation :
the same people will always have [the power]..
-
The election genome
contains the professionalisation of politics.
-
They go together.
-
It is scheduled as such.
-
So,
they chose sortition,
because it’s perfectly consistent:
-
to obtain amateurism,
-
to apply rotations
(short and non renewable mandates),
sortition IS NECESSARY!
-
You cannot keep the rest
and replace sortition by election:
it won’t work.
-
Here, the [central] election does not allow
amateurism and rotation of duties.
-
Therefore, it does not allow equality:
it cannot be replaced
-
SORTITION allows,
by always taking different people
randomly...
-
ALLOWS
ROTATION OF DUTIES AND AMATEURISM.
THAT IS EQUALITY.
-
This is essential..
This is the core/nucleus of a democracy..
-
As a complementary institution,
they had the right to speak as core objective.
-
That is... (they knew...
they were not idealist people..
-
Plato, [he,] was an idealist!
-
Philosophers often were idealists
who fuelled and maintained
MYTHS that helped dominate.
-
You know that
MYTHS ARE USED TO DOMINATE..
-
Mirabeau said: "men are like
rabbits: they caught themselves by their ears".
-
We believe in stories,
we need to be told stories.
-
This is "story telling". I’ve got a little book
I didn’t bring but it is important,
-
a very little book which summarises the state of
science on "story telling"
[by Christian Salmon, ed. La découverte].
-
"Story telling",
is not only a marketing technique,
-
it’s a technique to manipulate human beings
by telling them stories.
-
We [all] are very vulnerable to lies.
-
We all believe in them:
when we are told stories, we believe them..
-
Our only wish is to believe them.
-
So, when we are told lies,
we only want this: if it is consistent with
-
what we already understood from the “real” world,
we only want this.
-
So, ...
-
Knowing that...
-
Athenians were no idealists:
-
They were quite realistic,
pragmatic,
THEY KNEW THEY WERE NOT PERFECT.
-
they knew they would be able to take
from the box
-
they knew they would [tend to] move
from the public interest to their personal interest,
-
they knew they were liars, they knew they
were not always honest,
they knew it...
-
and they would say: "well, our system will make
EACH CITIZEN A POTENTIAL SENTINEL.
-
Citizens who want to speak, denounce,
CAN denounce."
-
"And they will stay alive",
(because it was strict at this time:
-
before democracy,
when somebody would protest,
-
dissidents were banned...
-
Leaders would hastily get rid of them...).
-
Athenians made a different choice, they said:
"we are going to protect dissident views,
-
we’re gonna let people express themselves
-
by implementing..
-
ISEGORIA...
-
that they preferred to isonomia
or to other very important democratic
institutions:
-
to them, ISEGORIA was a PILLAR of democracy.
-
According to this pillar:
-
"everyone in an assembly MAT speak
about anything and at any time".
-
They wouldn’t do it [all at the same time, of course]:
-
when someone spoke, people would listen to him/her,
and was blamed for not expressing himself/herself
properly, for talking nonsense, rules were strict.
-
So...
-
but everyone COULD do it..
-
IT was very important that everyone
[COULD speak]...
And the assembly wasn’t a mess:
-
there were magistrates
(that’s how drawn representatives were called,
-
their task partly consisted in keeping the
assembly disciplined,
thus in verifying that everything was in good order).
-
But the fact that each citizen who wanted to protest,
who had something to say, was allowed to say it
-
without being killed, is absolutely
essential to keep DEMOCRACY SOUND AND CLEAN.
-
Which means...
-
it GUARANTEES that Athenians
considered that democracy would LAST,
-
because any oligarchic deviations
(they knew that there were),
-
each citizen
-- let me remind you that citizens were armed –
each citizen...
-
had the power [to publicly denounce such deviations],
committed by the institutions that
were protecting him/her
-
(it’s a bit like today, our institutions
should protect whistleblowers:
-
people like Fabrice Nicolino, Denis Robert,
the lady who denounced Mediator...
-
Irène Frachon, that’s her,
-
we’ve got several wild and courageous
whistleblowers, who are struggling,
-
institutions should protect them...
in a specific manner;
-
a bit like labour law particularly
protects employee or trade union
representatives)
-
Well, Athenian institutions...
-
would guarantee this right to speak to everyone.
-
It was called Isegoria, which is an essential
institution.
-
It made them active citizens.
-
Tha fact that...
• when you allow people to speak
and take their words into account,
-
make them want to try hard.
-
• Whereas when institutions act as if
your words/opinions didn’t have any influence,
people are reluctant to try hard.
-
Today, we complain about passive citizens.
-
But INSTITUTIONS MAKE THEM PASSIVE:
what’s the point in being active
since it won’t make any difference anyway.
-
Imagine open institutions
which would allow you to change something:
you would become much more active.
-
Look at Switzerland, it’s not a cure-all,
but it is much more democratic,
-
probably one of the only democracies
in the world (with Venezuela maybe).
-
In Switzerland, the fact that each citizen may
trigger
-
(with a few co-signatories)
a referendum on his/her own,
-
which means ask the question
[which seems important to him/her]
To ALL Swiss citizens...
-
It really makes them quite active:
go to Switzerland, political activity is suprisingly
-
strong there, when you talk about it:
these people actually do politics.
-
Much more than we do. Although it’s not perfect,
[problems obviously] remain...
-
Athenians themselves would complain about
passivity, people are never satisfied,
would always like things to be different..
-
in [our known] human history...
the city of Athens is the biggest plitical activity
we’ve ever had.
-
Thats is: open institutions..
-
make active citizens.
-
Active citizens feed/foster
amateurism and make it possible...
-
And amateurism
make them active too, because there is a
chance...
-
everyone had a chance to be drawn.
-
Sortition makes plausible
the possibility that I may some day
be the president of Athens
-
The president of Athens was randomly drawn EVERY DAY!
-
every day! drawn...
-
So [1 out of 4 citizens] could say:
"I was once president of Athens".
-
And no one could say: “I was president twice”
(because the mandate was not renewable).
-
Duties would rotate and rotate
-
When you know that some day
you may be
the spokesman of the group...
-
it deeply changes your relationships with politics:
-
you do politics naturally,
because it’s everywhere.
-
But don’t put the cart before the horse :
we should not wait until we do politics ourselves
for institutions to change.
-
In my opinion,
GOOD INSTITUTIONS WILL MAKE GOOD CITIZENS.
-
Good institutions are educational,
they are a [CIVIC] school...
-
I’ll come back to this, when we speak about jurymen
and Tocquevilles’ opinion on them,
for he wrote great pages:
-
He was a fierce defender...
of sortition.
-
And I’ll literllay read the words he used because...
-
... he beautifully expressed himself...
-
So, [although,] he was an aristocrat who was, I think,
profoundly anti-democrat;
-
antidemocrat, but honest,
I mean, when he described his thoughts,
he used to try to see the good side in each view.
-
And that made
Tocqueville loved by everyone,
-
everyone would find what he/she was looking for
in Tocqueville’s writings:
because he doesn’t really show what he thinks.
-
There’s a letter from his brother
(their correspondence is available),
-
where Tocqueville had [him] read the chapters
of "Democracy in America"
while he was writing it,
-
and there’s a letter where his brother
— whose name I can’t remember —
-
[his brother] writes (to Alexis de Tocqueville),
telling him...
-
"for this chapter you sent me, we had said
that
you would not show what you think...
-
and I saw what you think...
-
I saw it. So you.. you...
-
You must re-write it."
-
So he would re-write: he would weigh what he wrote
so people cannot see what he thought,
-
and it gave his writing a strength
which is extremely attractive because...
-
he showed the quality of democracy
(well, of what he calls “democracy”
-
because, let me remind you, this isn’t a
democracy at all, anyway,
it’s more convenient to call it this way)...
-
He describes the American regime...
-
with its strength and weaknesses...
-
with an honesty that is still useful for us today,,
-
because it is true that the representative regime
such as it is, such as we experience it, has defects
that lead to dictatorship,
-
a SOFT dictatorship described by Tocqueville
the one we are currently experiencing.
-
So, Tocqueville,
although he was antidemocrat,
tell us great things
-
and sortition-related sections
are amazing, we’ll see that later.
-
So, if you like, the core of democracy
is this thing [showing the centre of the diagram]] :
-
the objective, the sub-goals
and THE PROCESS THAT MAKES these sub-goals POSSIBLE...
-
IF YOU CHANGE SOMETHING
WITHIN IT
YOU WILL LOSE DEMOCRACY.
-
So...
-
Athenians were afraid of sortition,
like us, same thing, same fear...
-
They were humans like us, and would think a lot,
they were far from being stupid,
they were not idiots
-
because it happened 2500 years ago...
they would think exactly like you today, same thing.
-
And maybe even more, because they would do more politics..
-
So... they were afraid of drawing idiots..
-
So, first of all,
they would NOT GIVE THE POWER to the drawee:
-
THE DRAWEE WOULD NOT DECIDE:
-
THE ASSEMBLY WOULD DECIDE,
-
the assembly, not the representatives.
-
Do not imagine that elections are replace by
sortition, and that the power is left
-
to elected representatives [like we leave it today]:
-
not at all, it doesn’t work like this.
-
Iyou must understand that
DEMOCRACY IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM OUR CURRENT SYSTEM
-
There are common points
since collective decisions are taken,
-
we must assess collective decisions,
we must implement collective decisions, we must...
-
judge conflicts between individuals...
There are lots of common points...
-
We must reach comparable objectives,
but to reach a balance... we must understand that
-
THE PHILOSOPHY OF INSTITUTIONS,
must completely change.
-
We will see how it can work and continue to work
with a high nulber of people,,
-
but you’ll see that with the FEDERATION,
with the small scale democracy
[and] the upward pyramid-shaped federation,,
-
WITH CONTROLS OF THE POWER
AT EACH STAGE, this is totally conceivable.
-
I’ll get back to this later
(to the feasability today).
-
Well...
-
before this second part,
I talked about it earlier...
-
sortition mechanically and literally entails
with no exception,
-
(exceptions are marginal),
-
a DESYNCHRONIZATION,
Hansen tralks about it.
-
There are two books.. here, lots of books
on Athenian democracy
which are really great.
-
But...
-
the day-do-day life of Athenians,
-
when they draw lots,
the machines they use..
-
the issues they have with their democracy...
Everything is explained in a very good book...
this book... is wonderful:
-
you’ve got the impression that you [see] a society
live like you would like it to live today.
-
In any case, one can feel what can be transposable into...
-
Someone who loves Athenian
democracy wrote it;
-
his name is Hansen and the title is
"Athenian democracy in the age of Demosthenes".
-
Good book to see their day-to-day life..
He is one of the greatest known experts...
-
of Athenian democracy (there’s a lot,
but he is great), who wrote
-
several books on the subject and summarised them
in a single book to make them accessible.
-
And there’s a second book which I,
also highly recommend...
-
and even more, because
I think it’s the most important
-
book on sortition
and the political organisation of the country...
-
Its title isn’t very engaging though:
"Principles of representative governement... hum...
-
If you see it on a bookshelf, you may say:
"I’ll leave it here for now
and might look at it tomorrow..."
-
You’re wrong: it’s a very good book.
-
It’s the story of sortition,
the story of the time where we lost this conception,
this importance of sortition.
-
Why did election triumph, pros and cons,
written with honesty...
-
He’s a greta guy: Bernand Manin.
-
I met him, he’s breezy, clever, cultivated.
-
He is...
-
He’s someone important [who] didn’t think
of advocating for sortition:
-
He wanted to honestly report on situation.
-
And his description is so honest that we,
who never hear about sortition,
may think he’s advocating.
-
However, he also defends elections;
which is fair, like Tocqueville did.
-
So Hansen describes this desynchronization
which shows that...
-
...
-
wealthy people of the time often were...
OFTEN HAD NO political power.
-
They were “aliens” like we call them,
[they were] strangers.
-
Athenians often invited them
[because of and] with their wealth
-
so they allowed them to seat,
guaranteeing that their assets would not be taken..
-
Finally, the wealthy, these “aliens”
run their businesses
and lived quite comfortably,
-
they were very well settled,
they had no political power,
-
but apparently, during 200 years,
it didn’t prevent them from thriving.
-
Athens was a very prosperous city.
-
So I’m not saying...
-
I know it was colonialist, declared wars,
went on expeditions,
like all the people at that time.
-
I’m not saying we should live like Athenians!
-
I’m only saying that, compared to other cities of the
time,
it was remarkably stable,
-
prosperous,
with an intense political activity.
-
And.. I think THE GERM is transposable today...
-
(Castoriadis, a great philospher, said that...
-
Athens is not a model,
because there are lots of things that we don’t want
[to take] from Athenian society, but it is A GERM.)
-
And I think the germ exists: this thing,
this thing the wealthy people never rule...
-
[Good god :-)], doesn’t it ring a bell to you?
-
[Well !]... and that poor people always rule!
-
Well well well! That’s it!...
-
And that makes a huge difference!!
-
— "Yes, it’s a detail, let’s discuss something
else...."
— "Wait, no, no, no..."
Think!
-
So, well, anyway...
-
As a matter fact, looking at
200 years of history [of tests]...
-
200 years of experiences with sortition and election,
with the relationships between the wealthy and the poor and
exercice of power,
all this is virtually negative [day/night, white/black].
-
It is...
-
The result is the total opposite..
-
But now, I’m talking abour FACTS, NOT MYTHS..
-
I’m not talking about the sacred cow, “the universal
suffrage
as historical conquest of the working class”
-
LOOK AT THE FACTS
-
WHO RULES THANKS TO ELECTIONS?
-
Who rules thanks to elections?
-
The poor ones?
-
No, never (or marginally).
-
Even when Blum [Front populaire in 1936]
was elected...
-
You know that Blum, before [governing],
Blum appointed a Minister of finance...
-
(that was Auriol)
-
So he appointed him,
-
and, as was usually the case during the 3rd republic
— election —
-
the Minister of finance,
BEFORE taking on his mandate
-
and doing his job as a Minister,,
where did he go?
-
(room: to the Banque de France...)
-
He went to the Banque de France,
-
to the Banque de France office:
-
the manager of the Banque de France...
lthe governor of the Banque de France,
-
was at the same time President of the Comité des Forges,
that is the head of the MEDEF (French business
confederation) at the time;
the same guy.
-
(room: it was private at the time...)
-
Of course, the Banque de France was private,
everything was private.
-
[And] the Minister of finance,
BEFORE being allowed to do his job...
-
promised the Governor of the Banque de France —
who was also [President] of the Comité des Forges—,
what did he PROMISE?
-
... THAT HE WOULD NOT RAISE...
-
... SALARIES! THAT WAS THE AIM.
-
So the “left” party is eventually elected...
-
But the “left” party, before having the power,
must promise the wealthy ones...
-
(room: allegiance)
-
here we are: ...
the worst of the worst is guaranteed for us.
-
So we must understand that even
when we elect people who will supposedly
[defend the interests of the not so wealthy]...
-
... look at what happened in 1981!
Mitterrand is elected...
-
I was singing, I was happy, Mitterrand...
-
Wait a minute, how long did it take him to betray us ?
To do what even the extreme right parties
[themselves] would never have done?
-
That’s the left party...
-
That’s the result of elections!
-
(room: he’s the one who most contributed to debt)
-
Yes, debt, absolutely!
-
(room: he was on the left side of the extreme right)
-
He wasn’t even on the left side: he was on the right.
-
He WAS [from the start] on the right,
and then, in fact, he betrayed us...
-
All this people fool us with words,
for let me remind you that we are quite sensitive to lies.
-
(room: the story has now been revealed...
with Mitterrand, l'Oréal, etc,
-
because it is also linked to the US Federal reserve
through the nazis. Anyway,
we’ll discuss it another day).
-
So, I think there’s no need to
tell more about how the left parties betrayed us
once they got the power...
-
I mean, we are so disappointed, all of us...
there’s no need to tell more,
I’m no exception.
-
I think that the ALTERNATIVE
is what makes my speech original.
-
But I’m sorry to say that the alternative
is not for today...
-
it won’t be for now,
we must first pass the message around
and be millions to defend this idea:
-
as long as there’s only a few of us (100 or 1000 people),
it won’t be enough, nothing will change.
-
It must be propagated, each one of us must do
this work of explanation for others to understand,
-
to stop buying the lies, fables, myths,
and when you look at the facts, you realize that...
-
... we’re being told this is
social progress...
-
... but you don’t get social progress
as long as the wealthy rule.
-
The wealthy do not want social progress.
-
Look at Athenians’ experience:
that was 2500 years ago
and is quite interesting.
-
So...
-
Practically speaking,
-
today, if we had to draw lots,
we would be AFRAID of doing it:
-
when I go to assemblies, I am told:
"but what if Le Pen was drawn?!"...
-
They are afraid of Le Pen...
-
Meanwhile supporters of Le Pen
would feel the same about a communist being drawn.
-
Well, what if someone you don’t like at all
is sorted, hmm ?
-
Well, Athenians had the same concern,
-
exactly the same concern.
-
They were afraid of certain people
they absolutely didn’t want to see elected.
-
This also existed back then.
-
Still...
-
that’s the way they chose and it worked well.
-
So they must have come up with something more.
-
And it’s this section,
the bottom right of the diagram,
-
where I grouped some institutions
designed to correct the sortition,
they are written in green,
-
(you can find this on the website
[http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/
centralitedutirageausortendemocratie.pdf],
-
along with commentaries,
what I’m telling you right now,
and what I forgot
since I’m now improvising,
-
I may forget one or two points now
but you can find them there:
-
the text of what appears
(to me, not forgetting many things)
to be needed as added commentaries of this diagram.
-
So, with these here institutions, Athenians
protected themselves against a “messy sortition”.
-
So, you must understand that these were
SHORT AND NON-RENEWABLE MANDATES.
-
Short mandates would last for 6 months, a year,
rarely more, and non-renewable.
-
Non-renewable within the same function.
Which means that if I’ve been drawn for a function,
-
I can be drawn for another,
but no longer for this one.
-
Anyway... Well, there were variations...
-
Anyway, this was absolutely essential.
I put it in those institutions. It’s the very heart of a
democracy, it’s the core...
-
Remove this and you’ve lost...
you’ve lost democracy.
-
So there are MANDATES
and there are CONTROLS...
-
This is very important.
(I must not forget to mention this when we get to
the summary because between election and sortition,
-
what makes it clever, the very core...
It’s the very core. But I’ll come back to it later.)
-
So the MANDATE is HIGHLY CONTROLLED:
-
BEFORE it, DURING its course, AT THE END of it,
and AFTER it as well.
-
Controls were permanent:
One must realize that the drawee was AFRAID.
-
It was nothing like today’s elected representatives.
-
I don’t know if you can see the difference, the drawees
had a SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY, a duty,
-
they didn’t come to take advantage
while being unpunished, irresponsible...
-
It has nothing to do with that. So..
-
BEFORE the mandate, which controls were in place
to avoid a messy sortition?
-
• VOLUNTEERING: which means that
only those who attended the assembly in the morning
would be drawn.
-
(there were roughly 6000 people in
the assembly, it was variable, but roughly speaking)
-
and about 2000 people who presented themselves
for the day’s lottery.
-
There was a machine, a "Kleroterion".
-
(You can see on the website how this
[lottery and kleroterion] worked.
-
There’s a very good book by Sintomer
"Power to the people", it’s very interesting
and shows all the experiences...
-
... all past and current experiences,
(lots of current),
of sortition in the world’s institutions.
-
That’s a lot of experiences,
failures, successes... It is...
-
... it is quite exciting because
it shows that it’s not a mere theory,
it does work, and lots of people use it.
-
http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/Ressources_UPCPA/
UPdAixsurletirageausortkleroterionSintomer
Montesquieu_Tocqueville.pdf )
-
Why was I talking about this? I was talking about this
“kleroterion" because in Sintomer’s book
-
"Power to the people”, chapter 2 explains
how the kleroterion worked,
-
and it says that every morning, balls,
white balls, black balls,
-
it’s a funny thing to see, quite materialistic,
everyone could check what was going on.
-
A bit like in polling stations,
you can go there, it is in your interest
to go check that everything is being done properly.
-
Kleroterion is the same,
everyone could watch the lottery machine,
-
and it was quite rustic and transparent,
so cheating wasn’t easy.
-
No computer involved.
How about computer-polling machines, I mean seriously,
where are the tools to destroy them?
-
Let’s tear them down with an axe, since we’re obviously
going to be fooled now. Polling machines are...
-
POLLING MACHINES MUST NOT BE TOLERATED.
It’s plain obvious.
-
(room: we’ve already been fooled)
-
It’s already the case. It’s unbelievable that we let it
happen.
Anyway...
-
Anyway, in the morning, there were volunteers.
So what Montesquieu highlighted, is that...
-
... this volunteering institution...
We could discuss it on my website’s forum
-
(http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?id=20),
discuss whether
-
"do we draw lots among volunteers, ...
-
or among everyone,
allowing them to refuse ?"
-
[in both cases] only “volunteers”
are kept,
-
but “volunteer” has a different meaning
if the person was VOLUNTEERING BEFORE,
or ACCEPTED AFTER being designated.
-
Because one who volunteered before obviously
wants the power [which is dangerous in itself].
-
But when this happens on a daily basis
for short and non-renewable mandates,
-
[one cannot “want” the “power” the same way
our current professional politicians do. It does not apply]
;
-
It’s different from elections [where
candidates intend to become PROFESSIONALS of politics].
-
But note the difference:
being a candidate, is different from
being designated [without asking for it]
and accepting for the common good.
-
And you’d see that lots of people
do not want the power...
-
... but accept it because that’s the way it works,
because they’re sensitive people.
-
And there’s lots of them.
-
These people don’t have the same qualities as
those who currently rule,
-
obviously here to take advantage,
it’s unbeliev... anyway...
-
I’ll soon be considered as a populist, demagogue,
or fascist, I can feel it, since I’m against the
parliament,
and then maybe even a nazi. Here we are...
-
But when you see someone..
who simultaneously carries out several mandates,
deputy, advisor of this, president of that...
-
and who, on top of that, will freelance as a lawyer
in order to POCKET A FEW MORE DOZENS OF GRANDS...
-
It really is disgusting, it’s just sheer greed.
-
Those elected people, I mean what they become,
quite often they are not all like this at first...
-
Some elected people start off while still young, and
at the beginning of their career are not corrupted yet.
-
BUT roughly anyway,
the reason why they are here is to “stuff” themselves.
-
If you look at how people lived back then
(2500 years ago, under true democracy),
-
it was totally different :
people had a sense of duty,
-
and they were rewarded, but not with money.
-
So...
-
they were paid to take part in the assembly,
but very little: a worker’s half day salary !
They really earned very little...
-
But they would be rewarded, you’ll see
when we talk about REWARDS,
they were HONOURS/DISTINCTIONS.
-
No money : honours.
human beings like that.
-
Lots of people do lots of things to get
distinctions, for glory, to have the impression that
-
they served the common good,
and other people’s opinion is enough for them.
-
Acknowledgement by other people is enough.
Lots of people operate this way.
-
YOU’VE GOT TO BE A BIT INSANE
IF YOU ONLY ACT FOR MONEY.
-
Yes indeed, a bit deranged,
like a drug addict, a bit...
-
(audience: unbalanced)
-
a bit unbalanced,
BUT... NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE THIS,
-
LOTS OF PEOPLE CONTENT THEMSELVES WITH
THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHERS, THE PEACEFUL
AND GRATEFUL RELATIONSHIP FOR THE OTHER PERSON’S EFFORTS.
-
So institutions would work like this
In any case...
-
Montesquieu undeligned (I was talking about volunteering),
that is was very important:
-
according to him, sortition was not perfect,
but it was MADE VIRTUOUS by complementary institutions
which would correct the defaults.
-
He would say: volunteering AND PUNISHMENT,
(because you’ll see that there’s a lot of punishments),
-
the combination of both entailed that there were
few volunteers [who were kindof “sorted”].
-
Because when you know that you [may be punished,
you participate [only] if you have a real project,
if you feel that you must do it for the community.
-
(audience: were they allowed to resign?)
-
I don’t know... they [could] be revoked,
but I’ don’t know if they were allowed to resign.
I’m not sure of it.
-
Anyway, I don’t know, it should be checked.
I haven’t read anything about it. It doesn’t ring a bell
to me.
-
I think they would commit. They would commit and
the funny thing [so far from what our
“elected representatives” risk today],
-
is to see how they would be blamed at the end,
when they had to report or later on,
-
and they would defend themselves (and it worked) by saying;
"wait a minute, you have to remember
that I’m like you". And it worked as a mean of defence
-
because people would see that he/she committed,
accepted to be drawn and tried hardl...
-
Well he/she wasn’t... a rotten oligarch,
and he/she’s not punished.
-
So there was a RISK of punishment, but obviously
punishment was not systematic.
-
So volunteering associated to an actual risk,
potentially severe, of punishment, (which could go
as far as death penalty... Anyway...
-
I’m not saying this...
because it’s [obviously] not transposable,
-
but I mean [they were] severe punishments,
for these times)
-
.... lthe combination of both
[(volunteering and severe punishment)] made
-
volunteering a real FILTER
against awful or silly people
-
or people whom you fear might be drawn.
You understand what I mean?
-
What I mean, is that,
the answer to the objection: “we’re gonna have idiots”
-
is no: we will eliminate
most of them like this.
-
• Then we had “DOCIMASY",
a sort of test. Not a competency test
because [reminder: core objective =] political equality,
-
we all have the same political skills,
[docimasy,] was an ability test..
-
The aim was to spot the insane,,
lunatic ones...
To get rid of them.
-
Or the guy... who didn’t take good care of his parents...
(funny to see how important it was for them),
-
this guy was blacklisted,
He wouldn’t be allowed
[to be candidate]... Anyway...
-
Certain abilities allowed to
blacklist people, which was another filter. So,
-
if we wrote or institutions ourselves,
we would foresee.. we would think about it
-
and we would say which docimasy we want,
which test is [desirable],
"what is need to...",
-
checking that it is not a priviledge,
to avoid what scares us.
-
So: a preliminary test.
-
• And then"OSTRACISM".
Ostracism sounds quite negative
today.
-
Today, “ostracism” is bad.
-
But at that time, it was...
it was not negatively connoted,
-
it was part of the basic sound principles for democracy.
-
Ostracism comes from "ostrakon"
a piece of pottery, thus broken potteries.,
-
you would take a piece of pottery and engrave
the name of someone you feared on it.
-
So before that, in the assembly,
a citizen proposed to launch the ostracisme procedure.
-
People would accept or refuse,
but if they accepted, if the assembly...
(not the representatives right? the assembly),
-
is the assembly said:
"yes, we must [use] ostracism"
(because several people are afraid)...
-
the procedure was launched, under which
anyone who is afraid of somebody...
-
(he’s afraid of this great orator:
"oh my god, this guy is taking the power;
he is.. he speaks too well..."
-
— that’s [often] the reason why they would
“ostracise” people —
-
"He’s a very good speaker” or
"he is plotting, he is...
he’s scaring us", for some reason...)
-
[so,] his name would be engraved on an ostrakon,
-
a little piece of pottery,
and then ostrakons and names were counted,,
-
and the one whose name was engraved most frequently
on ostrakons was... he was not killed,
-
his assets were not seized,
he wasn’t dishonoured, but
REMOVED FROM POLITICAL ACTIVITY for 10 years.
-
It is not a [barbarian horror]...
and many others did not participate
in political life: let me remind you that women,
-
slaves, strangers
— people who would [sometimes] lead a very
comfortable way of life, strangers
(who could be very wealthy) —
-
these people were outside politics,
so they didn’t attend the assembly,
they were not citizens... It wasn’t difficult.
-
Anyway, democracy itself had an
important “wheel” which allowed to...
-
not to kill but to REMOVE from political life,
for 10 years, someone who was feared.
-
So, realise that
it’s something that is still lacking today:
-
today, when two candidates are presented...
-
(take any example you want in...
in your country’s recent past)
-
you’ve got two candidates who seem to be “villains”,
-
what do you do?
-
You’re stuck,
you’ve got to choose between two evils.
-
You can’t even use the blank vote which means:
"but I want them out!".
-
We could have a blank vote meaning...
-
THE POLITICAL MEANING OF BLANK VOTE:
"I DON’T WANT ANY OF THESE"
-
or
"THE QUESTION YOU’RE ASKING IS SILLY
I DON’T WANT TO ANSWER IT".
-
Blank vote means:
“go back home, we don’t care about this question”
-
or : "rgo back home, [you] candidates,
and give me other candidates".
-
However, blank vote is interpreted [today
as... being NULL
-
it is combined with other null [votes]
and thrown away!
-
This is revolting! Why? who wrote these rules?
Who wrote these rules which mix blank vote
and null vote?
-
Elected representatives! Which is quite normal.
-
We can’t blame them:
it’s [mostly] OUR FAULT
WE LEFT THEM WRITE THE CONSTITUTION.
-
It’s just our fault. I insist.
It’s your fault, every one of us, and me included,
because we let them do.
-
WE SHOULDN’T LET ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
WRITE THE CONSTITUTION.
-
They do not write that blank vote should be
implemented; they do not mention
referendum proposed by popular initiative;
-
they do not mention short and non renewable mandates,
obviously not;
-
they do not write that at least one chamber out of two
should be drawn
-
they do not speak about citizens’ juries;
they do not write...
-
They do not write the institutions we need.
-
Well, I’m anticipating
but it’s easy to guess:
-
MEN IN POWER SHOULD NOT
WRITE THE RULES OF POWER.
PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS,
-
MEMBERS OF PARTIES
SHOULD NOT WRITE THE RULES OF POWER.
-
EVEN IF YOU LIKE THE PARTY IN QUESTION.
-
Take time to understand, ponder it,
if you belong to a party.
(you can...
-
obviously, because it’s the only thing we have to fight,
I’m not blaming you for belonging to a party!)
-
But what I mean, what you need to understand,
is that, WHATEVER PARTY YOU MAY BELONG TO,
-
you must understand that if you want power,,
YOUR HONOUR,
is TO NOT write the constitution..
-
If you want power and if you want to write the
constitution at the same time,
-
you already tend to be an oligarch
you are “stealing the power”.
-
You are...
-
you’re preparing yourself to be “judge and jury”
to write rules for yourself
and fool the others.
-
(audience: that’s what happened with the European
constitution)
-
... European, obviously: European, French...
De Gaulle who wrote for himself...
-
There are so many examples, they’re all...
take all the constitutions in the world
(except from Venezuela, [maybe]...)
-
and except [the Athenian one] obviously
which was written by Solonas, Clisthenes, and...
-
Solonas left : after writing ,
he left..
-
left for 10 years.
So he didn’t write the rules for himself
[And] casually, he wrote a democracy.
-
So after that...
-
These are controls “before” the mandate.
Controls “during” the mandate are easy to understand:
-
• Drawees were REVOCABLE:
-
If someone saw that a drawee starts to default,
to not work properly,
-
during the mandate, the Assembly could
revoque him AT ANY TIME.
-
SO aren’t you reassured?
Does that apply to elected representatives?
Well, you see!
-
It goes along [with sortition
iyou’ve got to understand].
-
These controls are included.
I’ll come back [to this] after looking back on it.
-
The common point is that WE ASSUME
THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT GOOD.
-
WE ASSUME CONFLICTS,
we assume that people are not perfect,
-
we assume that virtue is not natural,
not spontaneous, not innate.
-
We assume this and take it into account in institutions
since we understood and assumed it,
well CONTROLS ARE IMPLEMENTED EVERYWHERE
-
So after that, you’re less busy with it;
I’ll come back to this but you’ll see that
-
finally, this system is MUCH
MORE SOLID FOR BIG STRUCTURES,
big sizes
-
If Europe was built according to this model,
you could forget about it
since there are controls everywhere.
-
So, with the elections which assume
that they are.. [virtuous simply because they were elected,
-
they’re trying to make us believe that we don’t need
controls betwee two elections!]...
-
(audience: we could justly be interested)
-
So we could be interested...
That means, we could do both.
-
We’ll get back to this when we talk about an objection
which consists in saying: "yes, but sortition was fine
because they were dealing with small sizes,
-
whereas election [is necessary
because we [now are many]".
-
It’s just the opposite:
elections should be used for small sizes,
-
and sortition would work better
in a large scale system.
-
So let me quicly summarise
[the list of protective institutions
to know]: revocability, is easy to understand.
-
• ACCOUNTABILITY,
that is having to report at the end [of the mandate].
-
Can you imagine if your elected representatives had
an accountability for you?
-
They report to you and after that, during...
he had that power for a year and then
-
for six months, sometimes a year...
accountability takes time,
it would take a lot of time
-
(By the way, other people were drawn
to control the drawees.
-
Other drawees right...
they controlled one another)
-
So, for a year, they had to explain
why they had done this and that...
-
Wait a minute, it’s much more protective
that our sytem, this thing
is a 1,000 times more protective!
-
You’re telling me:
"what if we drew this villain one"...
but look at all the controls..
-
I mean: it’s not [only]
"sortition instead of election":
we’re thinking and not obliged to do it blindly.
-
We can do it like they did,
by thinking.
-
It means that we [use] sortition
because we have AN OBJECTIVE to reach
-
so, since we see that tere are disadvantages,
we make the institutions that go
with them.
-
After that, everything is consistent,
it’s much more clever than our system;
much better for the common good.
-
Less interesting for the banks...
-
but for the common good,
this system is much better...
-
For the banks, it is, it is...
but in my opinion they know what’s gonna happen...
too bad.
-
Anyway,
the last complementary institution of sortition
-
(which shows that “villains” don’t have to be feared,
is...
-
that AFTER the mandate,
fi someone said: “there’s a guy
-
who made the assembly invade another island
and we lost.
-
So the guy who lead us to take this decision,
we’re gonna.."
-
• So that was “esangelia", the possibility to
publicly blame, therefore publicly accuse,
-
which means that anyone who potentially
accuses someone who harmed democracy...
-
Well we must temper that,
I’m just giving you... orientations, all these are
orientations
for us, and then we’ll see what...
-
Maybe controls should be limited,
[so] there aren’t too many,
to avoid paralysing people..
-
Anyway, Athenian institutions
were strict.
-
• AFTER THE END of the mandate,
the assembly could change their mind, by saying:
"we made a mistake,
let’s correct it" : that was called
"Graphe para nomon", a procedure allowing to
modify [a past decision]
which means that the...
-
(audience: like???)
-
(Yes exactly..) Athenian society had built
institutions allowing —LIKE FOR ANY HUMAN BEING—
TO TAKE DECISIONS
-
while knowing that they could make mistakes
AND COULD MODIFY DECISIONS WHEN THEY WERE WRONG.
-
They built a BODY capable of...
like any human being, correcting
-
and going back on decisions, adapting [(in real
time, not only every five years)].
-
It’s so much more clever...
So much more clever...
-
In any case, it’s much more PROTECTIVE
than our current systems and finally, the whole thing,
-
in light of this result [(disynchronisation
between economic and political power)]
-
which is absolutely crucial
for prosperity and the common good...
-
it could.. it should be tested!
-
The second part of what I want to tell you,
deals with "OBJECTIONS AND REFUTATIONS" :
-
So here are four or five common objections:
-
• The first one is...
-
"but VILLAINS ARE GOING TO RULE!"
-
"… with your system… We’re gonna let...
we’re gonna let bastards.. or idiots...
villains... rule".
-
Not at all:
• first of all, they’re not “ruling”:
-
the guy you’re gonna draw
will NOT rule!!!
-
REPRESENTATIVES DO NOT EXERT
POWER[ IN A DEMOCRACY] : THE ASSEMBLY DOES!
-
So representatives help us..
-
they do what the assembly cannot do:
-
They prepare the agenda,
they display the agenda,
-
they check that the assembly is disciplined,
they implement decisions [police, justice],
-
they draw lots,
they take care of accountability
and finally punishments...
-
They do what the assembly
CANNOT do [itself].
-
They actually SERVE us.
-
They’re NOT OUR MASTERS!
-
WITH ELECTIONS, WE CHOOSE OUR MASTERS.
-
WITH SORTITION, WE SAY:
"NO, WE DON’T NEED MASTERS".
-
It’s totally different:
it’s not only a procedure to change;
a democracy is DIFFERENT from what we know.
-
What we know today
consists in designating masters.
-
(audience: whom we call “representatives”)
-
Whom we call... [or rather]
who call [themselves] "our representatives",
to better mislead us.
-
you see that they’re fooling us,
no need to draw it...
-
Hmm, so..
-
To the bjection: "we’re going to designate villains,
to choose villains to rule",
the first answer is:
"the drawees are not going to rule
since they d’ont have the power".
-
• And the second [answer] is:
"there are lots of institutions to filter them”.
-
I’m not coming back ti [it]: there are lots of
institutions
to get rid of them [or] punish them...
-
So there’s NOTHING TO FEAR in this regard.
Well, my opinion is that there’s much less
to fear...
-
Because [you] think
that elections don’t give the power to villains?
-
It seems that [elections] choose them.
It seems that [with elections], the worst govern..
-
By the way..
-
I...
-
I think that this book...
(I don’t know... I must have...
-
1500 or 2000 books at home,
I’ve got lots of books, I read a lot)
-
but if I had to keep a book
[among] all them...
-
this one is wonderful:
“Propos sur le pouvoir" by Alain
[(and all "Propos", by the way)],
-
but "Propos sur les pouvoirs" by Alain,
is my favourite, it’s something,
you read it over and over again, you..
-
it’s [pure] intelligence, it’s... it’s very very
very very useful. It’s really a good book
-
you can get when you’re a teenager,
and it follows you for the rest of your life.
-
"Propos sur les pouvoirs", is great.
-
So in his "Propos",
Alain says that...
-
and you’ll see that these three little sentences
with a subject, a verb, a complement,
quite short but including everything.
-
Everything to condemn elections...
-
To condemn elections...
-
As long as I hadn’t found sortition,
I thought I could kill myself
-
([with] this sentence] because it was so true,
it was [like] a trap: there was no escape.
-
But with sortition
[this strong idea of Alain’s is no longer implacable]...
-
So what was Alain saying?...
-
He was saying... [in three short sentences]:
-
“GOOD PEOPLE DON’T CARE ABOUT GOVERNING”.
-
In old French, it’s a way of saying:
“they don’t want to govern”.
-
"Good people don’t feel like governing.
-
« IT’S ALL HERE. »
-
« IN OTHER WORDS,
THE WORST WILL GOVERN. »
-
It’s true, if you wait...
-
if you have a system [based on] elections
[therefore] on candidates
-
and that good people do not want [to be candidates],
they won’t be candidates.
-
Well, you’ll only see villains.
-
Yes! The worst will govern! Here we are!
-
Here we are [look around you]:
Paulson participates in the US government.
-
You’ve got Paulson, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld…
Evil! All of them!
-
The most horrendous.
-
(audience: Obama is not better)
-
Exactly!
(audience: dance of the vampires)
-
In France, you’ve got Sarkozy;
in Italy, Berlusconi;
-
in England, Tony Blair...
[Everywhere,] the worst...
-
The worst of the... the...
-
a while ago, I said “prostitutes”
but I shouldn’t say so because
it’s not nice for prostitutes.
-
We need to find a more serious word, because
prostitutes... "prostitutes”, we all are,
we too, without doing it on purpose.
-
No, it’s worse than... [they are] villains.
“Villains” is a good word.
-
So we won’t say “prostitutes”,
because prostitutes are our friends
we’ll say “villains”.
-
Second objection:
-
And you’ll see, when you...
Because if you play the game I’m suggesting,
which consists in...
-
(if the seed grows in your brains),
planting others yourself
-
because it’s the only way it can work,
I’m telling you it is...
-
if 40 of us... are convinced of this,
[and] since it doesn’t grow, it won’t make ANY
difference,
it won’t change ANYTHING.
-
However, if you grow the seed I suggest that you plant,
you will read,
-
you will strengthen it, you water it,
you add fertilizer, and it becomes beautiful,
-
And if you plant it somewhere else,
in 40 [other brains], it will definitely grow,
and very quickly!
-
So, the objections I’m talking about,
you have to know them,
and you have to know how they can be contradicted,
-
Because you’ll see... people will answer
the same thing as I.
-
• So the second objection, is...
-
"you are applying
a regime which would work at a small scale,
-
but today,
AT A LARGE SCALE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to apply it".
-
So, 2 minutes, 2 minutes, 2 minutes... 2 minutes !
-
Elections… bet that we know people...
[don’t they?]
-
The fact that we ELECT them, means that we KNOW them!
-
(audience: hum...)
-
Yes it does... Well, [otherwise,] how can you elect
(that is CHOOSE) if you don’t know them?!
-
Elections themselves...
(otherwise they're purely misleading us)...
-
Elections imply,
That we know people [candidates, elected representatives].
-
And that’s not all! Since elections are supposed
to be the only counter-power... [since] the only punishment
when they make mistakes, is to NOT be reelected,
-
it implies [at least] that we know what they did
while they were elected.
-
They’re fooling us
at State or European level!
-
Do you know... Do you know
the people you elected at Europen level?
-
Not at all. You know [very little]...
you saw them 30 seconds on TV...
-
And when they are in Europe, there, you
can’t see ANYTHING, you don’t have any idea about what
they do!
-
So ELECTION, ARE NOT
ADAPTED TO LARGE SCALES AT ALL!
-
They are adapted to small scales:
-
the town...
You know your mayor, you can see him/her every day,
-
you can call him/her,
he/she knows you, you know him/her...
-
ELECTIONS WORK WELL AT A SMALL SCALE.
-
And since elections choose,
idealistically bet, UNREALISTICALLY BET
that people are virtuous,
-
that elected representatives (like a miracle) would become
gods,
are able to decide,
-
master every subject, nuclear issues,
GMOs, all this stuff, they are “proficient/experts”,
-
so, there are NO CONTROLS because
elected representatives supposedly "represent the nation”
-
that’s why we TRUST them
so there’s no control...
-
But it totally
contradicts large scales!
-
I mean, A BIG ORGANISATION,
needs it [showing on the diagram
the list of protecting institutions]:
-
[a big organisation] NEEDS LOTS OF CONTROLS,
NEEDS TO ASSUME THAT
PEOPLE ARE NOT NATURALLY GOOD...
-
AND THAT CONTROLS ARE NECESSARY EVERYWHERE!
Yes indeed, controls are necessary...
-
[Elected representatives] don’t like them? Well,
that’s too bad: they're not the ones who decide...
-
That’s too bad: they don’t decide.
-
If they decide,
they won’t implement any control!
Look at todays’ situation:
-
They write constitutions...
-
They don’t implement any controls.
Yes indeed... BUT THAT’S NORMAL!
-
IT’S OUR FAULT,
BECAUSE WE LET THEM WRITE CONSTITUTIONS!
-
THEY SHOULD NOT WRITE CONSTITUTIONS THEMSELVES.
-
So, when you hear: "ok, sortition
was fine with small groups, small cities,
-
and would not work with bigger ones", [you can answer]
the [exact] OPPOSITE...
-
• Next objection (that I spot), I’m being told:
"but with your system,
-
opinions are never gonna be the same,
the [one in charge] will never be the same,
-
you draw a new person every day.
Wait a minute, opinions will change every day!
-
How will you be able to implement
a long term policy?
Have some kind of vision for the future?..."
-
You see, that's what they’re telling you by saying:
"sortition won’t lead you anywhere.
-
You change persons,
you change policies, it will be...
it won’t be straightforward".
-
• Forst of all: WHY NOT?
All living bodies are not straightforward.
-
Take any child
who learns that... "ooops it’s burning!"
The following time, he won’t go,
-
He will take another [decision]: yes, he tried once,
But he won’t try a second time
And any living body works like this.
-
Why wouldn’t that apply to modern society, with an
Assembly
that would [sometimes] make mistakes
and not be straightforward?
-
That’s the first [response to the objection].
Most importantly, this objection which consists in saying
-
"they’re always gonna change their minds, that’s not
true:
Drawees [are not the ones] who decide!"
-
Drawees [are not] he ones
who decide: the Assembly does.
-
THE ASSEMBLY IS STABLE;
IT’S ALWAYS THE SAME PEOPLE...
-
Athenians didn’t have
any problems taking decisions:
-
the same ones would always decide.
So...
-
they were about 30,000 people
with only 6,000 within the Assembly.
-
So they would not attend the Assembly all the time,
they would work, and sometimes they would go to the
Assembly.
When they [felt like it], they would go to the Assembly.
-
So, when you feel like
attending the Assembly, you just go;
if it’s full, “you’ll come back tomorrow”...
-
The Assembly would roughly,
have a body of citizens...
-
When you speak about the city’s problems in he Assembly
(what are we gonna do... should we open a mine,
Should we do this, what are we...
-
gonna do with this land, this swamp,
should we let it dry or not?
-
When you speak to the Assembly,
Yourself, you talk about the city’s issues,
-
well, when you leave the Assembly,
you’re gonna talk about it to toher people.
-
And in fact, the whole city [therefore] becomes constantly
impregnated by the city’s issues.
-
Which means that delegating,
is not essential at all:
-
Leaving your powers to elected representatives
is no fate:
Elected representatives decided it [themselves], you didn't!
-
Have you ever said: “I think
elections are important and I renounce to sortition”?
-
You were not even aware that sortition existed...
-
I mean: ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
DECIDED THAT THEY HAD TO BE ELECTED!
-
THIS IS NO FATE.
-
So, to me, [the objection]: "people would
always change their minds", is irrelevant/nonsense.
-
• Next objection:
"you will necessarily designated UNQUALIFIED PEOPLE.
We live in a complex world."
-
"Listen to me, we’re talking about nuclear issues,
that’s... a global geo-strategy,
with extremely complicated things...
-
So you’re going to designate anyone...
-
Unqualified people…"
-
Are you joking?
Do you think that elected representatives are qualified?
-
Do you know how many atomic bombs have been
thrown into the atmosphere, yes, I said the atmosphere?
-
You know Fukushima, it’s like small fumes,
But I’m talking about atomic bombs.
(audience: these are no small fumes!)
-
No, no, no,
but I mean small fums COMPARED TO
Do you know what an atomic bomb is?
-
Into the atmosphere!
You see what kind of radioactive mess it is,
to throw an atomic bomb?
-
Do you know how many have been thrown since 1945?
-
Elected representatives... leaders, experts, people
like “we-won’t-choose-anyone-we-will-choose-people
who are-able--and-qualified-to-do-things-”...
-
Reasonable things...
-
How many atomic bomb?
-
More than 2,000!!!
-
2,000 atomic bombs in the atmosphere!
and underground, and in the seas!
-
Directly, there... bam! bam! bam!
-
There is... There is a video... An artist built
an inventory of all explosions, along with their dates,
[http://dai.ly/dgwD9u]
-
and he made a small video that lasts...
I don’t remember, about 10 minutes, and you have a time
scale off one second per month and then... or well I don’t
remember... approximately... Nevermind the graduation,
-
and then you have the first explosion, just before
Hiroshima; it’s in a desert
-
in north America and afterwards you have...
bam! bam! The two hits of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
then it’s calm again...
-
then it starts exploding again, in a desert in the United
States,
then it starts exploding...
-
I don’t remember the order, I think then it’s USSR
that starts making explosions, explosions, explosions...
bam! bam! bam! It starts to crackle.
-
You know, you need lots of them to reach 2,000.
-
small red dots, here... ta! ta! ta!
And then in the sixties... it won’t stop!
-
"They are responsible", you are told:
"With drawees,
you will designate unqualified people".
-
But they’re fooling us!
-
(audience: French people have managed to irradiate
themselves)
-
Exactly, but we’re gonna reach...
I mean, when an atomic bomb explodes,
-
You do not only irradiate yourself,
You irradiate the whole planet... and it will last
-
For years, all these particles,
anyway.
-
And how many... (And now,
you’re going to help me...)
-
Elected representatives pretend that they are qualified?
-
How many wars have they triggered?
How many wars?
-
Who threw napalm and pesticides
on Vietnam, millions of litres?
-
Who, who? Elected representatives!! They were elected.
-
Wait a minute, that’s horrible,
what they did to Vietnam,
absolutely horrible.
-
It’s... it’s...
what they did to Vietnma is crazy.
-
It’s... it’s... it’s profoundly revolting,
what they did to Vietnam.
-
Elected people did this,
“qualified" people.
-
Would a popular assembly have done this?
I don’t think so.
-
They may have, but I'm not sure at all.
-
And I... when [citizen] assemblies are organised...
-
You’ll find in this book ("Power to the people"
by Sintomer), [stories] about what drawn citizens’
assemblies have decided.
-
For instance,in Mali, such assembly
Discussed GMOs.
-
People who were not familiar with GMOs at all were drawn.
They knew nothing at all about the subject.
-
There were mothers working at home, unionists,
farmers, lawyers, all kinds of occupations,
-
and they were drawn. So, there was an assembly of people
who were not familiar with the subject at all.
-
And then, for months, what they did
(they had money to do do it,
-
they had premises to host people),
they invited people from Monsanto
-
And asked them:
"why are GMOs necessary [according to you]?".
-
So Monsanto people explained why.
-
Then they invited
People from the farmers’ union:
"so why don’t you want GMOs?"
-
So [unionists] explained
why.
-
Then they invited people from Bayer
(another seed maker) [who explained:]
"Well, here’s why we want them"...
-
Then they invited people from South America
(who had been using GMOs for a long time)
[asking:] them "why did you do this?
-
Are you happy with it? or not?
And why do you continue?
-
Were there any problems?
Is everything ok?"...
-
And then, they invited Monsanto people again
telling [them] : "these people told us that...
what do you answer [them]?".
-
And in the meantime, everybody would watch this:
it was all on TV, on the radio, people
-
could attend meetings and citizens
suggest that questions were asked by saying:
-
"ask him such question because..." indeed,
so the question [suggested by the audience]
would be asked...
-
Wait a minute, after 6 months,
these people are much more
qualified than any MP in the world
-
(an MP who has to deal with all subjects...
That’s a joke!).
-
In this case, they focus on a subject...
-
they have no interest,
they are not paid by laboratories...
-
they don’t think about being reelected,
they got no financing...
-
They only have a mission, everyone is watching them,
They’re gonna become people... no experts...
-
They’re gonna become ENLIGHTENED people,
Much more enlightened than anyone else.
-
This a is a model for democracy !
-
A democracy... Insitutions that would implement
a drawn Parliament,
-
sortition : PEOPLE
WHO KNOW THAT THEY DON’T KNOW
-
This is much more better
than pretentious elections,
than people who are elected and who think they're God.
-
In this case, people are drawn:
They are aware that they don’t know, do what do they do?
-
For each subject,
instead of taking decisions themselves, instead of others...
-
The drawees who know that tomorrow
They will join “normal” people again,
-
these people, institutions are gonna help them,
inviting them to DESIGNATE ANOTHER assembly
-
a drawn assembly who will SPECIALISE
in the problem that is submitted to [them].
-
Depending on the report made by the specialised
Assembly, they will decide upon such or such law.
-
And in the end, if there is any doubt,
they [launch] a REFERENDUM.
-
Which means ALL people decide by referendum.
-
But [all] this doesn’t taste the same.
Do you understand?
-
So, enventually, the GMO assembly,
the Mali assembly decided that
"[NO: GMOs, no thank you], unanimously...
-
This is striking:
unanimously, rather NO; rather no,
-
because 1) we don’t understand the purpose,
we’re not sure it’s gonna be fine,
-
and [moreover,] 2) nothing proves
that it’s not dangerous...
-
So, well: NO, unanimously."
-
Well, I don’t know:
I think it’s more [convincing than the opinion of a bunch
of
experts who are paid by laboratories... [(true)],
mainly laboratories which make...
GMOs. I think it’s obviously better.
-
So this “expertise” story is bullshit.
-
The doctor MP who has just been elected,
or the elected professor, on nuclear issues,
they don’t know ANYTHING.
-
About global warming, they don’t know anything
[(no more than you)].
-
What makes them “experts”...
I’m not saying they [are definitely unqualified]:
-
they will [BECOME] qualified
when they start working on a case,
[in this case,] they will become qualified.
-
THEIR WORK WILL MAKE THEM QUALIFIED.
SAME THING FOR ALL DRAWEES!
-
Drawees are not qualified
because they are drawn or elected:
THEY ARE QUALIFIED BECAUSE THEY WORK.
-
Their work will make them qualified.
-
So, [lthe objection] "we would necessarily
Designate unqualified people is nonsense.
-
I’m almost done.
-
• [Other frequent objection:]
"The Athenian MODEL was based on
SLAVERY; PHALLOCRACY AND XENOPHIBIA”.
-
I’m keeping the best for the end.
Because [this objection,] you’re gonna hear it.
-
You’re being said:
-
"Athenian democracy was oligarchy:
a small group of people
-
Had the power, and the rest
were slaves, women,strangers ...
-
a very small group of people
[would dominate and exploit masses]...".
-
Wait a minute...
-
at that time, on earth...
-
it is ANACHRONIC to judge them with tpday’s values
when they were...
-
While it was impossible not to be escalvagist
at the time. It was quite marginal.
-
When you’ve got everyone around you,
all that exists is escavagist,
-
You are [naturally, simply] esclavagist
like everyone else...
-
(audience: it is as if we said,
We’ve got cats and dogs)
-
Exactly, it is as if [we were blamed for,
years and years later, having locked
and eaten] cows...
-
Wait a minute, [it’s easy to imagine:]
the day when it’s gonna be decided... the day when
humanity
-
(and I think it will happen some day), will decide that
KILLING AN ANIMAL IS LIKE KILLING A MAN,
-
and that we can [very well] eat
artificial food, which tastes the same
(and even better!)...
-
Anytime you eat this piece of artificial beef,
made with oil or whatever, I don’t care,
-
it’s better than any piece of beef
anyone ever ate when he/she ate
a [real] piece of beef...
-
The thing is, you no longer need to kill an animal
[to take pleasure in eating].
-
Once we’ve invented the necessary technology
to feed us and finding it exquisite, giving us
all the proteins,
-
all the substances we need,
with [no] need to kill animals,
-
as of this day, killing an animal could become a crime,
since we’ll no longer need it,
-
and when you judge
[for this distant future period]
-
today’s people by saying
"they would kill animals, it was butchery,
-
a never ending genocide,
look at concentration camps,
-
look at caged animals
which are being killed,
-
before being killed, they are tortured,
-
they eat each other, like pigs"...
-
But we will be judged ([with our current
values), our grandchildren will ask us:
-
"granddad, what were you doing,
while animals were killed?"
-
I would reply: "Well, I would eat them,
like the others did [, naturally]".
-
And... in a way, slavery in Athens is
A bit like this. [PLEASE AVOID
ANACHRONISTIC CRITICISM.]
-
I’m not saying this to defend slavery,
don’t be stupid: I’m not in favour of slavery!
-
I’m no phallocrat,
I’m not saying that women should not
[take part in political life]...
-
When I ask you to focus on a subject,
I’m not saying "let’s be misogynous,
and [exclude] women"...
-
I’m obviously not saying this...
-
You understand what I mean?...
And those who're blaming me, telling me:
"but you are defending
-
a xenophobic regime, in favour of slavery",
they think I’m stupid!
-
They think I’m mean, they insult me,
that’s incredible.
-
I’m [simply able to] DISTINGUISH,
which means that...
-
(audience: let’s ask him if he’s wearing Nike shoes)
-
Yes indeed, Athenians are not gonna be blamed
for not taking the place or not wearing Nike shoes.
Well.
-
Anyway, what I mean is...
look at the guy who’s telling you this,
-
the one who’s saying: "Well! Athenian democracy...
You’re defending a regime
That was in favour of slavery".
-
Please, you think I’m stupid?!
-
YOU’RE MIXING EVERYTHING,
BECAUSE SOMETHING BOTHERS YOU,
WHICH WILL MAKE YOU JOBLESS,
-
because elected representatives
(or elected sponsors) are those who usually say this.
-
Obviously, these are people who’re gonna lose everything,
lose their power: ELECTED people [of course,
-
BUT ALSO] RICH PEOPLE, who’re gonna lose
their transmission belt,"elected-to-their-service".
-
SORTITION WILL MAKE THEM LOSE EVERYTHING!
-
SO THEY’D BETTER MIX EVERYTHING,
put shit into it... it’s all mixed...
"look how dirty it is!"...
-
And they’re telling you: "go away, there’s nothing to
see".
-
But you, well, I think, we:
OUR INTEREST IS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THINGS:
-
when something is bad on one side,
EVERYTHING IS NOT NECESSARILY bad.
-
I’m sorry but politics… PARTISAN politics
Which consist in saying: "I follow a political line,
-
and all the things that do not comply with it
are my enemies",
-
to me, [this way of considering things is]
A PRISON FOR THOUGHT. I’m not like this.
-
It means that each individual or each political life
may have made [potentially serious] errors,
and may not be perfect.
-
At the same time, [the same imperfect individual,]
can have a great idea [an excellent idea,]
-
which will help me build a pacified world,
reach agreements for today. [I don’t wan to miss
-
this great idea for I hardly rejected
its author, and being forbidden to listen to him.]
-
In Athens, I’m telling you:
if you can distinguish between things
[you’ll find great ideas...]
-
Look at Athens: would slavery
MAKE democracy POSSIBLE?
-
If you answer: "yes, absolutely, democracy
was only possible because slavery existed",
-
Ok then, I’ll say: "so it’s true,
This system bears something unacceptable
so let’s give up".
-
But is that true?
-
There was SOME truth [at that time],
which [TODAY] IS NO LONGER TRUE AT ALL:
-
"Some truth", which means:
"since there were slaves
they had TIME to do politics".
-
It’s [also] because women would take care
of the house, the food and crops
-
(agriculture)... that men could
do politics...
-
That’s true.
-
BUT, today, with OIL, fossil fuels,
MACHINES, we’ve got IRON SLAVES
-
that would save 1,000 times, 1,000 times more work
and time than “blood and flesh” slaves at that time.
-
It means that with simple machines,
we could very well work less
-
and have time to do politics.
And not only politics [, by the way] :
-
philosophy, music,
conversations and games...
-
So what I mean is that slavery,
may at that time have made democracy possible
-
but today, we absolutely don’t need
it for democracy to work.
-
We’ve got other means that would free time for us,
the necessary time to...
-
MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE SHOULD GET RID OF
OUR [BIGGEST] PARASITES, for that’s because
they steal us thousands of billions of euros every year,
-
all the time, all the time, all the time,
we are obliged to work so much...
-
If the wealth we create through our activity,
our industry, our efforts,
-
IF WE DISTRIBUTED IT CORRECTLY
WITHOUT IT BEING STOLEN BY
-
A BUNCH OF PRIVILEDGED PEOLE,
WE WOULD NOT NEED TO WORK SO MUCH.
-
Much, much less…
[About] two days per week!
-
And we could retire at 50 years old!
-
We only need to get rid of our parasites.
-
But [be careful] not [small] parasites...
not the guys who steal a motorbike or who are...
-
not the... They are not parasites,
it’s not a big issue.
-
I’m talking about BIG PARASITES. Parasites
who’re stealing you thousands of billions, the real ones.
We should deal with them first.
-
(audience: financial greedy guys)
-
Financial greedy guys, exactly.
-
So, as far as the objection
"Athenian model = in favour of slavery,
-
phallocrat, xenophobic"
To me, it’s out of the subject.
-
[END OF OBJECTIONS AND REFUTATIONS.]
Pondering this...
-
[If I try to understand
where the virtues of sortition come from..]
-
What allows me to be sure
that it will always work like this?
-
How come a system where representatives,
those who help us exert power, are drawn
-
HOW COME
IT DESYNCHRONISES POLITICAL POWER
AND ECONOMIC POWER?
-
HOW COME
IT PROTECTS US BETTER
FROM ABUSES OF POWER?
-
How come elections, on the contrary,
allow for and do not punish
-
abuses of power,
and select (almost all the time) THE WORST ONES?
-
Well, I think (and I talked a bit about it,
but it’s time to discuss it again because I think
-
It is... it’s time to finish, to conclude,
these are really essentials),
-
I think ELECTION ARE BASED ON A MYTH,
-
[elections] are based on a story we’re told
which doesn’t correspond to reality at all,
which is even contradicted by facts, that is
all facts show the contrary:
-
THE MYTH OF ELECTIONS, IS THAT...
-
"WE ARE ABLE TO CHOSE GOOD MASTERS,
AND BECAUSE WE CHOSE THEM,
THEY’RE GONNA BE GOOD…"
-
This is myth: IT DOESN’T WORK.
-
EXPERIENCE shows us that since we started testing it,
more than 200 years ago! that’s a long time,
-
when elections were tested
in all the countries of the world, at all times,
-
ELECTIONS [ALWAYS] HAVE CONSISTED IN
GIVING POWER TO THE RICHES ONES
(OR PEOPLE SERVING THEM).
-
(audience: that’s what they are made for)
-
So, I don’t know if "that’s what they are made for",
because I’m not sure that at the beginning,
Sieyès and Madison WANTED rich people to govern,
-
they may have wanted good people to govern,
"aristocrats", real "aristocrats",
-
I’m not blaming them for plotting,
for knowing in advance; it doesn’t matter anyway...
-
[but] the result... THE FACT IS THAT...
-
ELECTIONS ALLOW THE RICH ONES TO BUY POWER
(just like you’d buy a car).
-
I’m not talking about [any] rich guy...
we are [all] rich compared to people
who are poorer than us:
-
I’m talking about ULTRA-rich people, I’m talking about
the hyper-class, extremely wealthy people, people…
-
Are you ABLE TO CORRUPT someone,
[you] ? No, however you’re richer
than certain poor people...
-
No, no, we can play with words:
I’m talking about the rich ones
who are able to corrupt someone.
-
So, to be able to corrupt someone,
you need LOTS of money.
-
And as a matter of fact, elections, through
campaigns and media acquisition,
-
the possibility for them to buy media,
therefore to shape and influence opinions,
to virtually build them...
-
(I must have 20 or 30 book on media manipulations:
manipulation techniques,
-
that’s incredible: this thing is becoming
an exact science),
-
elections therefore allow the rich ones to buy power.
-
Elections allow the ECONOMICALLY rich ones
to buy POLITICAL power
[to concentrate/own both types of power].
-
ELECTIONS
MAKE [POSSIBLE] SYNCHRONISATION BETWEEN BOTH.
-
[Unlike the doxa imposed by elected representatives,]
ELECTIONS MAKE US
POLITICALLY IMPOTENT
-
The election of the constituent Assembly allows
some people to write rules for themselves, rules thanks to
which everything will then be done without consulting us.
-
THE POLITICAL LIE CONSISTS IN MAKING US
BELIEVE
THAT THE CURRENT REGIME IS DEMOCRACY.
-
That’s... Do you realise?
Well, I’ve been talking about it for an hour,
-
but do you know realise
the huge [difference] between
-
the name given to our current regime
and what it really is?
-
Do you understand that IT IS A TRAP:
we can’t figure out any alternative because we have...
-
You know, there’s an image that I like,
I haven’t mentioned it [in the written paper
-
which (roughly) corresponds to the conference],
but it's now coming to my mind...
-
Indian chiefs: American Indians
were societies with CHIEFS,
BUT WITHOUT POWER.
-
That’s very funny,
Pierre Clastres explains it.
-
He lived with them and it’s a real anthropoligical
and [very interesting] work because
-
they knew, Indians knew
that they should fear the chief,
-
a bit like Athenians knew,
they didn’t want...
[chiefs to become tyrants]
-
so Indians
would act differently with the chiefs:
-
they designed a big chair for the chief,
they took a guy and designated him,
-
he wouldn’t be allowed to refuse and if he did,
he would be killed, so he would accept...
-
And he would be put AT THE PLACE of the chief
[on the big chair].
-
BUT this chief has NO POWER.
-
He only has the power to SPEAK.
-
And he would speak, he would speak all the time and,
While he was speaking,
people would pass in front of [him],
-
looking like they were not listening
[obviously not respectful].
-
He would be despised, neglected.
He would speak and nobody would listen.
-
And his job [(the Indian chief’s job)],
was to “take care of” the chief’s place
-
so no one could become chief
without [the people’s agreement].
-
That’s funny: it means that they knew
that they didn’t want...
-
they knew that people tend to...
some tend to become chiefs,
leaders...
-
To protect against them,
there was a chief’s place, occupied
by someone who was put [there],
-
[but] he would not be [given] any power,
he [even] had to offer us presents!...
-
I swear it is true: the chief
had to offer presents to its people, and when people
-
were not happy, they would make him suffer,
he was at risk of dying.
-
They would distrust chiefs so much!...
and what they found, [themselves,]
-
not to be fooled
by [“power stealers”],
it’s funny...
-
Well, it seems that we’re a bit like victims of this,
with people [who long for power, people
who would like to be the chief, people] who...
-
who made a system which is not democracy,
[people] who should fear everything about democracy,
-
(oligarchs should fear it indeed:
-
democracy means their end,
-
that they can no longer have the power and abuse it)...
-
So what do they do?
-
How do they call their despicable and unfair system?
-
Well, it’s the same thing as the Indians,
but the other way round:
-
That is THEY
EXCLUDE US WITH THIS WORD,
-
WHEN THEY CALL “DEMOCRACY"
A SYSTEM THAT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE...
-
HOW CAN [WE] RESIST?
-
A KEY WORD HAS BEEN STOLEN.
-
I’m coming back to [Franck] Lepage whom I mentioned
a while ago: Franck Lepage and people from the "Pavé"
have made a great work on words.
-
We find the newspeak… you know Orwell
and the work he did on this, that is
a totalitarian State that dominates us through words,
-
by removing [from our vocabulary]
the words which allow to designate the ennemy...
-
removing these words, making them criminal,
ridiculous, replacing them by different,
-
inoffensive words, allow
(oligarchs) to protect themselves.
-
What Orwell did,
was to update this newspeak.
-
And what Franck Lepage and his team...
It's really a group of great people,
-
("Le Pavé", they’re called:
-
Google-search "Le Pavé” and you’ll find
a website with videos and resources
that don't stop growing, you must...
-
See Franck Lepage’s and his team’s
videos, they're worth it.)
-
[ANOTHER] OBJECTION you will often hear:
-
• The objection is:
"Will this system work with the media
which belong to oligarchs?"
-
[Yes indeed,] you know that 75% of
[French] newspapers belong to two gun sellers
and one concrete seller.
-
Why does Rothschild buy "Libération" ?
It’s not for earning money (he loses some).
-
Why does another bank buy "Le Monde"?
Why does another bank buy "Le Nouvel Obs"
and " Les Inrockuptibles"?
-
WHY DO BAKS
BUY NEWSPAPERS?
-
WHY DO GUN SELLERS
BUY MAGAZINES AND TELEVISION PROGRAMMES?
-
WHY DO INDUSTRIALS BUY TELEVISION PROGRAMMES?
-
It’s not to earn money, it’s not true:
don’t believe this, it’s not true.
-
IT’S TO MANIPULATE. To manipulate,
because in an ELECTION-BASED SYSTEM,
-
SINCE YOU CHOSE CANDIDATES,
MASTERING ACCESS TO VISIBLE CANDIDATES
-
Is very important,
the only one who’s gonna be able to be elected.
-
To this objection, I would reply that...
-
let me remind you that my orientation...
-
since the origin, THE ROOT CAUSE
[OF OUR POLITICAL IMPOTENCE],
-
IS THAT THOSE WHO [CURRENTLY] WRITE THE CONSTITUTION
SHOULD NOT WRITE IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE
-
A PERSONAL INTEREST WHICH IS AGAINST OURS,
-
(against the interest of most people),
-
therefore, since the solution,
is to draw a constituent Assembly
-
which won’t have any interest since it will
be drawn and not be allowed
-
to be elected for the institutions it writes...
-
I think that [mechanically, by design,]
such Assembly,
will settle all media issues:
-
it will design institutions, with
as Montesquieu would foresee,
a legislative power...
-
and [also] an executive power
(and [most importantly]
we will NOT name it "government",
-
because THE WORD "GOVERNMENT" [IS A TRAP]...
executive power will obey the orders of the Assembly,
-
it will serve the Assembly.
[Executive power may only execute.]
-
THE WORD “GOVERNMENT”
IS MISLEADING.
-
Because “government”,
includes everything:
“I decide and apply, and I even judge!”.
-
So the word “government" should not be accepted.)
-
A good Constitution does not allow for
a government, it allows for EXECUTIVE POWER.
-
Montesquieu talked about [the] separation of powers:
-
"You write the laws (you are the Parliament),
but you don’t apply them.
-
You are the Executive power, you apply the laws,
you are the army, but you do not write the laws.
-
And you are the Judge, so you watch them;
if they don’t act properly you punish them,
and you settle disputes among citizens."
-
TRIANGULATION of these well-separated powers
[(acting as as many counter-powers)]
-
means that none of them
can become a tyrant.
-
That’s a very clever idea...
[Except that] he had not foreseen (because he
didn’t know it, he didn’t have TV...)
-
Since he didn’t have TV,
Montesquieu forgot to include MEDIA.
-
But we are not obliged to be [stupid]...
and limit ourselves to what Montesquieu had thought,
and our interest is [to continue to think]...
-
We know that media are a power
more important than the Parliament,
-
so we’re gonna put the media under control,
and [even] under democratic control,
-
with drawn citizens’ juries
who check that everything’s ok,
-
and we’re gonna check...
we’re obviously going to forbid
any company to simultaneously
-
own a media, obviously, obviously,
obviously. And at the same time…. but what I wanted
-
[to say, in response to the objection of media sold
to the rich, is that democracy is a whole,
-
a set of institutions, and that media should
of course ALSO be submitted
to controlling institutions]...
-
[...]
-
[But,] they won’t let you do it even partially;
they won’t...
-
What I mean, is that this project,
this real democracy project, they won’t let us do it:
-
It won’t be done by staying still. I mean...
-
we won’t... ask them permission
and they’ll say “yes"...
-
It’s not gonna work like this.
-
So, if you wanna change things,
at the same time you’ll change
[institutions on] media...
-
And to me that’s not all
[(media independence)] :
We should also think about MONEY.
-
I mean
[money creation], within institutions...
-
(Montesquieu didn’t talk about, [money],
he missed one thing because it was being
[put in place];
-
Montesquieu lived in the 18th [century], [at that] time,
no one would see the project of [private bankers
to take control of public power].
-
No one would see that the problem
of banking power was shaping.
-
It started though, but it was invisible;
so no one would usually discuss it.
But today!!!
-
Today, if the problem is not
taken into account within our institutions, the solution,
protection, control of monetary authorities,
-
If we don’t foresee it,
we’re more stupid than the average,
I mean: it is necessary to think about it!
-
Obivously, if we write new institutions,
the constituent Assembly
will have to think about money.
-
A sentence to conclude.
-
I...
-
I do understand...
-
that an industrial,
-
a banker,
-
an oligarch strongly defends elections...
-
I understand: they allow them
to buy the power, it’s LOGICAL.
-
I don’t even blam them:
it corresponds to their role, it’s NORMAL.
-
BUT ACTIVISTS (left or right wing)
who are humanists, struggling for a [fair] society...
-
(because lots of “right wing” people
do want a pacified society;
-
well, it’s a society which is still a bit more violent
than a “left wing” society,
-
but left wing people do not realise
that they also feed some kind of violence, so I...
-
I don’t chose between them, I don’t care),
-
but the fact that humanist people of all sides,
trying to [implement] a pacified society...
-
with as little unfairness as possible...
-
(which means inequalities,
but corresponding to the needs of each one,
-
which means there can be inequalities, but
proportionate with efforts:
-
the one who makes many efforts is better treated
than the one who doesn’t do anything)
-
but the fact that all these guys [activists of all sides]
looking for a pacified and fair society,
-
DEFEND ELECTIONS in spite of
the [systematic failure and broken dreams]...
-
and [REFUSE] SORTITION...
[I DON’T GET IT.]
-
When I tell my friends, [about] sortition,
they say "no, no but”...
-
BECAUSE THEY BELONG TO PARTIES,
THEY CAN’T FIGURE IT OUT.
-
And they say... they always try to manoeuvre.
-
(All) these people, at the same time...
-
continue to venerate elections like a sacred cow,
the [so-called] universal suffrage, and continue to despise
sortition or expose it to public contempt...
-
whereas 400 years ago,
(200 years of sortition + 200 years of elections),
400 years of contrary facts which show them they’re wrong!
-
It’s a denial of reality.
-
I UNDERSTAND THE SUPERMARKET MANAGER;
-
BUT I DON’T UNDERSTANT THE HUMANIST ACTIVIST.
IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE.
-
[For more information, visit:
http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/tirageausort.php ]
