Articles

Vers la vraie démocratie – Partie 1 – La Constitution


This is a set of individuals in their natural state. In this situation, only the rule of the fittest prevails. These individuals discover quickly that to resist to arbitrary law, there’s strength in numbers and unite. They then establish a society, to become a people and create around them a rule of law that will protect them from arbitrary measures. To handle this law, the people nominate a representative, who they fully trust, and to whom they give full power to protect the people. And, in truth, this representative will accomplish his mission, but, since their are no counter-powers to oppose him, he will end up abusing of his power and will start producing a law increasingly unfair. The people then realise that law has become oppression, when it was supposed to protect. The people therefore logically choose to change their system of representation. They nominate this time more representatives and no longer only one, so that none can take power for himself. But these representatives end up uniting, abuse of their power, and agree to produce a law that now follows only the interest of a given few. The people recognise once more that the law, in such a form, is once more unfair and rejects his representatives. The people nominate others, and injustice happens once more, and again, and again, and again… Until the people decide that it’s enough. To understand this mechanism, there needs to be an understanding of law management. Law management is done by people who write laws, by people who apply & enforce law, and judges who interpret them. These people are professionals and like all professionals, their interest remains in the keeping of their professional activity and therefore of their income. For this, it is important for them to have the means to secure their activity. Furthermore, it is a fact that power will grow until it finds a limit. If there are no limits, power will keep on growing and abusing. The question is then: “How to make law become fair ?” “What limits must be set to stop power abuse ?” The solution should be that the people control law management, so as to acquire a guarantee that the law will not become unfair. To achieve this, you need a legal framework. The people then decide to add a new entity, a rule, that will protect them by controlling law. This rule is the constitution. The people, who regain confidence in the rule of law, nominate once more representatives, and ask them to create a constitution, before returning to law management. Isn’t it a mistake ? If the people have a claim to submit to the law, how do they do it ? Since there are no links to influence the law, the people have no other choice, to express themselves, but to launch petitions, to protest in the streets or even to strike. But do these claims have any impact at all ? The law just needs not to take it into account for it all to be pointless. The people are once more in front of an unfair law and injustice. But how can the law still be unfair when there is a constitution that is supposed to protect the people ? And where does this feeling of impotence that the people feel in regards to the fights they pick up and end up not influencing anything ? This construction seems quite unbalanced: the people are powerless and law management works in a closed loop, as if the constitution didn’t even exist. But precisely, what is the constitution supposed to do? The constitution is there to protect the people for abuse of power and injustice in the law. To achieve this, it limits the power of the law. And to limit the power of the law, you need to limit the activity of those who manage the law and even revoke them if necessary. However, for those in power, their interest is solely to protect their activity. It is clear that there is a discrepancy between the greater good on one side and the interests of the representatives of the people on the other side. The people can not ask of its’ representatives, who do not want limits nor constraints, to write a constitution that is suppose to compel them. There is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST: these representatives will not write the rules that will compel them in any way, so they’ll write the powerlessness of the people to protect their own power. But if those who represent the people cannot and must not write the constitution, who will ? Who could write the constitution so that it follows the greater good ? Who doesn’t desire power and is selfless enough to write the rules ? Who wouldn’t wish to govern? Let’s try from a different angle. Who, other than the people, has an interest in the constitution being efficient? That’s right, the people must not ask of its representatives to write the constitution. The people must write the constitution themselves, for their own interest. Once the people take control of their constitution, everything balances out: law rules the people (that’s what was agreed to), the constitution compels the law and the people remain in control of the constitution. So to summarise the principles at work: first, to avoid arbitrary situations, the people submit to law; this law needs limits otherwise it becomes unfair, therefore, to achieve protection from abuse of power and injustice, the people submit the law to the power of the constitution; and finally, to close the loop, because it is in the interest of the people that the constitution protects the people, the people must write and take control of the constitution. To you who have been listening, you have certainly learned [in your past], as I have that the constitution is the organisation of powers and how they are separated. It is which voting system is used, the effect of ballots on the power, what kind of voting system is used for what type of election, etc. Who knows what else? In effect, it is all that, and don’t be mistaken: it is it’s purpose. But what should have been taught to you; and to me as well, was its purpose. The purpose of a constitution is not only to organise powers, it is more importantly limiting the exercise of power. I would even say it’s the control of the exercise of power, in order to guarantee the people’s protection against abuse of power and to insure that the people never get their sovereignty trampled. So remember, it’s very important, it’s for the people to write their constitution and this under all circumstances. The constitution is not only what the professionals want it to be, that is how power is organised, but it is especially the people’s shield against abuse of power. Subtitles by the Amara.org community

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *