« … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … »
« … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democracy … » « … Democr … » « … Demo … » « … Demo … » « … Demo … » « … Demo … » « … Demo … » « … Demo … » « … Demo … » « … Demo … » « … Demo … » « … Demo … » « … Demo … » « … Demo … » « … Demo … » « … Demo … » « … Democracy … » DEMOCRACY(IES)? With the support of
7,819 citizens who made this documentary possible. This documentary, released on the 4th May 2018, is under Creative Commons 4.0 CC-BY-NC-ND license. ♪ Piano playing ♪ (Paris, France) ♪ Countdown : 9 ♪ ♪ Countdown : 8 ♪ ♪ Countdown : 7 ♪ ♪ Countdown : 6 ♪ ♪ Countdown : 5 ♪ ♪ Countdown : 4 ♪ ♪ Countdown : 3 ♪ ♪ Countdown : 2 ♪ ♪ Countdown : 1 ♪ Just as the swallow does not make the summer, the word isn't enough to make a Democracy. Hello, "France is not, and cannot be a Democracy" I'm
not the one saying it, it's Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyes, Deputy of the Third-States, figurehead of the French Revolution. It's September 7th 1789, and the so-called "Abbot Sieyes" said these words at the National Assembly, born three months earlier. "I’ve always been for a free republic, ... …not a Democracy which is an arbitrary, tyrannical, bloody, cruel and intolerable government." This time, these words came from John Adams, one of the founding fathers of the United States of America, of which he was the second president. But, so what? Didn't we talk about Democracy during these great revolutions? That government of the
people, by the people and for the people? Not much... Laws, People, Liberty or even Nation and Constitution, these are the star words in the texts of the French Revolution. It's only far behind that the word "Democracy" comes up behind "Representatives" and "Sovereignty". And when it's used, it's used as a scarecrow. In the political arena of the time, whether in France or in the U.S.A, being called a "Democrat" is clearly an insult. Sieyes warned against a "popular Democracy with its tumultuous and uncertain movements" The american Elbridge Gerry, One of the people who signed the Declaration of
Independence, burned up and said : "The curses we experience stem from the excesses of democracy". Therefore, we must imagine a system that protects society from itself, to avoid this "dangerous democracy" at all costs. The example of Athens was infamous among the political thinkers of our dear revolutions. But the random draw was out of question, "That was only good enough for the Greeks... ...let's elect our representatives" This option has prevailed. Welcome to Aristocracy! Yes, Montesquieu clearly wrote it in "The Spirit of the Laws" "Suffrage by random draw is by nature a Democracy... ... suffrage by choice
is by nature an Aristocracy" Placing elections at the heart of these newly born Republics, it's acknowledging that an elite is far more capable of dealing with political matters than others. How lucky ! This same elite chose this organisation. But where does this strange idea of an Assembly representing the people come from? From the Middle Ages. The first general assemblies are convened in 1302 by Philippe Le Bel, King of France. Clergy, Nobility and Third-States are gathered with a precise goal : To legitimise the King against Pope Boniface VIII. The illusion of representation by the state is
there, but already, there was no trace of a real democracy. A few centuries later, at the dawn of the revolution Sieyes, again, made this statement: "There are among us only merchants, agriculture, factories etc, the desire of wealth seems to turn every european country into vast workshops." According to him, the people only want to take care of their private property. Freedom at the time means being part of a merchant society. Thus, representative government is the solution. People can therefore delegate public affairs to representatives and can take care of their private affairs then. It's division of labor,
applied to politics. One last trick left only, While democracy was still an insult, Some made it their campaign slogan. In 1828, Andrew Jackson was elected seventh President of the U.S.A. How ? By being the first to call himself a Democrat. In doing so, he presents himself as the president of the little man, against the elite, therefore winning the votes of the working class. Fifteen years later, all the other candidates will have done the same. At the same time, Jackson changed the name of his supporting party, so the Republican party becomes the Democrat party. Nothing in
the hands, nothing in the pockets, it was early political marketing. In a different social context, the founding fathers of our republics were openly opposed to democracy as a political regime. Which doesn't lessen their sincere intentions, Freedom, Equality, Justice. It's these same elected elites that wrote fundamental texts, like the Declaration of Human Rights in France, or the Bill of Rights in the U.S.A. What a surprisingly complex reality. But today, the word "Democracy" has been lost. It no longer describes a political system, but rather a cluster of ideals that anyone can claim for themselves. This word, which
has become sacred, is untouchable. Not calling oneself "democrat" is a political suicide. Affirming that we are not in democracy is a crime of lese-majesty. But then, how can we think of alternatives, if we cannot pick apart the system in place? We will surely have to find a way out of this dead-end to build a true democracy. We're in a country where we say : "We have liberty, equality and fraternity" But that's not what we see. Well, let's say the French Republic could be far more democratic, no doubt. -That's the problem... -A real democracy at the
moment ? I don't think so. So in the end, why do I vote? Can I, as a Frenchman of Maghreban descent, see myself in the political class? Basically I'd say no. The representation is a calamity in my opinion, It's catastrophic. The representation we have from the deputies It's the opposite of democracy. In the end, voting for someone is freeing yourself of choice. It's abandoning your choices to the elected representative, who has to decide for the collective. The word democracy has become a weapon of the ruling class. "Don't complain, you are in a democracy" Ha ha
! ♪ Lullaby music ♪ It seems it's pretty messed up. We'd gotten pretty used to telling ourselves that we lived in a democracy. It was a comfortable way of thinking. We'd heard the word at school, on TV, on the radio. We'd read it in the newspapers and the great declarations. It's like our flag. A companion. And then we hear about this "crisis of democracy", often during the grand votes. "Loss of trust, record number of abstentions, growth of extremes…" As a symptom of this crisis, the electoral pump, at the heart of our republican engine, is worn
out. So is that the central pillar of our democracy? Dropping a ballot in an urn after a few weeks of debating through monologues? Giving our vote as a token of trust... ♪ Trust... ♪ ♪ Trust... ♪ Loïc Blondiaux, first. My name is Loïc Blondiaux, I am a professor of Political Science at the University of Paris 1. My work is about the question of democracy, and about innovations in democracy. We live in a situation where, indeed there's a kind of equivalency, of likening between voting and democracy. The vote in itself, as a political technology Contributes to
a kind of erasure, or at least an extreme simplification of what political participation is. We simply appoint someone. it's actually quite a bare process, as far as politics go. In fact, the stake is to get citizens to be able to go beyond. The meaning of a vote is reduced to almost nothing. After the vote, a whole period of interpretation begins and the only ones who can legitimately interpret the meaning of the vote are the elites. The elected officials, journalists and political actors. The citizens are quite clearly dispossessed of the meaning of the election. They aren't
ever asked to explain why they voted. And so, we should always remember the extreme poverty of the political meaning of the election and the political process. Why, for example, do the electees, the representatives, attach so much importance into voting? Because the vote is what makes them legitimate. And once they are elected they can say, and they believe they can say : "I am the people, I speak in its name !" "and so every decision I make is supposedly what the people want". From the election, everything else follows, in fact. All of our constitutional and political
edifice rests on the election. The presidential election in the fifth French Republic contributes to producing an illusion, an "illusion" that is a little mortifying to democracy. Because it lets you believe that by appointing a savior, a providencial man, a monarch, you can actually change things. Even though, obviously, that's not enough. And indeed, the game rules of our presidential election contribute and continue to infantilise citizens, in my opinion. ♪ Lullaby music ♪ To be honest, At this point, we could talk about the technical aspects of voting. Talk about the alternative methods of balloting : The proportional,
vote by approval, the majority judgement... We could even talk about the good old random draw. But we chose to fork off. (We should mistrust words) Questionning words, same as always. Getting off the roundabout to stop spinning in circles. ♪ Lullaby music with a touch of French accordion ♪ If democracy can't be limited to voting, let's try to go back to its source, to its meaning. Just so we can all agree. What is the principle that unifies these ten letters? The one without which, there cannot be any democracy. Jacques Rancière, first. Jacques Rancière, I've taught philosophy
at the University of Paris 8 for over thirty years. We know that democracy originally meant "power of the people" but what does that mean? What does "demos" mean? "demos" are those who do not have any particular capability to rule. Which is what makes democracy special when compared to a tradition that legitimates the exercise of power when you have a certain gift or quality for it. When you are the richest, or the noblest, When you are the descendant of the founding god of the city, when you are the son of god or of the prophet. Or
whatever. Or when you are the most knowledgeable, that you have studied political science. We can place equality at the very foundation ! With equality meaning people are here because they are fundamentally equal to everyone else. Democracy doesn't necessarily mean "whoever wants it can do it", it means there's a form of community founded on the idea that everyone has the capability of thinking and judging and acting and everyone shares these capabilities. That's something fundamental. A democracy isn't only the power of a mass, the power of the number, it's the idea of a capability that everyone shares,
but meaning "everyone" has, as long as they are equal to all others, as long as it is presupposed that everyone has this capability. ♪ Piano playing ♪ Equality as a foundation! The first brick. In union. Something to properly anchor us before we start moving. But moving where? Alain Deneault, first. Alain Deneault, Head of Programming at the International College of Philosophy. In any case, we couldn't be in a democracy in the sense where it denotes a regime. Democracy is a principle, which consists of agreeing with the principle of intelligences' equality. And we tend toward this principle
of democracy when we consider, like Jacques Rancière says, that in a given moment of history, that anybody, is capable of thinking about issues concerning everyone. And that politics become a thought process, a consideration which concerns no specific skill. If we can recognise that, we will tend toward that principle Which is democracy. But it's a principle. Meanwhile, there are regimes that are Republican, Monarchist, Authoritarian… We know there are regimes, but a regime can't be democratic. A regime works under certain rules that can be qualified and that are more or less in line with democracy's principle. ♪
Piano playing ♪ Democracy would be a principle. A horizon. So you cannot tuck it away into a temple, inside a nicely organised box, with nothing coming out. That's actually quite useful. (sarcasm) It keeps that democracy from spreading out too much. Remember ? "The dangerous rule of the people, of the masses" Firstly, people who are in power think they legitimately deserve it. And secondly, there are people who don't really have power but aren't far from it who exercise some form of authority, in the media, with publishers, with journalists, And who are generally seconding others. The others
are governing because they think they are the best suited at governing and there are people behind them saying indirectly : "Good thing these people are governing because without them, the masses would be." "The idiot, selfish, vulgar masses would be governing." There are people who exercise inequality. We are in a more and more unequal society, and there are people who legitimise it. Equality frightens people who think they are the strongest, the smartest and there are quite a few. That exists at all levels. It's not only those at the very top who enjoy inequality. An unequalitarian society
grows because we are always somebody's superior. We always see ourselves as victims, dominated but there's always someone beneath you. It's the peaceful functioning logic of inequality. Abuse of power, corruption, weight of lobbies, unconsented and unshared decisions, technocracy, Representativeness gap, illusion of choice, inequality of opportunities… It's obvious : "Democracy doesn't work, Mankind isn't meant for it !" Really? What if all of those were a consequence of a lack of democracy, and not of its excesses? Have we ever sincerely taken the risk of equality in the past few decades? Lawrence Lessig, first. So, I'm a professor of
Law, at Harvard. I teach comparative constitutional, unconstitutional law. but I've become a democratic activist who try to build a stronger, vibrant democracy in America. So the fundamental value of a democracy, has got to be political equality. And if you don't have political equality, then elections are meaningless. Because elections will just reflect the inequality that they embed. We have the Show of a democracy, We have the rituals of a democracy, We have the belief that we have a democracy. But when you test what we actually have against the core commitment of a democracy : Equal citizens
in an equal political system. We have nothing close to a democracy today. There is this skeptism about democracy that is developing. And, I personally, I'm not skeptical. I personally think that people properly constituted, properly informed are the best check and the best captain in the future of government. But we certainly haven't produced that now. And to the extent, we failed to produce a democracy that seems to make sense. We increasingly support the anti-democratic movements. I've been at parties in the United States, you know, with rich people, not that I'm rich but, sometimes, I'm asked to
speak to these rich people and people are openly talking about, maybe some form of Fascism with a friendly face, Would be a better system of governance than democracy. And it's terrifying! The important fight is: whether the future of free, liberal constitutions survives ? and that question, is an open question right now. There's no reason to believe that's going to survive it's had its run, and forms of government rise and fall and then something else takes its place. And so if we are going to continue it, We have to wage this fight to fix democracy first.
And if we fix democracy to make it something that the people could believe in again Then, I would be confident we could resist these other forces, but right now, my money wouldn't be on democracy side. "Democracy" The word is so overused that we feel ready to get rid of it. But how do you replace it? A Fascism with a friendly face? Bullshit. Let's go and question democracy at its bilge. The closest possible to those who take the bet. Not by ideology, but by necessity. We're heading to Kingersheim, in Eastern France. Jo Spiegel has been mayor
since 1989 And for about twenty years, he's tried to open the town's politics to everybody. In 2014, he refused the Legion of Honor. One of the reasons being : " the critique of a broken democracy, and a tired system." But that's not all. This refusal is Jo Spiegel's way of affirming a deep need of "finding the meaning of equality" Well, well... My name is Jo Spiegel and I'm the mayor of Kingersheim a town of 13,000 inhabitants near Mulhouse. For twenty years, I've been trying to join my citizens to mutual decisions. How to get back the
sense of common goods together? How to allow everyone to be co-owner of the general interest? of the co-produced decisions? How can we truly change people's lives with them, and not for them in condescending ways, with voting ballots every five or six years, with the culture of broken promises, with the disinterest that follows? How can we concretely give democracy the vitality that Hannah Arendt gave it : "How do we organise the space between people ?" House of Citizenship We have high quality sports equipment for schools But we have no such thing where we'd learned to express
ourselves, to work on living together, deciding together. And so the idea is to dedicate a place to the citizens and the elected, for concertation and decision-making Hence, the House of Citizenship. It was built in 2006 as part of our thought-process. Thinking it's not in the town councils' meeting room that we're going to change, renovate democracy. Here, in Kingersheim, there's a place dedicated to democratic practices. This Agora was built so that people feel comfortable, at home. It is to democracy what the forge is to the blacksmith. It's a place of activity. It's built in a half-circle
and a circle shape to cut away the idea of the infantilising face-to-face between those who have responsibility and those who don't. "Furthermore, for your information" "We have two clear sequences in the way we make decisions" Our principle is that every structured project has to go through a democratic sequence which associates all the democratic ressources. The first part is to put the sequence into the agenda. Either the project is put into the agenda By a project inscribed in our municipal contract or it's inscribed through a citizen petition and the petition creates the sequencing. "About the rythm
of school life" "I am asking the question because at the moment it's the most discussed subject by parents at school" "- Are people discussing this ? -Yes" "It's a good thing you mention it, because we were on the agenda." "We've been opening a lot of sequences and it's complicated." "We were planning on doing it in January-February, is that too late?" '"There's a dynamic within the government saying we'll go back to a four-day week Some, I'll say clearly, said : "why didn't Jo go back to the four-day week?" "When I explain, people get it perfectly" "there
were issues with employees and etc" "however, for them, the current system of four and a half days," "not necessarily with the content, but only about the rythm" "is a bit of an aberration." "So when I'm talking of putting it into the agenda, there's an open window to go through immediately." "It's good that you've alerted me about this." "Maybe we should accelerate the agenda." Act 1 of the sequence is the public meeting at the House of Citizenship. Two rules that we impose are : Firstly, when you talk don't say "we" Say "I", affirm yourself. Secondly, don't
applaud each other, this isn't a playground We're not at the National Assembly on a Wednesday afternoon. After the public meeting, I tell people : "Well, we've debated but we can't make a decision tonight" "You know it's not that easy." And so I suggest that over time we give it some thought and that representatives of every ressource be present. And then I put out a call to the inhabitants to come and constitute the college of inhabitants. But because I realise it's often ATS : Always The Same people. For bigger subjects We have a random draw. Statistically,
it's about one in six people who accept. Generally, it's because they don't have time, and democratic time is a real problem. Or they trust the mayor, after I've delegated Or "the mayor is a moron, I don't work with him" Or it's "I don't know", that's the worst comment. As if people were censoring themselves. Each major project goes through a shared maturation between inhabitants, experts, and elected officials. That maturation, fertilisation, is very important. And diverging points of view too. (Courage is about going to the ideal while understanding the reality - Jean Jaurès) What I'm saying here
Is participative democracy is the opposite of demagogy. It takes a lot of political courage and technique. And a global ideal that we can carve a path together by asking the best of every person. That's my utopia. "-Hello George, how are you? Don't smoke too much, I just stopped ten days ago ! I'm proud as a peacock" "-Really? I stopped 23 years ago." "-I've definitely stopped this time. -Definitely? -Yes definitely!" "-If you see me smoking I'll buy you a bottle of champagne. -You'd better!" "-I've said it in front of a witness. -I'll take it" The constructive
democracy is a demanding democracy. It implies constant interaction. It implies that it is slow, that we get to the bottom of every subject. It's an antidote to populists who use simplicity. And it implies that it's edifying. That inviting citizens to a decision-making process is a project of transformation. Why? Because I've observed that for every decision-making process There are three essential transitions : going from "I", my opinion, to the collective "us". The second is starting from a legitimate single case to think about the general interest, the common good. That isn't the addition of egoïsms. And there's
the logic of going from the immediate, And we are in a culture of the immediate, into long term commitments. -I'm asking myself a lot of questions for later on, indeed -Just yesterday I was telling Severine, what are we going to do? -It's going to be hard, it's a different way of working... ...here in Kingersheim. -I used to work in the private sector, I can tell you, I can really see the difference. -It's a way of working -I won't find anywhere else. -In theory, it's M. Spiegler's last mandate. -In practice too -We're still trying. -So what's
going to happen next? -You're going to... -It's the man carrying the idea. -We're working on a succession, if the electors agree. -I don't really mind. -You're used to it, you've lived with it -We need to share the politics, that's true. -There's André -Yes if you don't mind, I've invited André who's also on the municipal council -Have you been living in Kingersheim for a long time? -No, 1989 And I came because at the time, Jo was presenting himself And I admired the mayor because in his program he said he'd raise taxes. I said that's a mayor
! I live in a neighbourhood where people don't talk much. You don't see them much: "hello, goodbye" and that's it. -Is that one of the first issues, opening up to speech, managing to talk and debate? -Well yes, it's important but it's very hard You can't force a donkey to drink if he isn't thirsty. The whole problem for us, is trying to invite more people to this democratic challenge. How to not only have people who already feel included? People who feel included, have time and money, they're fine ! But those who are in harder situations, who
have trouble thinking about their own future. How do you invite them? And so you have to be capable of hearing their anger. I think it's normal to imagine that confronting other inhabitants isn't easy. That there's some technique, some democratic engineering that we do not have. That's why we have the idea of our democratic interrogation meetings, the idea of meeting mayors who are trying to act and think differently, citizens who work on the subject on their spare time. And maybe that will create a movement which would one day become a system. A movement that will spread.
And I think we've started that movement, but it will take time. It's a civilisational issue, like the ecological transition. It'll take time because it's a different outlook, it's a democratic flip-flop. ♪ Light and hopeful piano playing ♪ That's a hell of a challenge. What a man, Jo! And he's well aware of the stakes. After 20 years of experimenting, the democratic test remains harsh in Kingersheim. The participation of a majority of inhabitants isn't always present. Democracy, that horizon, seems to demand time, courage, perseverance and maybe a little grain of folly. Let's go and see elsewhere, alternatively.
The town of Barcelona, with 1,600,000 inhabitants. And the elected officials are less used to the arcane arts of power. In 2015, four years after the "Indignados" anti-austerity movement, the "Barcelona en Comú" citizen list takes the municipal elections. The citizens that marched the town's squares a few years earlier are now leading it. On the other side of the institutional wall. Simona Levi interview, first. I'm Simona Levi, stage director and activist. The 15-M, is known abroad as the Anti-austerity movement (Los indignados) was a transversal uprising for which the slogan was "We no longer want to be merchandise
in the hands of politicians and bankers". It was based on a manifesto and minimum requirements like The right to Housing, Health, Education but especially the idea of putting an end to privileges and the collaboration between politicians and interests which are not those of the community. It's a spirit of having citizenship be about building and taking responsibility when politicians and state structures don't do their jobs. During about a year and a half, two years, we made enormous progress in transparency laws, housing laws. We changed laws thanks to citizen pressure, organised by skills. Obviously, this raises the
question : How do you enter the institution ? without betraying this new form of, to me, it's more than self-management It is obviously self-management but it is detached from ideology it's very practical and I think it's very very interesting. We're heading to the Town Hall, and it's new electees. After 3 years in power Is the desire for democracy still intact? I'm Gala Pin, municipal councillor of the Ciutat Bella neighbourhood and in charge of participation in Barcelona Town Hall. The question was : what do we do about institutional politics? The idea isn't to replace people, but
it's to change the way we do politics. And the best way is municipalism. The town is as close as possible to the people. It's the closest institution. Doing politics differently, isn't only about choosing who occupies the position but it's also being able to count on mobilised citizens. (people chattering) We changed participation rules. Now it's easier and simpler for people to have mecanisms of direct democracy like invoking a referendum or presenting citizen initiatives on subjects that belong to the municipality. We wanted participation rules which allowed propositions concerning the Town whether they came from the power in
place or from citizen initiatives, these propositions have to be discussed by citizens. It's not enough to vote every four years. (people chattering) We don't pretend to be immune to certain dynamics. But we've put in place control mecanisms which allow to do politics differently. We have a really essential tool : It is the ethical code, signed within Barcelona en Comú. When you take an institutional position you get a limited salary, with a limited number of mandates, you pledge to keep the link with vulnerable collectives. All of this is to avoid certain people from staying 30 years
in the institution while forgetting what goes on in reality, in every day life. ♪ Spanish guitar playing ♪ It also helps to know we're here temporarily. I'm here 4 or 8 years, at most because the ethical code forces me to. I'm not here forever. That gives a freshness and an impetus that people who have been at this position for 20 or 30 years don't have. Transparency is more than sharing information, it's also sharing the story, by explaining how things work. And one of the rather diffuse but nonetheless important limits is what you can and can't
say on the outside. We're the most minority government in the history of the town of Barcelona. So to get agreements during plenary sessions, We have to negotiate with other political forces. Very often, what they say in private isn't what they say in public, and yet, we'd like to be able to explain it. I always assume that people are perfectly competent and perfectly capable of taking on the complexity. All the things we thought we could do, which turn out to be quite difficult, you still have to demand that they be done, but by taking on the
complexity together. That way, people can think of proper strategies to have political weight. What we talk about is very important, which is why the aspect of language, creation, etc, is so important. If we can create a narrative which explains the reality in which the people have an important role, with the responsibilities they take on governing and towards the community, then, we can have a better democracy. But first, it's important that the modification of our reality has to be made with a collaboration, a co-responsibility, between civil society and institutions. Barcelona, Francesca Bria interview, first. I'm Francesca
Bria, I'm the Chief Technology & Digital Innovation Officer of Barcelona. For us, there is no digital revolution without a democratic revolution. And here in Barcelona, we are running a radical experiment of participation. I was called by Ada Colau to come here and re-think the "Smart City", which is basically a digital city. So usually technology comes first. so we have a technology push approach. And only after we ask, how can this serve people? What kind of problem are we trying to solve? So in this government now, We are changing the paradigm upside down : So, we
are starting from citizen needs, we are addressing basic needs of people, like access to affordable housing, energy transition, sustainable mobility, radical democratic participation. And only after we are asking : what kind of technology do we need? How do we govern this technology? And how technology can really help us to solve the big challenges? and we need digital tools to help us make this democracy real. For us, digital democracy is not a Facebook democracy. It is not about people clicking. For us, it's about integrating the participation of citizens in the streets through assemblies, through collective debates
and then, using digital tools to filter all these proposals, create data visualizations that is about explaining citizens what we are doing in government, making government transparent, opening up the budget, opening up the decision making process and devolve power to citizens. So Barcelona government agenda has been written with 40,000 citizens actively participating. More than 20,000 assemblies happened in the cities and people were debating and 70% of the proposals that came from citizens are today into our government agenda. we have it very clear, we are inside the house, we are not professional politicians. We are citizens inside
the institutions who are trying to change things. ♪ Piano playing ♪ I think the main problem is that institutions are not ready to do that. The political institutions that we built Are from the Nineteenth Century. They are closed, they are not able to respond to citizen needs. They are used to integrate only expertise coming from "experts". What can be wrong, is that the institutions instead of opening-up and experimenting new democratic ways, they can go two ways : either more technocratic and more authoritarian and I mean, we've seen this behavior all around the world. Or we
can have right wing populism and people are fed up, they loose trust in the political institutions and they start voting populist from the right wing, because basically they feel excluded, They feel they are not part of the system. And that's why we are choosing a radically different approach, which is changing things step by step, but together with the people, and putting in all the processes that we can, and using technologies, and doing it in a way that can lead to real more democracy. ♪ Heavy piano playing ♪ Let's dive into the streets of Barcelona. Far
from the Town Hall. In these neighbourhoods, where Ada Colau, the new mayor, fought for many years, in particular for the right to housing. In 2009, she helped create PAH, The "Platform for People Affected by Mortgages". Today, the ex-spokeswoman of PAH has become mayor, but this profoundly democratic space for exchanges and actions remains essential for many people. Carlos Macías interview, first. I am Carlos Macías, spokesman of the Platform for People Affected by Mortgages of Barcelona. At first, we thought the enemy was the bank, but we came to understand that the capitalist model isn't just an economic
model, it's also psychological, social and cultural. In the end, our greatest enemy is ourselves. The feelings of guilt, of failure, of giving up... So we have created spaces for collective support. We allow a process of letting go emotionally from the feeling of guilt, or shame, or the feeling of failure, and a more technical aspect : Understanding the structural causes, that it is a collective issue, and that we need mobilisation and a collective struggle. We have two assemblies : One is Collective Accompaniment where we give people some tools and help them defeat fear and shame, and
a Coordination Assembly : Organisations against this weeks' evictions, surveillance of the Town Hall's actions and propositions, a presence in these open and participating bodies, taking back housings, coordinating a national campaign... You're about to see one of those assemblies, like every Tuesday. ♪ Heavy piano playing ♪ (people chattering) This morning was a marathon, an eviction at 9:30am, one at 9:50 and another at 10:30am, and we managed to stop them all. That was great. Thanks to those who move, who participate, who make this possible. To stop three more evictions, there's nothing magical : there were a lot
of us, and we made groups. Tomorrow, there is an eviction. We tried everything, but we couldn't stop it. They told us we had until tomorrow to leave the house. My companion is eight and a half months pregnant, she's about to give birth. They gave us eight days to move out. But where else can we go? They can talk, and they can come, we're not leaving, we won't open. I received an eviction notice. I'm in social housing but it belongs to a private trust. Which trust is that? The well-being and family trust. So "the well-being and
family trust" wants to evict a family... Right. Yesterday, I went there and they said... I went to ask to see a lawyer. Which I'm afraid to do, as my daughter has cerebral palsy. They told me to leave, And not fight, because they could take my daughter away. You are not alone. Unfortunately, you're not the first one either, to have received this completely false threat. I was threatened with losing my children at a point where I was practically in the street already. But I stayed in place and I said : my children have a roof. And
as long as your children have a roof, they can't take them away. Social workers are there to help, not to take away. Now that you've come here, they're not going to take anything from you. So yes, it's possible. Forget everything they told you, it's the opposite. They are there to help you, not to disrupt your family and your children. You know, an excellent way to evacuate stress is : To speak up for yourself. You have to come at eight in the morning, we're waiting for you, we'll release some adrenaline as hard as we can. And
we'll have some fucking fun ! There was an eviction on the eighteenth, my family with my two little daughters, and my handicapped stepfather. The bank was on my back, The flat belongs to Caixa Bank, and they wanted to evict us all. We decided to stop the eviction. So yes, it's possible. But you need to come every day, listen to people's stories, take part in actions, every day. And here people inform you on what you need to do to stay positive. We're going to fight. (people singing) ♪ Water, electricity and roof. We all have a right
to those ! ♪ Citizens' oversight is indispensable. Because if we don't monitor the actions Of those who are supposed to be our political representatives we know the consequences. For example, the mortgage scams and the real-estate bubble which caused this disaster of more than 500,000 evictions, households condemned to lifetime debt, because there was a lack of control, of the connivance between economical power and financial power. Even with Colau's government, which helps us hope for the end of evictions, we need all housing collectives in Town to reinforce their organisation more than ever. Every government, no matter the
colour, Needs this monitoring and that pressure. Even a government disposed of making the situation better, will have to fight against lobbies. Without pressure from society, once they reach the negotiation table, without support behind it there'll be no discernable change. The street should always, always organise and pressure for changes to operate by guaranteeing rights, and not by making benefits for big companies. ♪ Heavy piano playing ♪ Today, PAH has 240 local associations spread out across Spain. Each of which functions with assemblies following democratic rules. That is without counting the national or regional assemblies, that can include
up to 300 or 400 people. It's surprising how it is sometimes in the places farthest from institutional powers that we find the most democracy. Here, it isn't conceptual or dogmatic. It is mostly pragmatic. Bred from an urgent need for equality. Angers in France, the Roseraie neighbourhood. Born in 2014, the "Not Without Us" national coordination (NWU), gathers associations, citizens and scholars, with a single objective : To give political power back to those who live in popular districts. Today, it's the summer university of the NWU, the, "Not Without Us" national coordination. We gather every departmental coordination. Marseille,
Angers, Toulon, Nice, Nîmes It is more and more urgent that we work together that we mobilise and organise, and that we talk together to build a collective project. What we want is a real participation from the inhabitants. The decisions need to be made at the bottom, so the top can hear and apply them for things to work. If we are fully-fledged citizens, our ideas, what we do and what we say should be taken into account. And we want to talk, we hope that at these tables, this weekend, we will be able to talk and find
solutions and give each other little advice. In 2013, after an order from the State, the report "For a radical reform of the town's politics" arrived on a ministry's desk. It didn't go any further. The observation was simple : We urgently need to leave political communication, to take the risk of a true citizen's participation. Probably too bold... As a response, in 2014, the two authors of the report, Marie-Hélène Bacqué and Mohamed Mechmache Started the "Now Without Us" coordination (NWU). It's in those districts that we do politics most. I mean that in the good sense of the
term. The life in the suburb is politics, what we do with NWU is politics. We can't deny that there's also the other side of politics, the one that holds the levers and calls the shots. When urban renovations are being done, and the inhabitants are just being asked at the very end : "What colour do you want for the stairwell?" That's mocking them. We quickly reached those limits. The terms we use are more the notions of "power to act" and the notion of "power, being able" is important. It is being able to do, it is also
being able to protest and to organise ourselves. "They said, well if we cut it, don't cut it so wide, don't lose thirty-six apartments, there is a housing shortage here, we're lacking these kinds of apartments... cut it this way instead." And then, there is an urban planning agent who says : "It's technically impossible, the expansion joints, the things and whatnot...", "That's final." And I dared say "well, that remains to be proven". And I said it out loud, so that everyone could hear, so that everyone could understand "yes, we don't believe you." When we tell the urban
planner : give us your criteria, Let's talk about it point by point, what are and aren't the motives for demolishing a building? When we say to them that we want to do it methodically, they are completely powerless. We are summoned to participate, when we participate, we're reminded of our legitimacy. It is basically incomprehensible. I think in our case, they can't stand being told they're wrong, or this isn't the way it should be... There's a profound aspiration for democracy in all its different dimensions. First in the notion of equality which I believe is a dimension of
democracy. In popular districts, the principle of equality is probably the most violated. There is also an aspiration for recognition precisely because these are the people who suffer the most from denial of democracy. So, this workshop's objective is to identify what's going well and wrong. Regarding schools, it's an issue of a real importance : The inequality of public school. Stop making mommys' and daddies' believe that a kid coming out of a high school in a Priority Education Zone is equal to a kid who comes out of the Henry IV high school in Paris. It is not
true, it is bullshit. The school we give to our children in the suburbs isn't the same, it's not the same program, nor the same intensity. And this unequal treatment is starting to irritate us, and it's a waste. I agree with what you were saying earlier. I'm responsible for the Youth section in Marseille, and when I see teenagers going from the happiness of the baccalaureate diploma, to the frustrations of not getting any university admission afterwards, It's insane, we all know that you can't do anything with just a baccalaureate. In our districts, there are students with Master
degrees who are currently working at McDonalds, cooking fries. I want to say today : yes we are complaining about schools, yes our children this, our children that, but what are we doing about it? There's a form of discouragement and demobilisation too, Of course the entire population doesn't always follow us. But when we win some fights, believe me, it motivates others. And it's also that, it's also our victories that help us make progress. Sometimes it's also our defeats that allow us to question ourselves and find different strategies, so we don't lose people. Putting democracy into action
is something difficult. It goes through testing, experimentation and failure too. We should claim the right to fail. It is what we are trying to do at NWU. We also think about how this type of organisation can work. For example, by looking at what is going on in Spain. But there are always limitations and so democracy is always asking yourself : What are the stakes with regard to power? Where are the powers? How do we transform and give more voice to those who have none? It's a full-time job. I don't think there are neither democratic systems
nor democratic facilities. It is mostly a permanent work that requires real political will, with real engagement. ♪ Heavy piano playing ♪ Democracy is the opposite of comfort. It's accepting uncertainty and confrontation. We often have this false image in mind : Something simple, spared from conflict. What if it was the other way around ? A complex system which feeds on our disagreements. A damn sum of efforts. And sometimes it's the wear and tear that prevails. But, perhaps if we were used to these efforts from a very young age... like a social gymnastic. ♪ Heavy piano, violin
and soft flute playing ♪ After all, Why couldn't we learn democracy the same way we've learned to read and count ? (Liège, Belgium) My name is Catherine Cremers, I'm 40 years old, I'm the head of a Freinet school in Liège, Belgium. We have many children from the neighbourhood, but also from the outskirts. Which means, because parents choose the Freinet pedagogical project, they don't mind driving a few more kilometres to drop their children off here. But we keep enough available spots for the neighbourhoods' children to enhance cultural exchange, which is interesting from an educational point of
view. And even more so with a Freinet pedagogy. Here, we work a lot with values like cooperation, solidarity, democracy, critical thinking, etc, which are used on a daily basis. We always try to put children at the centre of these values. Actors of their own learning. And we give them everything they need to succeed and blossom no matter their background. And, depending on their ideas, what they're capable of doing or not, we'll help them too, there's a lot of dialogue. Let's push the benches, make a circle with the chairs. The council is open. No mocking. We
listen to the one who speaks. We ask for permission to speak. Priority is given to those who have spoken the least. -Is the secretary ready ? -Yes. -So, the planted fruits, the... -Lemons We'd already picked lemons, but, before we plant lemons, we were supposed to do research, we didn't have a chance to do any research, to know if we can plant lemons here. Mom said it doesn't grow here, and I also think it doesn't grow here. -My grandama said... -We'll all get a chance to talk, but we forgot something…… The talking stick. The main principle
of the Freinet education is self-managment and cooperative classes. And everything is dealt with the cooperation council. There's a council in each class which deals with learning, organisation, conflicts, the rules of life, etc. In these circles, we generally consider the children as equal to the adults. Each member of the circle is a member of the same micro-society. Everyone has their voice, we don't elect representatives or delegates. We try to get every child to participate. And then there are cycle councils, there, we can either work all together or with delegates, but the delegates aren't elected, they rotate.
Then we have the school council, where we take two people from each cycle or class, who will then report the decisions made within the cycles and classes, to the Executive management, where we have teachers' representatives, representatives of daycare, personnel, etc. And there, decisions are made for the whole school. I suggest you bring your research on Monday... Oh sorry, the talking stick... Democracy is at the heart of this pedagogy because we teach children that their opinions are taken into account, and that, with several opinions, several different points of view, we are building the society we live
in. "The older kids look under the toilets" OK, priority to Assia and Anita. Well last time someone was looking under the doors. Anita told me that he almost saw her. At one point, I was in the toilet and this kid was next door, He came out, then he looked under my door, then he locked me in with the big door, and he turned the lights off. Any ideas to put a stop to this, because we're going to be here 'till lunch on the same paper... And there are plenty left ! I agree with Gilles, we've
heard the problems we have with the toilets, now it would be nice to find solutions, so it doesn't happen again. -Surveillance cameras! -Listen to everyone's solutions and then give our opinion. -Cameras can stop them from... -Anyway, do we have the budget for cameras? No So, we have to find a more affordable solution. Helena? -Who has the talking stick? We could tell the little ones what they're doing, that way, they will stop! So you simply suggest to tell them? -They might stop for a while because we're watching them, but they'll just start again in a few
weeks. We have to find out a solution so that won't happen again. What did we put in place here to live together? -Rules ! -Rules, alright? So what could we do then? Toilet rules ? Yes but, there are little ones who can't read the rules if they're in the toilets. Come on, give us some more ideas. What I'm suggesting is that we change the doors to make them bigger, that way, no one can look under them anymore. -So Arthur is suggesting... -To make the doors bigger. To add a plank at the bottom of the doors.
Who vote in favour of making the doors longer ? That's a very good idea. We'll have to talk about this idea at the school council, all right? Arthur, you can write it down because we'll have to mention it to Catherine. We'll talk about it at the school council with the other classes' delegates. Not only with Catherine, because that won't solve anything, every class is involved. Sometimes in schools, the teacher says this and that's the way it is. But here, the teacher gives an idea and we vote. Everyone has their say. Either we vote or we
talk together and we find a solution. In the classroom, for example, we all have the same rules, no one is smarter than anyone else, no one has higher rights, we all have the same rights. There's no leader because we all work together. We can say what we think and there's no chief. If anyone is having trouble we'll do our best to get them to the same level as the others. I've never seen children sitting alone. We have a "friendship bench", and it's always empty. The "friendship bench" is used when you don't have any friends to
play with, so you sit there, and there are always two or three people that come over and ask them to play with us. We always get the impression that everyone has their say, and the children too. And they feel listened to, even if it's not their own first choice, they have been heard, and we explain to them that in life, there are choices to make, that you don't always get what you want, that it'll be for some other time, but you should defend your choices. We're disappointed because we try to teach these children about a
democracy that doesn't really exist. We spend our time teaching them, but in the end, they won't really have a say because politicians make decisions, and even if we vote to elect certain politicians, they have the final say. So we hope that when our children grow up, they might change the way things are. ♪ Piano playing ♪ What about us? What kind of kids are we? Would we dare to learn democracy? Or are we already too old? Too worn? Rusted? Tired? Not necessarily. (Thessaloniki, Greece) Here we are in Thessaloniki. Second-largest city in Greece. There is an
industrial area on the periphery. Filckeram and Johnson, manufacturer of building materials set up its factories there. In september 2011, the company declared bankruptcy. All factories closed, except one affiliate : VIOME Workers requisitioned the machines and decided to continue the production. Today, twenty-six people work at Viome, including thirteen full-time. They manufacture glue and biological cleaning products. There is no boss. All decisions are made collectively, daily. -Did you get the info for Vios? -What? They're going to call about the quantities today. They're coming to the market. -For the samples? -Yes, all four. The three ecological and... We
put five in, with two soap bars. Yes, it's one unit for them. In the morning, we always start by having coffee and our daily meeting, they go together. Sometimes, the ritual lasts longer than planned. But it's an essential step, productive and creative. And depending on what we've decided for the daily production, we spread out tasks. That's what we do every morning. -Morning! -Morning! Good morning everyone. The people from Vios called yesterday. They want four products, five with two soap bars. And a friend contacted me from Larissa. She wants 400 soap bars of 60 grams each,
if possible. -60? -Yes. She wants to know if it's possible and how. We'll cut them in half. They weigh 120 grams. -We can wrap each half. -It's feasable. It's a little more work but we can do it. When does she want it for? It's for her wedding. Who still gets married these days? Alright guys... The guy from Titan called. -Who? -From Titan. We need to give him a timetable. For us, it's complicated to use this glue. Then, it's about Italy. They sent a second email about the price of the glue because they are getting demands.
We haven't fixed the price for the cheapest glue just yet. What price should we tell them? We can bring the Sant down a bit, And bring the other ones down a little bit less. There'll be one cheap one, and we can split the price between the other ones. So that they can all be accessible. -What about Argyris? -He's waiting for our rates. Our rates? Did we fix a price? Yes, I think we talked about it last time. What are you talking about? -The order for Argyris. -Do you remember the prices we mentioned? What? Maybe Spiros
remembers the prices. Spiros? Are you sure about that? Well wait, he's good with numbers Alzheimer is contagious in here. If we don't remember, do you think Spiros will remember? Do you remember the prices we fixed? For Argyris? We said 65. Right. What's next? Vangelis? There's some work. The more meetings we have, the more efficient we are. The less we have, the more chaotic things get. We try to have a maximum number of them. We have the morning meeting. But also bigger ones, with more people. We talk about subjects that affect us all. That's what makes
our strength, what holds us together. United, we decide what's good or not. You proposed 65. Alright. Come on, let's get to it... We are all equal. We decide together, nobody says : "Do this." That's the rule. In the team, everyone gives their opinion. The decisions are collective. If we make a mistake, we correct it later. Because... it's been years that no one has told us what to do. That's what we changed here. Even an underqualified worker, or someone who can't read or write may have a good idea to improve the production. The factory isn't only
a place for production It's a social setting. We organise meetings, ecological festivals, concerts. We've made documentaries and video clips. We do more than just produce. We create social bonds. The medical centre was built two years ago, on december twentieth, by qualified medical doctors, who came from social environments. We opened the social centre, to be covered for our health issues. But so the locals can benefit too. It's indispensable, some people don't have doctors or aren't insured. Here, they can receive healthcare and get prescriptions. The medical centre is a place of solidarity. The doctors believe in what
we're doing And support us. The logo represents Viome's philosophy, a factory and a gear. When we took charge of the factory in 2012, the gear started turning in a new direction. We started making ecological friendly products, to change the planet at the same time as we change ourselves. Which is why we make ecological friendly cleaning products. The logo shows the factory and the gear have switched directions. And it says : "The struggle keeps the factory working". We put down our little stone to build something great. That everyone can benefit from. We understand that there's not
going to be any wide-scale changes. Look at our government... But we can do things at our level. We can't just sit around waiting. If we'd left, today, there would be nothing remaining. In France, we met the Fralib, and in Italy, self-managed factories. Everyone makes their choices. We make our proposals. But everyone does things their own way. The most important thing is equality. No hierarchy and no differences in wages. Everyone must be at the same level. From the beginning, This method of taking democratic decisions exercised daily through meetings also influences our individual decision-making. It's very important
because by taking part in this collective effort, we take our lives into our hands and deal with our activities autonomously. Which let's us fulfill our true selves. We're moving forward. We can't go back anymore. What's happening here, we're living it every day with our colleagues. The "I" has become one with the "we". That's what makes us stronger. We decide our lives together. ♪ Hopeful piano and xylophone playing ♪ How far are we able to go in these collective choices? In this co-construction? (Reykjavik, Iceland) This is the Althing, the Icelandic parliament. Here, one day in 2011,
men and women, elected, decided that Icelandic people could collectively write a new constitution for the island. My name is Katrin Oddsdottir, I am a Lawyer specialised in Human Rights. And I also used to work as a journalist. I'm one of the 25 people that were on the constitutional council of Iceland that wrote the new constitution for my nation and now I'm the Chair-person of the NGO Constitution Society, which is a small NGO trying to get the new constitution legislated on. Most of the world knows that there was a crash in Iceland, in 2008. We walked
down the streets and we were banging pots and pants and in the end we got to elect and we finally got a left wing government that we hadn't had for a long time here in Iceland. They realised that we needed a new social contract, so they decided to try to write the new constitution for Iceland. And what we did was, first we had the national assembly, with 1,000 randomly selected citizens who got to sit together for one day only, in a big sports complex, and discuss about the values we wanted in our new constitution. And
then, we had elections where we could actually get 25 people, Icelandic people, to write the new constitution. So, the elections went forth and that was OK, and 25 people got elected, including myself. What we did, because he had so little time, and that we had problems with our legitimacy already, we said OK, let's just open it up. Because we need to create ownership, And what we are trying to do, is to create a new society, that is transparent, and has some sort of accountability. And, if we don't do it ourselves in our work, How can
we demand of the parliament or the officials to do that in our new constitution? So we decided to put our draft online every week. And then, we had our big meetings also broadcasted online, And then, the first time, I remember, we put the draft online, we were really scared. Because we thought, they are just going to come with "vulgar words and all that", but it didn't happen. And I think, it didn't happen because, when you give people trust, they repay the trust by behaving with dignity. The problem with democracy today is that people are not
being trusted. Therefore they don't trust, it's very simple. And another thing that we did, I think is useful for other projects, is we used consensus methodology. We said OK, "We want this and you want this, but let's try to find maybe, not A, not B, but maybe C instead, that could actually be better than both A and B" And that worked. And of course, the parliament got very scared. And in the end, they just said : "Ok let's just put it into a national referendum" And two third of the people that showed up said "Yes".
That would mean that we would have our new constitution, but we don't. Because parliament is blocking this. Because the people who are in the parliament they get to be there because people voted for them, But at the same time, they don't want to listen to the same people, when it comes to put a new constitution into action. It is crazy. So this is a symbolic problem that democracy is facing, I think, all over the world. We have representatives and we have a system, but the system maintains itself. ♪ Piano playing ♪ So my name is
Birgitta Jonsdottir. I am in my last day as member of parliament in Iceland. I am a poetician, an activist. And I have no idea what I'm gonna be doing in the next few months. So it was very important that we did actually do this constitution by and for the people of Iceland. And so, I was willing to support this new constitution, and fight for it, because it contains something really valuable which you can't really put into words. And, when we couldn't get it through the parliament, it has been the biggest disappointment in my life. And
we have not seen it yet. Those who were responsible for the crisis, I mean, they haven't learnt anything. And the voters haven't learnt anything. They are believing the lies and the hype and the bullshit, and they are trusting people to look after their interests that, in any normal society, would be in prison. ♪ Heavy piano playing ♪ Until 2008, we thought we were a highly developed Scandinavian democracy, with everything going for it. And then, all of a sudden, we just had this realisation that our whole system was corrupt. That our politicians were, sort of, working
more for the banks than for the people. We do know that the system is still hiding a lot of stuff, and is still not transparent and still isn't completely working for us. It is just that people, all together are smarter, outsmarting the politicians that are trying to hide a corrupted system. So it won't go on. It's impossible. You can't have couple of dozens of people, hiding the truth from hundreds of thousands anymore. So we will find out and we will make them responsible for their own scandals, and in the end, we will win. I keep
telling people : Even if… we haven't seen all the changes that we fought for in the wake of the crisis, next time, we will have all this work ready, and we are ready. -Is it the constitution? -Yes. This is a flower called "Forget me not" / "Don't forget me" "Forget me not" / "Don't forget me" ? Is it an Icelandic symbol? No, it's a flower that you can stick to your clothes, it sort of sticks, And it is called "Forget me not". So, it's the symbolic for "Don't forget !" I have seen signs : The
end of the world as we know it, has begun. It might look terrifying on the surface, but inside every human being, a choice : To go under or act ! ♪ Piano playing ♪ We have a long way to go. To get there, you've got to rally people to the idea, and to rally people then is to engage into series of fights. And those fights, especially in the beginning, will not be won. It's not like, the forces on the other side are going to roll-over The first time you raise the flag and say : Democracy
! They will fight and they will win because they are bigger and stronger than we are now. But every time we lose, in a name of a principle, more people remind it, of that principle. Every time you have a conflict that results in right being defeated more people think, "OK maybe I have to step up and defend the right." And that's the dynamic that, I believe, has always led to fundamental change. So we have to be willing to lose. ♪ Hopeful piano playing ♪ Thingvellir The plains of parliament, in Icelandic. The story goes that the
first european parliament would have gathered here, in 930, already. And today? Where are the places where we can make democracy? Creating places and time. The work site is huge but the ground is magnificent. Democracy is a risk worth taking. With the support of 7,819 citizens who made it possible. Their names :
