2023-04-21 12:15:00
TRIBUNE/OPINION – Last Monday. Yet another televised speech by Emmanuel Macron. Does he like exercise? Does he think it’s useful to convince citizens that he should be given a free hand? (1) In this respect, facetious colleagues point out that this speaker irresistibly makes them think (professional reflex) of certain students during oral exams.
In particular to a candidate when “grand oral” to access the Regional Center for Professional Training of Lawyers (CRFPA). Said candidate scrutinized the eyes of the members of the jury to see the reactions to his remarks.
About that he adjusted according to what he believed to be our approval or our disapproval. It was very fun.
Now, if we place the oral exercise of this April 17th in the context of the functioning of the political regime that has flowed into the remnants of the 1958 constitution, things are, in a certain respect, less amusing.
Let’s explain.
Imagine that the people or their representatives vote for texts which take away from the people and/or their “representatives” the right to determine the fate of citizens and allow leaders to be at the service of any mafia or such interest group enriching themselves, for example, on the backs of others.
Could we say that these texts, which, in plain language, set up a dictatorship, are characteristic of democracy because they were adopted by the people or their representatives?
The answer should logically be:Non !”. Except to make fun of the world.
Yet this is what is done daily (declarations by politicians and arguments distributed by journalists employed by financiers and large industrialists). Since politicians have agreed to make a career (or continue it) by serving financial groups (2) and industrialists. And doing “swallow” to the people (Maastricht), or their representatives – more or less complacent, therefore more or less”felons” – (Marrakech/WTO, Lisbon and various other treaties of the same ilk) that it is better thus. That there is no other possibility.
With, as a consequence, necessarily fallacious arguments.
For when the facts reveal that the government is not the one”of the people, by the people, for the people”, which then only has the street to try to remind that it exists (until the politicians in power judge that it is enough and have the demonstrators arrested or crippled) we are not in a democracy. We can’t be.
“Emmanuel Macron’s speeches have the merit, this one after the others, because they are stereotyped, of starting to make citizens think.”
Especially when the government is explicitly obliged, “black on white”as the texts above organize it (and the individuals who compose it accept it), to promote the freedom of movement of capital (2)is forced to indebt the state to private banks (and hedge funds), is forced to cut into social rights and labor law… We are obviously not in a democracy.
In such a context, the fact that decision-makers are elected does not transform the regime in question into a democracy. Does not confer on the election the magic power to render “legitimate“the people whose names came out of the ballot box (3). Nor does the election in principle confer legitimacy on what they do, even if what they do was more or less announced by them during the election campaign.
And “dirty work” stay one “dirty work”.
And what is done for the benefit of a minority, and, what is more, possibly done against the people or simply by playing on the contempt of the people is, in principle, and remains… a “dirty work”.
Emmanuel Macron’s speeches have the merit, this one after the others, because they are stereotyped, of starting to make citizens think. Which put the dissertations of the President of the Republic of the moment, in relation to each other and see contradictions in them. Which relate words and facts.
Citizens who are beginning to turn away from “grands” media that seem to them to say the same thing, i.e. little information that would help to form an opinion, and a lot of arguments “charged”.
Citizens who therefore have… desires for democracy.
To be continued….
- Marcel M. Monin honorary university lecturer.
Notes :
(1) We could always ask these questions, the first, who knows, to a “psy”, the second, why not, at McKinsey. But it should be noted that even supposing that Emmanuel Macron’s character traits may have an impact on his way of taking decisions in the internal order or in the international order, the said character traits are, whatever there are (which encourage some to find in the constitution provisions likely to remedy them if necessary and if they were put in motion to the end, such as those on “the impediment” or those on the “destitution” – Read in particular the analyzes of François Asselineau) perfectly exploited by the person concerned for the operation of the system…
(2) On these questions, read the few quotes reproduced in our conference of February 10, 2016 before the “Nation and Republic Circle”. As in the Time.news published in “Agoravox” : “Economics and politics: for a separation of powers” (February 22, 2016). Quotes from statesmen and bankers (Montesquieu, Napoleon, Woodrow Wilson, de Gaulle, Mayer Anselm Rothschild, Reginald MCKenne, Josiah Stamp, Henry Ford, David Rockefeller) who all remind us that when the State is dependent on bankers , it is the latter who govern in practice. Some obviously welcome the fact that citizens are unaware of this.
(3) In this respect there are judges of elections and judges of the legality of decisions (or certain ones). The problem of democracy begins to arise even if control exists, but when judges choose to “to walk” with power. We remember, with regard to a presidential election, that Roland Dumas who chaired it, had confessed that they had rectified a certain campaign account so as not to invalidate the election. Moreover, if one takes the trouble to study the reasons for the decisions of certain other judges, the same doubts sometimes arise as to the existence “fact” of control.
#Macron #spoke