"A bad Constitution which reveals a cancer in our democracy"
" Dear colleagues and friends,
" After six months of intense reflexion, an argumentation about the "constitutional treaty" is taking shape, stemming from it but extending beyond it, an argumentation that is neither rightist nor leftist, and that points out a historical danger to us all, far above politics. For this reason, this short argumentation should interest citizens of all sides."
"Six months ago, in September 2004, I, like everyone, favored this text without having read it, on principle, just "to move forward", even though I knew very well that Europe's institutions were far from perfect. I did not want to be someone to slow down. I really believe that the vast majority of Europeans, regardless of left/right political orientation, love this beautiful idea of a united Europe, more fraternal, stronger. It is a dream of peace, consensus, a very widespread dream bringing the majority together."
"I had not read the text and I really did not have the time: too much work... And then again, Europe is far away. And with all those politicians, I felt safe, should any dangerous tendency arise there were bound to be some of them to protect us... and I exempted myself from " doing politics", i.e. I exempted myself from taking care of my own business."
"Some voices had arisen already, protesting against the treaty, but they came from the extremes of the political spectrum and for this simple reason, I did not even start reading their arguments, still confident in the mainstream opinion without checking for myself the validity of the ideas at stake."
"And then suddenly, some protests emerged from people one could not suspect of being anti-European. I then read their appeals, leaving aside their political labels, and I found their arguments very strong. I started reading, a lot, entire books, from any side, Fabius, Strauss-Kahn, Giscard, Jennar, Fitoussi, Généreux, etc. And many more articles of those in favor of the treaty because I wanted to be sure not to be misled. And the more I read, the more anxious I got. Today, I can think of nothing else, I have lost sleep over it, I am afraid, simply, afraid of losing what is essential: protection against the arbitrary."
"Today, I still read all speeches, those in favour as well as those against, I keep searching for the flaw in my reasoning and this text is an incitation to think and an attempt to make progress: if you can find a flaw, let us talk it over, please, with calm and honesty; it is very important. I can be mistaken, I sincerely seek to avoid it, let us reflect together, if you care to."
" I feel that it is my duty, as a law teacher [1], to talk about it a little more than the others, to discuss it with my colleagues, but also with my students, with journalists too. I would be an accomplice if I remained silent. "
"I have thus found more than ten serious reasons to be opposed to this extremely dangerous text, and ten other reasons to reject an unpleasant text, not fraternal at all, actually. But the five strongest reasons, the most convincing ones, those that are shared across the political spectrum because they simply threaten the very reason for having a political thinking, those appeared to me later because it takes a lot of work to uncover them. It is these reasons, the five most significant ones, to which I would like to draw your attention, seeking your opinion so that we can speak about it together, given that the journalists deprive us of public debates. "
*
"The pile of messages I receive daily has a unity, a coherence, a strength: whatever the political side (and they really come from all sides), the general feeling is fundamentally pro-European and demanding as far as democracy and the respect of the people's will are concerned. And these messages are generous and humane (except those horrible ones insulting me, but they are not so common). "
"I can see in them a common stand (or the seeds of a stand) for politicians to find a new inspiration, to unite differently, to modify their programmes and imagine a project for the aftermath of the No, a true Europe dedicated to people, not States."
"We surely have two or three years in which to rally our European brothers and trigger this momentum everywhere, don't we? And what if it was the people of Europe who started demanding firmly from political parties this democratic renewal, starting at grassroots level, communicating via the net to passing on the word without necessarily respecting party political divisions? You may say that I'm a dreamer... "
"I am becoming aware, indeed, that it is the States (or their political personnel?) who refuse Europe and reject the transfer of sovereignty."
"Shouldn't we start from scratch: ask the 25 people if they want to unite to create a eEuropean republic? Then start, only with those countries who wish to, a genuine constituent process, organised by the powers in office, but independent from them ?"
"This is worth thinking about, isn't it?"
"I heard a sentence on the radio a few weeks ago, a sentence that hit the nail on the head, that keeps resonating in my brain and that is changing me. It says:
"We are not born citizens, we become so."
---------------
from his post-script to the above letter and text
(an excerpt):
" This text had an unexpected success and caused thousands of reactions. I receive hundreds of messages daily, almost always enthusiastic, sometimes critical, which enabled me to make progress. Some questions, some doubts also, keep turning in, and I would like, in a few words here, to answer them and anticipate on those to come."
"I am a teacher of law, economics and computer science, in a BTS (French syllabus), in a college of Marseilles, I am 48 years old, have four children, I do not belong to any party, trade union or association. In my life, I have made more paraglider than politics in which I am virgin, an absolute beginner who "awoke" six months ago, and I will not dwell there long (free flight is a hard drug which will call me back quickly)."
"I am therefore nobody's 'submarine' (I recently received this funny question)."
"I am just an average citizen :o)"
"I received proposals for publication on sites or in newspapers which I accepted without controlling whether the CIA or the KGB acts as writing pad. Many sites already published links to this text, sometimes without telling me about it, and rightly so."
"I would like to pre-empt probable libels to come, based on hasty political labelling for an easy discredit. I am not a politician, I do not wish to become one, nor do I claim I am a lawyer to impose my point of view in an arrogant manner but to explain my purpose, besides I am not really a lawyer, rather, I have received a law training mostly, it is, anyway, not very significant for I would like the debate to remain focused on the bottomline without deriving on pointless and sometimes malevolent personnal quarrels or accusations of intentions of the kind that political commentators have learned to master."
"Don't blame me for all what this document turns into, for all foreseeable exploitation and manipulation. Everyone can imagine that it fled out of my control, and lives a life of its own... :o)"
"I am not trying to manipulate anybody: I may be mistaken in my analysis, I am merely awaiting that one proves this to me and a respectful debate is always seminal: "light springs out of discussion" my father would tell me when I was a child."
" Please, trust the ideas and arguments, come into the debate as if your counterpart were in good faith, without dark hidden agenda, and do not let your analysis be polluted by parasitic considerations."
"This significant debate belongs to the common run of people, such is the beauty of democracy, do not let it be confiscated by so-called experts. Read, reflect and speak without shame :o) "
text by Étienne Chouard, Trets (Marseille).
Updated 2005, 17 june. (translated to English by Anne, Brooke, Malcolm, Nicolas, Odile, Peter, Pierre, Railane, Sébastien, Tanguy, Yves)
more here...
