NB : “quinquennat” : French word meaning a 5 years-long mandate. Before this referendum, the French president was elected for a 7 years-long mandate. For many, this was too long.

Yes, a quinquennat referendum appears useless to me. It seems useless to have such a referendum on a subject which is interesting for living room conversations, but is at the end, not very important. There are other ways to change the Constitution without having a referendum in France. But, I believe that I will be the devil’s advocate.

First, I reject the argument according to which it costs money to the taxpayers. I am not fiscalist, but I believe that the organisation of a referendum or an ordinary election for that matter, is probably not very expensive. After all, to consult the population is absolutely necessary in a democracy, it is the best way we found to manage democracy. Therefore, democracy has a price, and this one appears much cheaper to me than the price of dictatorship.

Admittedly our politicians did not use their greater wisdom to decide if it was necessary to consult the population to change the term of the presidential office. A meeting of the Parliament and the motion approved (or not) at a 3/5 majority (I believe) would have appeared to me as the best solution to amend the Constitution. That was done on many occasions under the Fifth Republic. And when the subject is more important (like Maastricht for example), then yes, a referendum appears convenient to me.

If the subject (as the large majority of the French, according to surveys) hardly passionate me, I (unless major circumstance) will vote on September 24. If only by respect towards these million people who fought and still fight in many countries in the hope that one day, they also will live in a society where the government will take the trouble to consult them on such futile topics.

Reflections of a Lutheran priest.

They came to take the psychotic, but I am not a psychotic so I said nothing.
They came to take the communists, but I am not a communist so I said nothing.
They came to take the Jews, but I am not a Jew so I said nothing.
They came to take the Poles, but I am not a Pole so I said nothing.
They came to take the Catholics, but I am not a Catholic so I said nothing.
And then, they came to take to me…

But there was no one to defend me.

Who doesn’t know its history repeats it. Last month, the extreme right became a major political force in Austria and Switzerland. Already that they piss on Arabs, Turks or Indians in several towns of Europe and burn crosses in the south of the United States. Personally, the indifference of the French pantouflard (coach potato) more worried to know who will win next Survivor (to use an Anglo-Saxon comparison) never disgusted me so much.

I listened to Jean-Marie LePen interviewed by Stéphane Bureau the other day on TV. He tried to make LePen say he was racist (without succeeding by the way), but he did not seem offended by the total valorisation of social Darwinism preached by this guy. Undoubtedly symptom of a society more interested by the container then the content.

What is really disturbing in the fact that such an amount of French votes for this powerful idiot is not than they are racist or xenophobic. But that they (the 15% which votes for him) support a message according to which men are in wild competition to each others.

To believe and support such a speech is to give it validity. Unsecured (insecurity is the main reason to vote to the far right), several people act stupidly by voting to the beast that will protect them from “human vermin”. One must be really stupid to believe that a beast will protect you and deeply inhuman being to believe that a human being is vermin.

“Eye for eye will make the world blind” (Mohandas Gandhi).

No, this is not about Rohmer’s last movie. But (again) of a comment on international affairs.

Pakistan turns military and India more and more hindouist. We are so far away from Gandhi’s dream of one country where Muslims and Hindus lived together. “Eye for eye will make the world blind” (Mohandas Gandhi). The British have nicely divided before leaving.

Pakistan is strongly to blame for the situation in which it is. But the victims are always the poor. Who really wants war? Answer: Those to which the crime benefits? Question: To whom does the crime benefits? Answer: The powerful military clan in Pakistan that is very famous for its total repulse of human’s right. This country was founded by these in an enormous blood bath. And it is a son of those murderers that seized the power on October 12, 1999. Remember this date: October 12, 1999.

The only defence to democracy in this country seems to be Benazir Bhutto. But she does not seems to realise that she will not see her country soon as she actually even appears to be happy to see her main competitor out of power.

Geopolitics for Dummies

India is a country in Asia
Pakistan is a country in Asia (neighbour of India)

India has nearly 1 billion people
Pakistan has more than 150 million people

India is a former British colony
Pakistan is a former British colony

India is more than 80% Hindu
Pakistan is more than 90% Muslim

India has the H-bomb*
Pakistan has the H-bomb*

India does not like Pakistan
Pakistan does not like India

The United States is a superpower

Resulting from the British Empire, India and Pakistan became independent simultaneously in 1947. Of course, the religious divisions did not follow the political divisions. The event that followed the independence of these two countries killed 3 million peoples. The two States remained fearful towards the other. And the history added other problems since then.

End of course…

In India the institutions are essentially civilian (democratic is a bit too big of a word to speak about India). The two main political formations are the BJP (hindouist) and the Party of Congress (more tolerant, egalitarian) which is party in search of a new identity; which will definitively not come from Sonia Gandhi (but that, it is another history). On October 12, 1999, the Indian the Prime Minister (resulting from the BJP) is sworn in for a second mandate.

During this time, in neighbouring Pakistan, the civil institutions (as in India, democratic is… (see higher)) are taken by politicians putting their personal profit before that of the nation. Soldiers (as many others) are fed up of these politicians and decide to take the direction of the country in their hands. On October 12, 1999, the civil institutions are abolished and the martial law comes into force everywhere with the country.

The United States is a superpower that tries to calm everyone everywhere on this planet. Instability is a bad thing for business after all! They preached for friendliness between India and Pakistan and encouraged them to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (the two only declared nuclear powers not to have to sign it). But on the following day of the Coup d’état in Pakistan and the confirmation of the Indian Prime Minister, the Senate decides that this treaty is not appropriate to the higher interests of the United States. Which interest? The right to kick anyone’s ass. In short, the military lobby did a good job.

After all United States only spends 20 000 $ a second for defence. One should make a telethon to help them to have more toys so that they can have fun with their little bombs. OK, let us leave this reference to Kubrick and lets try to be serious.

My point is as follows: There are in each country (including the one where you read this text) isolationist movements and dialogue movements. India and Pakistan are directed at present by rather isolationist elements. But the situation is far from being desperate. Great and small scale discussion is the only true support to real democracy: one based on the freedom of expression and not only on the freedom of trade.

PS: *After checking, India and Pakistan do not have the H-bomb, but the less powerful A-bomb (though I am convinced that you would not like to see a “small” A-bomb exploding in your garden). India already claims to have exploded an H-bomb, but the majority of nuclear experts do not believe India controls this technology. I preferred to keep the original text with the error and to add this mention, rather than to correct it. To correct it would appear dishonest to me.