Kapok: Popular sovereignty

Referenda can be divisive, very much so. And the vote over whether to remain in the European Union or not that is taking place in the United Kingdom at the very moment I write this column, demonstrates just that, or should I say reminds us of that, with the extra measure of ever invasive social media. A Poll-tracker set up by The Economist indicates that on June 20th, we were in for a tie — 44% to remain, 43% to leave, and 11% undecided. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) supporters are the leading force for what now everybody knows as “Brexit” (90%), the Conservatives are less supportive but clearly in favour of leaving (48%), so are people from the north of the country (43%), the Welsh (51%), the poor (52%) and the old (57%). The opposite is also true: Liberal Democrats (69%) and voters who identify with Labour (64%) want the UK to stay within the EU, Scots too (54%), and southerners (44%), the rich (53%) and the young (60%). Gender, however, does not seem to lean to either side — men are evenly divided, and so are women.
As a French citizen, I participated in four referenda — and for two of these I was already living abroad. The two referenda pertaining to domestic politics — the self-determination process for New Caledonia back in 1988 and the shortening of the president’s term to five years instead of seven in 2000 — went rather smoothly and did not provoke a nationwide schism. Abstention ran high, respectively 63% and close to 70%, and in both cases the highly anticipated approbation was a clear-cut winner, respectively 80% and 73% of the votes cast. Referenda only existed as a validation of something that almost everybody considered the right — even dignified— thing to do.
The other two popular consultations proved to be much more challenging, so much so in fact that the second one resulted in a rebuttal of the government’s proposal. And guess what? In both cases, Europe was at stake!
In 2005, the question was about whether to ratify the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. The “no” prevailed (almost 55% of the votes cast) whereas participation had been very high (close to 70%). This translated into a thorough revamping of the existing treaties that ultimately led to the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007, which came into force in December 2009.
Back in 1992, the question had been about the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty that was to create the European Union. As the poll was getting closer, the “no” grew in strength and then President François Mitterrand launched a very energetic campaign to convince the citizens to give their approval.
The whole atmosphere is still very vivid in my mind as I was myself campaigning for the “no”, considering that European institutions were taking yet again a bureaucratic turn, away from the democratic ideals they were supposed to not only profess but also practice.
Mitterrand had started his political crusade in my university, Sciences Po, targeting the educated and politically savvy future generation, when some friends and I unfolded the Danish flag right in front of his eyes as he was about to deliver his lecture. I perceived a certain form of annoyance in the statesman’s eyes — to the point where security services ripped apart our big bright banner! The Danes had voted predominantly against the Treaty just a few weeks before! Even though the “yes” eventually “triumphed” (51%…), and despite my own frustration, the whole experience had actually proven constructive: arguments of all hues had been laid bare and populist rants were indeed almost like a necessary evil — on both sides! This is what popular sovereignty is also about!
The infighting of epic proportion between “Brexit” and “Bremain” is thus not only about “divide” but also interest, awareness, sense of belonging, community-wide soul searching, and ultimately freedom. Branding referenda as disrespectful when they are not, illegal when they are not, can only serve one purpose: deception, not harmony.

Kapok: Make no mistake

In the past few days, in the wake of the horrendous terrorist attacks in Paris, I have been confronted by the best and the worst.
On the side of the best, you have the numerous private and public messages of outrage, sympathy, solidarity, fraternity, etc., expressed loud and clear, by friends, colleagues and strangers alike.
Both in Hong Kong and Macao, the SAR governments were very prompt in issuing communiqués extending condolences to the families of the victims and wishing the injured swift recovery. In Hong Kong, an emotional vigil took place Monday evening in Tamar, gathering some 2,500, including most of the senior diplomatic representatives as well as the Hong Kong SAR Chief Executive himself. In these moments, despite adversity and distress, humanity regains its face as countless faces standing as one. I and we are together, able to commune beyond our differences.
And then, I have been witness to passing remarks made by well-intentioned acquaintances that are truly appalling, especially coming from well-educated people. One posted an emotional message on a social media platform explicitly arguing that there is somehow a “good” immigration, one that is “humble” and thus able to blend in, and… the other one. Another person, a claimed socialist, matter-of-factly told me: “well, not all Muslims are terrorists, but you cannot deny that all terrorists are Muslims!”
I am myself from Paris. My parents live near the locations that were targeted. I go to some of these places each time I am in the City of Light, and on Friday, very close friends of mine, together with their children, were supposed to go for dinner at Le Petit Cambodge and have a drink at Le Carillon. No need to say that I was thus extremely shocked by what happened, and spent most of my Saturday making sure that my loved-ones were safe. Even now, I keep peeping at the list of the victims with a clear sense of apprehension that I might stumble upon a known name. I will be in Paris for a week starting next Monday, and can already feel an immense sorrow sinking in.
Trust me, when I say I condemn the attacks and I see only criminals of the worst sort in the perpetrators of these acts – cowardly slaughtering acts – I do mean it.
Yet, one has to be careful with passing comments, especially because we have a unique responsibility in this part of the world in promoting European values and heritage. European values do not equate with Catholicism, far from it. Ancient Greece and Rome are the matrix of European civilization — Renaissance rings a bell? — and a significant part of our neoplatonic filiation only survived because of Arab intellectuals. Heritage is a bit more than street signs, and what truly matters in regards to cultural encounters is the ability to have dialogue, exchange and cross-fertilize — the rest is misplaced nostalgia.
To my Macao friends, I say it clearly as this might prove useful for this community: it is a classic phenomenon for the last wave of migrants to try to “close the door” on the next one, as it is somehow afraid the latter will challenge its hard-gained status. Discrimination against Italian and Portuguese migrants was as bad as the one against people from North-African countries, and they are all today an integral part of the French society. Beyond the international context, what is not working anymore in France is the “integration” drive, both at school and at work. Moreover, any religion is a form of ideology that can be used for different purposes, and both the Basque separatist movement ETA and the Irish IRA were packed with Catholics.
Finally, the ones who suffer the most from terrorism right now are the Muslims themselves and we are no strangers to that state of affairs.
Ultimately, it is troubling to hear senseless words from people who come from a place that has only 0.3% of Muslims… or it just proves a point: ignorance is to be fought if humanity wants to ultimately prevail.

Published in Macau Daily Times, November 20 2015