Facts and Arguments about the Introduction of Initiative and ...
Facts and Arguments about the Introduction of Initiative and ...
Facts and Arguments about the Introduction of Initiative and ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
succeeded: <strong>the</strong> turnout was less than <strong>the</strong> participation quorum,<br />
so <strong>the</strong> referendum failed.<br />
These types <strong>of</strong> examples lead to a simple conclusion: participation<br />
quorums are fundamentally wrong. They give unequal<br />
weighting to <strong>the</strong> votes <strong>of</strong> supporters <strong>and</strong> opponents <strong>of</strong><br />
an initiative, provoke calls for boycotts <strong>and</strong> negate <strong>the</strong> role<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> m<strong>and</strong>ate in direct decision-making.<br />
2-3: Frans van den Enden<br />
For a long time, <strong>the</strong> Dutch philosopher Spinoza was held to<br />
be <strong>the</strong> one who had laid <strong>the</strong> first philosophical foundations<br />
for democracy – popular sovereignty <strong>and</strong> a radical freedom<br />
<strong>of</strong> speech. This makes him a typical representative <strong>of</strong> what<br />
<strong>the</strong> historian Jonathan Israel (2002) called <strong>the</strong> ‘radical enlightenment’.<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> famous people who are considered<br />
to be <strong>the</strong> classic representatives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Age <strong>of</strong> Reason<br />
– Newton, Locke, <strong>and</strong> Montesquieu, for example – are in<br />
fact representatives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderate Age <strong>of</strong> Reason. Locke’s<br />
beliefs are representative <strong>of</strong> this moderate Age <strong>of</strong> Reason.<br />
He argued for tolerance <strong>and</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> religious belief for<br />
all kinds <strong>of</strong> Christian convictions, but not for a<strong>the</strong>ists – because<br />
that would mean rejecting <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> morality – <strong>and</strong><br />
also not for Catholics, because <strong>the</strong>y recognised a foreign<br />
authority, <strong>the</strong> Pope. The partisans <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderate Age <strong>of</strong><br />
Reason fought against <strong>the</strong> ‘radical enlightenment’ <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
latter frequently had to operate underground.<br />
In 1990, however, Spinoza expert Wim Klever discovered<br />
that Spinoza had in fact borrowed his ideas from his tutor,<br />
Franciscus van den Enden (1602-1674). Van den Enden<br />
was from Antwerp, but later fled to Amsterdam, where<br />
he founded a small private school at which he also taught<br />
Spinoza. Klever discovered that Van den Enden was <strong>the</strong> author<br />
<strong>of</strong> two revolutionary, anonymously published books:<br />
‘Kort Verhael Van Nieuw Nederlants’ (‘A Brief Account <strong>of</strong><br />
New Ne<strong>the</strong>rl<strong>and</strong>s’, 1662) <strong>and</strong> ‘Vrije politijke stellingen’ (‘Free<br />
Political Proposals’, 1665, republished by Klever in 1992).<br />
Van den Enden was <strong>the</strong> first to argue for political equality<br />
“between more <strong>and</strong> less intelligent people, more <strong>and</strong> less<br />
well-<strong>of</strong>f people, <strong>the</strong> male <strong>and</strong> female gender, rulers <strong>and</strong><br />
subjects, etc.” Van den Enden states explicitly that political<br />
equality does not mean ‘bringing into line’. He argues<br />
that each human being is a unique individual with specific<br />
talents <strong>and</strong> characteristics, <strong>and</strong> that political equality does<br />
nothing to alter this. Equality provides for freedom. The<br />
laws must provide everyone with <strong>the</strong> space to develop, to<br />
speak <strong>and</strong> to think in an equal manner – for which Van<br />
den Enden uses <strong>the</strong> term “equal liberty”. He formulated <strong>the</strong><br />
principle <strong>of</strong> popular sovereignty in <strong>the</strong> strongest possible<br />
words. He warned – correctly, as we can now see – against<br />
<strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> a political class that would serve its own<br />
21<br />
interests. Van den Enden argued that <strong>the</strong> people are best<br />
able to take <strong>the</strong> political decisions <strong>the</strong>mselves, <strong>and</strong> believed<br />
that public assemblies were <strong>the</strong> best format for achieving<br />
this. Van den Enden notes that as a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> common<br />
deliberation <strong>and</strong> decision-making in such assemblies, <strong>the</strong><br />
people’s knowledge <strong>and</strong> political skills would increase considerably.<br />
He did have a limited concept <strong>of</strong> “<strong>the</strong> people” in<br />
this context: only men who could provide for <strong>the</strong>mselves<br />
were entitled to vote. Men who were unable to do so, <strong>and</strong><br />
women, should not be allowed access to <strong>the</strong> public assembly<br />
(to that extent, his <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> equality was inconsistent).<br />
At <strong>the</strong> first public assembly, he argued, <strong>the</strong> citizens should<br />
make a show <strong>of</strong> burning all existing regulations <strong>and</strong> laws<br />
that granted special powers or privileges to <strong>the</strong> nobility <strong>and</strong><br />
clergy. He believed that such genuine direct-democratic<br />
communities (<strong>the</strong>n still cities) could enter into federative<br />
links with each o<strong>the</strong>r. All this makes him quite possibly <strong>the</strong><br />
very first <strong>the</strong>orist <strong>of</strong> direct democracy. Van den Enden also<br />
argued for <strong>the</strong> free bearing <strong>of</strong> arms by citizens, so that o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
rulers would be not able to cheat <strong>the</strong>m out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir democratic<br />
rights.<br />
Van den Enden considered that democracy was inextricably<br />
linked to a free cultural life. “The most harmful thing in a<br />
state is that no freedom is left for people to be able to proclaim<br />
everything <strong>the</strong>y consider to be in <strong>the</strong> best public interest...”<br />
No obstacles should be placed in <strong>the</strong> way <strong>of</strong> anyone,<br />
not even foreigners, where personal opinions or religious<br />
matters are concerned. Van den Enden also argued for <strong>the</strong><br />
principle <strong>of</strong> mutual solidarity in relation to people’s physical<br />
needs. Central to his beliefs was <strong>the</strong> right to work. The<br />
state imposes state membership de facto on all those born<br />
within its boundaries; that is only justified if <strong>the</strong> state also<br />
provides equal levels <strong>of</strong> benefit to all its members. He also<br />
argued for <strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> social <strong>and</strong> medical facilities<br />
<strong>and</strong> emphatically rejected <strong>the</strong> “humiliating giving <strong>of</strong> alms”<br />
by rich people <strong>and</strong> churches.<br />
Nearly 125 years before <strong>the</strong> French Revolution, Frans Van<br />
den Enden had already espoused its celebrated trinity <strong>of</strong> ideals:<br />
liberty, equality, <strong>and</strong> fraternity. But whereas <strong>the</strong> French<br />
revolutionaries produced this rallying-cry in an entirely undifferentiated<br />
form, Van den Enden brought much greater<br />
discernment to it: he connects liberty with <strong>the</strong> cultural life<br />
(freedom <strong>of</strong> speech <strong>and</strong> religion), equality with <strong>the</strong> political<br />
<strong>and</strong> legal systems, <strong>and</strong> solidarity with people’s material<br />
needs (see also chapter 3).<br />
Van den Enden later moved to Paris, where he was arrested<br />
for being involved in a plot against Louis XIV. On 27 November<br />
1674, he was executed by hanging in <strong>the</strong> Place de la<br />
Bastille. If one compares <strong>the</strong> contents <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ‘Free Political<br />
Proposals’ with <strong>the</strong> situation today, it is clear that most <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> goals formulated by Van den Enden nearly three <strong>and</strong> a<br />
half centuries ago are still waiting to be realised.