HomeISSUESPOLITICSEuropeThe “Injured” Liberal Democracy in Europe and the retreat of the Liberal Democracy Model as a Governance Instrument-Part II
March 7, 2019
The “Injured” Liberal Democracy in Europe and the retreat of the Liberal Democracy Model as a Governance Instrument-Part II
A part of the pioneering political decision that strengthens the liberal
democracy model as a means of governance is the Great National Debate (GND)
announced by the President of France Emmanuel Macron to address the demands of the movement of yellow
The pioneering political decision that strengthens the
The Great National Debate (GND) announced by the President of France
Emmanuel Macron will take part in
many local debates which will be open to all citizens who would like to
participate and express themselves. This participation will take the form either
digitally through an electronic platform or through “notebooks” in
rural communities to record “complaints or hints” of problems and
anxieties of citizens.
This way of recording the problems and anxieties of the citizens of France is perhaps the most innovative decision and strengthens the political model of the Liberal Democracy as a means of governance and if it is applied in its entirety based on analysis that we will present in the following paragraphs.
More specifically, for the first time the executive authority of a country and in general a member country of the Eurozone/EU, France, tries to be in direct contact with its citizens-by putting aside local MPs and representatives of the citizens in Parliament-by recording digitally and in writing their real problems and anxieties.
by Thanos S. Chonthrogiannis–https://liberalglobe.com
This process is pioneering because for the first time,
1. The executive power-central government is officially informed of the real problems and anxieties of its citizens by the citizens themselves.
2. For the first time, it is recognized by an official government that parliamentary political parties have been removed mentally from the country’s own citizens and their real problems.
3. This information is not made through party mechanisms, through polling companies and through media (e.g. newspapers, television and radio stations, etc.) where the real information and “image” for reality can be distorted or adapted according to the governmental party preferences of the ruling parties and in general the opposition parliamentarians.
4. The fact that all these problems are recorded in official “books” such as a digital platform defined by the State itself and notebooks located in rural communities and local government municipalities, is a kind of or “contract” of the official state to its citizens.
Our proposal as The Liberal Globe is that this pioneering system of recording the problems
and anxieties of French citizens should become permanent and not to only keep
two months as announced. In this way there will be a continuous recording of
the problems of the citizens, always giving a real and not a static picture of
what is happening in society. There should be a check for the practical
implementation of the proposed policies that will solve the citizens’ recorded
problems. Based on these documented problems, political parties should draw up
their political programs and be civilized in national elections.
More specifically, these
recorded digital and written requests, problems and anxieties of citizens
should be ranked according to their incidence both by region and at national
level. Then priority should be given to solving all these problems that are
identical and have the highest frequency independently of the area being
recorded. Next, should be met all these problems that show a lower frequency in
the hierarchical list of all these problems.
This process will work both ways in elections and in any party debates
before national elections.
On the one hand, the candidate members of parliament and the leaderships of
the parties who will be asking for the vote of the citizens will be bound to
the voters with detailed proposals and detailed plans to resolve these problems
long before the national elections.
These political parties’ plans and programs will derive from the answers
that should be given to these recorded citizens’ problems. In this way, the
political parties will shape real perceptions and beliefs as to how society
should work to achieve the common goal of all citizens who are the social
well-being. Social prosperity that will be diffused to all citizens
independently of the income scale in which they belong. Based on
these beliefs, the political parties will be fighting to persuade citizens to
follow their “vision” in the elections.
These proposed solutions and plans for solving these problems should then
and if they have persuaded voters and voters have voted for these specific
parties, the executive-central government that will emerge will be obliged to
On the other hand, the ruling party that will emerge from the elections
pledging these plans will then be able to demand that the citizens of the
country not only be judged in any upcoming elections based on the degree of
resolution of these problems and implementation of the planned projects, but they
will be able to demand as a majority during their governance the consensus and
the non-creation of possible disturbances (i.e. riots) in the economy and in
society in order to achieve these objectives.
What do the citizens-voters and political parties gain from this process?
1. The parties that will ask for the vote of the citizens should draw up detailed plans at both national and local level and depending on the nature of the recorded problems arising from these “problems and complaints” notebooks.
2. The drafting of detailed plans will force the parties to place in their classes and ranks qualified technocrats (to draw up detailed technical plans at national and local level), but also people who know first-hand the citizens’ problems (mainly at local level).
3. Full filtering of the parties drastically reducing the existence of populist, opportunistic and liars in their ranks.
4. Direct and effective association and bond of the parties with their citizens-voters.
5. Gradual restoration of the relationship of trust between citizens and the political world and parties respectively.
6. Drastic improvement and strengthening of the democratic regime and especially of the liberal democracy model as a means of governance.
This pioneering political process will must be applied to all types of
elections-national, local and European elections-and will must be established
by parliamentary resolutions both in the French Constitution and in all the Constitutions
of all Euro-area member-countries and as well in the EU Constitution as the EU electoral process.
The causes of the problems that injure the Liberal
Democracy model of France as a means of governance
Before we go into solving the problems afflicting today’s French society
and more generally most of the societies of the Euro-area member countries and
the EU, we should highlight the roots of the causes that are causing the
emergence of these problems.
The author’s view of this analysis is because the causes of the problems are not the policies of all kinds implemented by the current President of France Emmanuel Macron that led to the outrage of French citizens. More specifically,
1. The first basic root of the causes of problems
The roots of the causes are much deeper and have to do with the liberal
democracy model as a means of governance in the model of operation of the
French state. Model of operation of the French state that have adopted all the
states-countries of the European continent to date except Germany since the end
of WWII onwards.
More specifically and concisely, we will mention that France together with
England were those two countries that developed their own model of the newest
state which deeply influenced most of the countries in Europe but also in their
former colonies in the rest world. In combination with the development of their
political institutions and their political ideas, they have profoundly
influenced the other European countries.
We will not develop the similarities and differences of the state models of
England and France because we will have to do another analysis. In summary, and
for history we will mention that in Europe were the ancient Greeks who created
the successful political institution of the city-state.
However, the form of the states today owes it to their imitation of the
model of the newest state created by the French and the English. The formation
of the French and English model of the newer state respectively was achieved
gradually between 1100-1600 A.D.
Thus, the current form of states with their extensive and sizable
territorial integrity, which is enclosed in specific and internationally
recognized borders, is due to France and England.
The model of the English newest state was first achieved after a series of
victories-successful English wars in the whole territory of United Kingdom
against a different nationality of peoples.
The European states were imitated the organizational structure and power hierarchy of the French state model. This is because the model of the French new state was not created through the conquests of other peoples of different nationalities. That is why the European states chose to apply the French model as they were directed at citizens of the same nationality.
2. The second basic root of the causes of problems
The second major root of the causes of problems has to do with the
political ideas that have been formed and the political institutions that exist
in these two models of the newer state described above.
The root of the problem in this case is the different perception of the definition and theory of freedom. Theory of freedom that shaped and the respective political institutions that serve freedom in a free society. More specifically,
a. The English perception and tradition of the theory of freedom in society and the creation of political institutions that serve the beneficial functioning of a free
society really in practice is based on long-term experience and non-systematicity-the
Identifying the essence and realization of the freedom and the respective
political institutions that serve it in a free society in spontaneous evolution
with complete lack of coercion to citizens. In other words, there is genuine
respect for the political institutions when these political institutions have
developed freely without coercion and in the depths of many generations.
The English perception favors a slow and semi-conscious development of
freedom and the institutions that serve freedom in society. And it trusts to
achieve the goal of the trial and error process.
Essentially the English tradition says that the primacy of law/laws and
institutions serving a free society is not based on the genius and wisdom of a
man or group of people but is based on a slow and long process of trial and
error in from the passage of time and centuries to reach the fairer form of
law/laws and the most ideal form of political institution/institutions
respectively. So, this English perception and tradition is based on the
jurisprudence of Anglo-Saxon law (Common law).
I will mention briefly that followers of this rationalist tradition, among
others, are the Scottish philosophers David Hume, Adam Smith and the French
philosophers Montesquieu, Benjamin Constant, Alex De Tocqueville etc.
For semantic reasons and only, I will mention that the author of this analysis is a follower of English perception and tradition.
b. The French perception and tradition of the theory of achieving freedom in society as well as the creation of political institutions that serve the beneficial functioning of
a free society is based on a combination of theory and rationalism and
considers that both the laws and political institutions created in a free
society are purely conscious devised to serve a human purpose.
By identifying in turn, the essence and realization of freedom and
institutions that serve freedom in a society in the spontaneous pursuit of
people and the attainment of a collective purpose.
The French tradition therefore favors a dictated intentional of planning to
achieve the ideal form of laws and political institutions in a society. It
trusts the objective to be attained by an exclusive and valid plan from above.
This tradition is based on the jurisprudence of European Law (Civil law) which in turn is
based on Roman law.
Followers of this tradition are Descartes (whose views have permeated the
French Enlightenment) that his model had prototype the Lycurgus model of
ancient Sparta/ancient Greece. According to Descartes, the primacy of the laws
of ancient Sparta were due to the mere fact that they came from a single
person-Lycurgus-and were imposed overall of society.
But ignoring that, all the laws of ancient
Sparta directed in a single purpose
in the sacrifice of the individual in favor of the glory of the city-state (the
basis of fascism). Other followers of this tradition were Rousseau, the
naturalists and the British William Cod Win, Jefferson, Price etc.
We should mention that these two traditions are based on different
perceptions of how society works.
The overwhelming success of political doctrines and institutions derived from French tradition is very likely because these political dogmas are based on flattery of people’s pride and ambition. Political doctrines such as socialism, national-socialism, communism and other beginnings of authoritarian democracy are purely based on the French perception and tradition of freedom and institution-building that serve freedom in society.
Currently, the French concept and tradition of freedom in conjunction with the French model of the newer state translates, among all others, to states with large and dysfunctional bureaucracy, high state and governmental expenditures for their maintenance and powerful labor unions.
How do the causes of these problems appear in other
As we said above, the European continental
states adopted the French concept and tradition of
freedom and shaped the respective political institutions and organizational
structures in their state structures by adapting everything to their own case
Their aim was to achieve the best possible service and operation of their
state based on the French model of the newer state and the French perception of
freedom and the creation of political institutions serving freedom in a free
This is what we are going to keep because we will need them in the further
analysis that we will do, since the whole of the member-countries of the euro
area and the EU had and have adopted the French model of state and the French
perception and tradition of how are achieved freedom and the creation of
functional political institutions, respectively, in society.
For this reason, the analysis we are doing for France and the French
liberal democratic model-as a means of governance, applies respectively more or
less to the other continental member-countries of the Eurozone/EU.
As we said in the above paragraph only Germany (originally West Germany)
differs from the other European continental states because after the end of the WWII, the winners of the WWII were
forced to follow the Anglo-Saxon model of state and the English perception and
tradition on the freedom and creation of political institutions in society.
Germany is currently the world’s most liberal society (more than the US)
and its economic achievements and the prosperity it offers to its citizens
evoke the admiration and envy of other European states.
How to restore the “injured” model of the Liberal Democracy as a
means of governance will present it in the third part of this analysis, where
we will present the other modern causes that also injure the function of
Liberal Democracy in both France and the other Eurozone/EU member-countries.
Thanos S. Chonthrogiannis
The law of
intellectual property is prohibited in any way unlawful use/appropriation of
this article, with heavy civil and criminal penalties for the infringer.
The Liberal Globe is an independent online magazine that provides carefully selected varieties of stories. Our authoritative insight opinions, analyses, researchers are reflected in the sections which are both thematic and geographical. We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our political agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We continue to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, even if that means we must oppose the will and the majority view, even if these positions that we express may be unpleasant and unbearable for the majority.