Subscribe...In the discussions on the constitution, at least on the left, there are in general two types of argument: those who refer to the texts, who are for voting "no", and those who refer to Auschwitz and Le Pen, who are for voting "yes". To hear the latter, one would think that rejection of the constitution would lead us into war, if not genocide. This argument, which considers that peace depends on eliminating sovereignty, fails to note that there is more than one kind of sovereignty. Europe is seeking to create its own sovereignty, imitating that of the United States which has strong borders and troops deployed to the four corners of the earth. This creates the danger of endless war, as sooner or later people do not welcome armed missionaries. On the other hand, Switzerland is without doubt the most sovereign country in Europe, but it has never sent its troops abroad, never committed genocide nor started a war...Also Bernard Cassen in the Monde Diplomatique argues that No is not a disaster, arguing against this European Constitution:
Imagine a model citizen, moved by civic duty to read a text before voting on it and making the time to do so. He/she has surprises in store. Not only is the document far longer than any national constitution, it is also worded differently. Many of its key terms are foreign to traditional constitutional language. In fact, most of its favourite words do not appear even once in the French constitution. Our reader might run the document through a computer. In 202 pages of the main text, there are 176 instances of the word bank and its derivatives. The word market appears 88 times, trade 38, competition 29, capital 23 and commodity 11.
Is this really a constitution? Much of it reads like a cut-and-paste copy of the statutes of the International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organisation. There are - the late pope and George Bush will be pleased to note - 13 references to religion, and 11 to terrorism.
« Older 'I haven't seen a porno film in 20 years or more. ... | How far do we go?... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Sacred Europe: "No" is a defiant response to a hegemonic principle imposed from above.
By Jean BAUDRILLARD
Tuesday May 17 2005
The game is rigged. If the No vote carries this time, they'll make us vote again and again until Yes wins, as they did in Denmark and Ireland. (Thus, might as well go ahead and vote Yes right now...).
This leaves us at liberty to wonder at the blaze of No in April and at the reasons for this tenacious, silent dissent. Because only that is remarkable. The rebound of the Yes vote being nothing but an inexorable return to normality, only the No is a mystery. A No which is not at all that of its political defenders, whose political argumentation is just as ill-assorted as that of Yes. Moreover, the No never would have had enough political inspiration to set the polls aflame, and it is that [the tenacious, silent dissent, I think he means --ed.] which slowly ebbs under the pressure of Yes.
The most interesting, the only exciting thing in this phony referendum is the No which hides behind the official No, the No beyond political rationalization, because it is that which resists, and it must be a risky objective indeed that thus mobilizes all the energies, all the powers assemblled for the defense of Yes. That panicky abracadabra is a clear sign that there's a skeleton in the closet.
This No is obviously a reflex reaction, instinctive, to the ultimatum which has stood there since the very beginning of the referendum. Reaction against that coalition of good conscience, of Divine Europe, that which pretends to universality and infallible evidence, reaction against that categorical imperative of Yes, against which the promoters did not suppose for a single instant that a challenge might arise and need to be countered. This is thus not a No to Europe, it is a No to Yes, on unchallengeable evidence.
No one can tolerate the arrogance of an assumed victory, for no matter what reasons (which, in the particular case of
Europe, are nothing less than virtual). The game is decided in advance, and all we need is a roar from the crowd. Oui au Oui, Yes to Yes: behind that increasingly banal formula hides a terrible mystification. The Yes itself is no longer exactly a Yes to Europe, nor even to Chirac or the liberal order. It became a Yes to Yes, to consensual order, a Yes which is no longer an answer, but the main content of the question.
What we are forced to undergo is actually a test of Euro-positivity. And this unconditional Yes, by a reaction at once prideful and defensive, spontaneously generated an equally unconditional No. For my part I say the true mystery is that there has not been a more violent reaction, a still larger majority, for No and against that Yes-ification.
One need not even be politically aware to have this reflex: it is automatic return-fire against the coalition of all those on the side of Universal Good, the others being cast back into the dark shadows of History. What the forces of Yes overlooked was the perverse effect of this supercilious Goodness, and on that unconscious insight that tells us never to admit the rightness of those who already know they're right. Already, at the time of Maastricht and of April 22nd, the forces of political correctness, whether of the right or the left, did not want to know about this silent dissent.
Because this No is not, fundamentally, the effect of a "work of negation" or of critical thought. It is a response of defiance pure and simple, defiance of a hegemonic principle which descends from a great height and to which the consent of the people is only an indifferent consideration, even an obstacle to be overcome. It is obvious that for this Europe, designed following an abstract model which must be made real at any price and to which everyone is expected to adapt himself, for this virtual Europe, certified image of a world power, the people are only a mass to be manipulated, which one must harness to the project, willingly or by force, to serve as an alibi. And the powers everywhere are quite right to be wary of referenda and of any direct expression of political will which, in a framework of true representation, might very well turn out badly for them. It is thus the parliaments which, most of the time, will be charged with whitewashing the operation and endorsing Europe on the quiet.
But we are accustomed to this embezzlement of opinion and political will. Not very long ago, the war in Iraq took place thanks to an international coalition of powers against the expressed will, massive and spectacular, of all the populations. Europe is being built on exactly the same model. In fact I am astonished that the partisans of No do not make use of this striking example, of this great First Prize in total contempt for the voice of the people.
All this goes far beyond the episode of the referendum. It means bankruptcy of even the principle of representation, insofar as the representative institutions no longer function in the "democratic" sense, that is to say, of the people and of the citizens confronting power; just the opposite, of power towards underlings, by a feigned consultation and a circular charade of question and answer, where the question does nothing but reply Yes to itself. Yes to Yes.
There it is, in the heart of the political: the bankruptcy of democracy. And if the electoral system, already undermined by non-voters, must be saved at all cost (even before answering Yes, the categorical imperative is to vote at all cost), it is because it functions as the reverse of true representation, as the imposition of decisions taken "in the name of the people" even if, secretly, each of the the people thinks the opposite.
There is thus, behind the immediate abreaction to the "single thought" of Europe, incarnated by Yes, the liberal thought of a Europe which, even without making up any more rules for the game, has but one destiny: to expand and increase by successive annexations towards the image of a world power. There is thus, in the No of which we speak, in the refusal of this image of Europe, a foreshadowing of a liquidation much more grave than the intrusion of market forces and supranational institutions: liquidation of any true representation, at the end of which the populations will be assigned a the role of a figurehead, which is asked now and then for rubber-stamp approval.
As for the final result, a certain suspense remains: if all is well, in all liklihood the insolent hegemony of Yes which sufficed to generate the revulsive awakening burst of No, the recrudescence of the campaign in favor of Yes should logically generate a reinforcement of No. But it is not certain that this No, arisen from the depths of what one could formerly call the silent majority, can stand up against mass intoxication. It is a very good bet that we will once again set out toward rule by consensus, under the spiritual authority of the powers that be.
Whatever other results there may be, this referendum, jammed between Yes and No as between the 0 and 1 of numerical calculation, is only one adventure. Moreover, Europe itself is only one more adventure on the way to a much graver expiration date, that of the loss of collective sovereignty on the horizon of which another image beyond that of the passive or manipulated citizen takes shape: the citizen-hostage, the citizen taken hostage by the powers, that is to say, hostage-taking having become the face of terrorism, a democratic form of state terrorism.
-----
P.S. from yr. translator, I am pretty confident I have rendered the essence of what J. B. wanted to get across; but as for the details of expression, Ghod what fog. Whatever happened to clairté? Racine this dude isn't. We asserts that the translation is distinctly more Augustinian and French than the original. Oh well, it's good practice for our next project, rewriting Huis Clos in Alexandrines.
posted by jfuller at 10:23 AM on May 22, 2005