I just now stumbled upon the following gem of an aggressive defense:

“J’aime les grandes métaphores venues de la religion : Miracle, Grâce, Salut, Corps Glorieux, Conversion… On a évidemment conclu de ce goût que ma philosophie était un christianisme déguisé. Le livre sur saint Paul que j’ai publié en 1997 aux PUF n’a pas arrangé les choses. À tout prendre, j’aime mieux être un athée révolutionnaire caché sous une langue religieuse qu’un “démocrate” occidental persécuteur de musulman(e)s déguisé en féministe laïque.” (Baidou: Second manifeste pour la philosophie note 4)

In case your French is a bit rusty, here is a rusty translation:

“I love the great religious metaphors: Miracle, Grace, Salvation, Glorious Body, Conversion… Obviously, someone concluded from this preference that my philosophy was disguised christianity. The book on Saint Paul, which I published in 1997 at PUF, didn’t help the matter. All considered, I would rather be a revolutionary atheist hidden behind a religious vernacular than an occidental “democrat” persecuting muslims disguised as a secular feminist.”

You almost want to high-five your buddy and chest bump your pal shouting “Snap! Them mo-fo’s got pwned!,” don’t you?

Let us begin at home. At their main annual convention this summer, leader of Danish People’s Party Pia Kjærsgaard said something like the following: “So while the potential maximum penalty for a crime has maybe doubled, the actually passed sentences have only augmented slightly. We will not stand for this. The judges are not the rulers of this country!” As well as crying out for mandatory minimums, this angry minx is decreeing the power of “We” over the power of the judges. “We the people” may be sovereign in American law but even the Americans try to uphold the seperation of powers as described by Montesquieu. Kjærsgaard is actually calling for direct popular control of the judiciary branch. “We the people shall not accept delicate judicial treatment of those who dare defy our laws.”

Next, and slightly more seriously, we have the Danish minister of justice. Commenting on a new law that allows the police to hold potential unruly demonstrators for up to twelve hours without showing cause, Brian Mikkelsen said: “We must help those who help us. Thus, we will not stand for people who obstruct the work of the police.” When did “We must help those who help us” become a legitimate juridical argument? The man is not the greatest orator of our time and this does make him quite unable to hide is feeble intellectual powers, but under no circumstances is this sort of outburst to come from a minister of justice! “We the people shall not accept those who dare defy our controlling grasp.”

The final example from within the walls of delightful Denmark is kindly delivered by the chief coordinating officers of the Copenhagen police force. The New York Times quoted him for the following on the subject of the handling of COP15: “Mr. Larsen said that his officers would have low tolerance for behavior that deviates from “Danish society as we prefer it to be.”” Again the statement goes “We the people shall not accept the actions of those who dare defy our glorious society and they shall ne’er prevail against us.”

In all three cases, there is an indistinct “We the people” proclaiming the illegitimacy of certain unwanted elements. And it should be noted, that in the first case, the illegitimacy actually includes the nation’s judges. Their sentences are illegitimate because they do not correspond with the wishes of the people that unruly scoundrels be severely punished.

This is why “We the people” is a rather stupid and potentially very dangerous formula and why the sovereignty of “the people” is not really desirable. “We the people” is an empty vessel that may easily be filled poison. The above examples pretend to take it for granted that “We the people” all agree who “We the people” are and are not. In France they are currently having a debate to have the national identity carved in stone. It was launched by the Minister of Immigration and (wait for it!) National Identity!

A thing about this French debate about their national identity is that the Minister, Eric Besson, gave quite strict guidelines at the very outset. Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité are cornerstones he dictates. But more specifically, wearing a Burkha is against French national identity. This, apparently, is not open for debate. The point of the debate seems to narrowly define the vague “We the people” in order to use it as a means to exclude unwanted elements like the Burkha. With a narrow definition in hand it gets quite easy to put Sarkozy’s famous statement to good use: “France, love her or leave her.”

In conclusion, ladies and jellybeans, skipping the obvious problems in the American use of the word “patriot,” there should be quick mention of two alternative uses of the concept of “democracy” and “people.” First up is French philosopher Jacques Rancière who defines democracy as the equality of whomever with whomever, the absence of arkhé, i.e., the absence of any “true” order. His concept of people, démos, is the collection of those not counted as part of the community. Politics, in his conception, is not the guarding of imaginary identities, but rather the challenge of existing order.

Another viewpoint is that of Jean-Luc Nancy. In The Truth of Democracy, he states the following (my translation): “The democratic kratein, the power of the people, is first the power to defeat the archie and then, everyone together, to take care of the infinite opening, which is thus brought to light. Taking care of this opening enables the finite inscription of the infinite.”

These are not complicated matters. The current political misuse of “We the people” should be obvious for all to see. However, the contemporary global project of making a work (faire œuvre) of our societies continues unabated. Only therefor are the above banalities worthy of mention.