Dear all, (SFMPE)*
I see all this looking for ways to surely protect minority rights,
fundamentally without sense. Why? Because that problem have not a
Understand me: I believe the minorities rights have to be protect; I’m a
fervent supporter of the Voltaire’s ideas. “I disagree with you, but
I’ll give my life so that you could express it”. But I think that
“protection” cannot result from any law, court, constitution o other
similar instruments. It can be resulting from existence of true
democratic citizens majority only.
Can we be *sure* that majority of people will always protect the
minority rights? No. But any different “solution” is worse than the bad.
I saw somebody, f.i. Kevin, propose general rules (fundamental
safeguards) to protect minority and a Court to decide about the
contravaentions. He wrote:
> A proposed law which appears to contravene such
> fundamental rights would not be registered. A declaration from the court
> could be obtained as to whether these fundamental safeguards were to be
> contravaened or not.
that you presented is the normal current way to “protect” minorities.
You said that works fine until now. Right. At least, it’s true enough.
But if we give a closer look at it, we can see the <
problem> of the
majority dictatorship isn’t *solved* but only *moved*.
Moved from direct judgement of citizens to a restrict number of members
of a Court. I see this like a shrink of direct democracy. It seems to me
that You said: we can’t have always confiance in judgement of people,
then let those matters in better hands, the hands of few wisdom man.
But who assures us on real Court’s wisdom? Nobody can do it.
And who choices the members of the Court? In direct democracy is the
What about big mistakes of this court? can the people change her
decision? And if he can do it, why the people can’t decide directly? And
who decides when this Court is wrong?
Well, then this “solution” is a “Representative” solution, with all the
defects of DR solutions.
I prefer the people decides directly on important and general issue like
minorities rights. Without any “court”.
I hear yet voices saying: “we must choice Court’s members by
sortition!”. I answear these voices that sortition don’t eliminate
corruption at all. Every men can be corrupted after the sortition. And
… what about some members are mad ones? The voices say: but we’ll
coice between a group of experts! And who decides when a normal citizen
is an “expert”? Answear: the people.
What about if these members make big mistakes? And even who decide when
a member become mad or corrupted or show own incapacity? What if the
court makes mistakes? You must always come back to the decision of the
You have only moved the problem, probabily making worse the problem.
I saw somebody other propose supermajority or veto(Aki Orr and al.).
It’s a sham solution. When you propose a 66% supermajority or even 99%
supermajority you don’t solve the problem.
What about the rest 33% or even 1%? Maybe a minority of 1% don’t have
rights? And in this way you go from the risk of dictatureship of
majority to the risk of minority dictatureship. It’s better?
Aki said “The right of veto is not dictatureship”.
Dear Aki, veto can esaily become dictatureship. If a minority wants a
special law for itself, it suffices that it menaces vetoes on every
decision, and then, if the majority don’t want rest paralized, it is
forced to yeld.
You could said: the veto effects only decisions about minority. And I
asks you: who decide *when* a decision effects the minorities rights?
We haven’t choice. If we don’t want a possible minority dictatureship,
we must risk a possible majority dictatureship.
And at last (but not least, it goes without saying) the fashinating
definitions of my friend Antonio Rossin.
| No decision or policy addressing a well-defined target
| can be admissed to votation without that target’s direct
| asking for ”
| “no minority’s rights can be the subject of a democratic
| Law (which might turn itself into the dictatorship of the
| majority) unless that minority had asked for.
My dear friend, as you have yet saw, there is not agreement on what is
the target. About the abortion f.e., you say the target is the feto,
Otto say the target is the mother… and then?
One more time you should have to come back to the people asking: who is
the target? (And, I’m sure, someone will say the father! or the family!
or all society, ‘cause the cost belongs to all citizens, and so on…)
The same about when a “subject of a democratic Law” is a minority. Who
decides? A Court? (See above). If you want be a DD you have to directly
ask the people, then always the majority decides.
In conclusion I see all these (vains) efforts as a fruit of fear. Fear
that the people can keep wrong and bad decisions. It is a realistic
fear. But if we want be direct democratics we are forced to accept it.
We must establish only the general principle that the minorities must
have grant the same general rigths than the majority. But this
principles will must be assured only by the majority. As well as for all
other dd principles and rules!!
Democracy is a risk. The risk that the decision, that we believe the
right decision, lose. If we don’t accept this risk we aren’t
democratics. Even less, direct democratics. Every attempt to limit this
risk is a more o less little lack of democracy.
The people have the right to be wrong by its own hands.
Maybe can democracy kill itsself? Yes. In this unfortunate case I’ll
fight with other means.
The only remedial is: fighting to have more flexible, aware and fully dd
That is one of our two hard aims. The other, it goes without saying, is
to conquer a fully dd institutional system.
(*) Sorry For My Poor English. 🙂
(**)Tratto da un post scritto sulla mailing list cicdd nell’agosto 2000