Battleangel

Well, as we know, France rejected the constitution and others are sure to follow. Now the question is, could there be something wrong with the people of France or could it in fact be the constitution itself? Are referendums adding or subtracting from democracy? Do we need to rewrite the document or try to peddle it once more? And why do we need a constitution?

To better understand the pseudo-democratic aberration of this referendum, let’s engage in a little political fiction: let’s imagine there will soon be a referendum on reproductive cloning in Europe, and that the citizens should express their views on this controversial topic. To this end, a 500-page textbook on molecular biology is sent to the hundreds of millions of citizens in the expanded European Union. Add to that a dozen treatises either supporting or rejecting the introduction of therapeutic cloning in Europe.

It’s not hard to imagine the angry reaction of the average voter. “Are you kidding? I can’t vote in full knowledge of the facts.” The same goes for the constitution today, but no one says it.

Another manifest proof of this hijacking of the democratic process: the “non” vote has been openly stigmatised recently in France. The entire mass media, as well as the the political parties both on the Right and on the Left are all banking on the people’s fears.

This unanimity of disapproval is a good illustration of the denial of democracy I mentioned above. What electoral legitimacy can a referendum practice have, when one of the choices is lambasted and insulted in the most vile terms by all of the political organisations and by the country’s media apparatus?

Source: Sign and Sight

Well put.

I’ve had it with frivolous referendums at least. In the best case scenario, they add nothing to the system. But mostly they provide ample opportunity for politicians to polarize the electorate over. The dark side of democracy as some have called the phenomena.

As for the constitution, it’s 500 pages. I sure haven’t read it. And most people who seem to have all the answers sure haven’t either. I could nitpick about the concentration of power but that is a factor that is hard to evaluate. It depends on who wields that power. I could also bash the idea to prohibit reproductive cloning …

Part II »» TITLE I DIGNITY »» Article II-63

2. In the fields of medicine and biology, the following must be respected in particular:

(b) the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons;
(c) the prohibition on making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain;
(d) the prohibition of the reproductive cloning of human beings.

Source: CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

(b) and (d) I find myself to disagree with. I wonder if (c) wouldn’t be a real nice thing as it would outlaw the practise of patenting genes and profiting from the human body in general. But I’m not a legal expert. The point I’m trying to make is that it’s a mixed bag.

Having said that I’m a proponent of a strong Europe. One that can stand up to the United States. But that must not come at too great a price. We must never become what we are trying to defeat, which is obviously easier said than done.