The network writes to the President of the European Parliamant, Jerzy Buzek.
Sir,
On September 16, 2009, the EU representatives have re-elected the president of the EU Commission. The fact that there was only one candidate for such a key position is not typical for a democracy. On the opposite, the latter thrives on the dialectics of contradiction and dialogue. The European Union, which is expected to be a guiding force in the democratic evolution of Europe, should not appear in such a posture. Some EU representatives could not share the vision and convictions the only candidate; the negative vote allowed them showing their disapproval. Others considered him as the right person for this position, and felt the Yes vote corresponding to their choice. But their might be a third category of people: those not convinced by the man and his ideas who, without necessarily rejecting him – and above all, people for whom the unique choice is a nonsense… Those people had nothing to express their opinion. They have chose abstention. This time, 117 EU representatives have abstained from voting, to compare to the 44, the highest level of abstention recorded in 2004. It seems that the white ballot does not exist in the society – still under construction- of an enlarged and United Europe.
The white ballot should have been a valid option. More, it should be considered as a real expression of voting intentions, equivalent to the Yes or No vote. The EU representatives are not common voters; being themselves elected, they have (or are supposed to have) a very high sense of responsibility. Why limit them to a binary vote? Is expressing subtlety in political opinions and choices contrary to the principles of the EU? Or, the EU political elites distrust to such a degree ‘the people’ that they limit the choice of its representatives? It would be more courageous, we suggest, leaving more freedom of choice.
Could you say, Sir, why the question of white ballot is missing from the political agenda of the European construction?
Please accept all my best regards.
THE COLLECTIVE
Letter to UNO
The Right to Interfere Politically
All organizations for Human Rights are aimed at the defence of the rights of Mankind.
Our approach to Human Rights is characterized not only by the will to defend them, but also to extend the notion of Human Rights.
For us, Human Rights are a permanent conquest accompanying advancement in every domain of human activity: economy, science, industry, culture …Human rights are a dynamic process: not to go forward is to go backwards.
Our action is a philosophical one, since it rests upon the conviction that freedoms are not fixed once and for ever. It is based on the French Declaration of Human Rights as well as on the 1948 Universal Declaration of the United Nations. From now on, our duty is to continue the work in process and to achieve it, building upon all that has been acquired.
The Declarations of 1789 and 1948 define a social project in terms of freedom . This social project has to be firmly rooted.
Our goal is, by using the same method, to reach the next stage: defining a social project for the third millennium.
The new rights can be recognized only by national parliaments, the United Nations, or their regional organizations (the Council of Europe, the Organization of African Union, the O.E.A.) We do not deem it useful to impose a list of new rights. It would be more judicious to include an article that would guarantee to each active individual/ citizen that making use of such rights would move forward the evolution of our societies.
Our proposal is: “It is everyone’s right, and duty,to participate in the life and management or his or her own society. The latter must be committed to take into account each individual’s opinion”.
![[fr]](inc/lang/fr.gif){kind=small}
![[en]](inc/lang/en.gif){kind=small}
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
België
Top