Do we need a World Constitution?
The question of a World Constitution has two sides, because any constitution wants to be a real instrument of positive law. That is why one has to ask firstly the following questions: 1) Who could introduce such a constitution? 2) Would such a centralist judicial instrument really be desirable?
The efforts of the ATTAC-movement over many years made clear that even the world wide introduction of a tax on foreign exchange dealings and financial speculation (the so called “TOBIN-TAX”) is illusory. The introduction of such a tax is however in comparison with the introduction of a World Constitution and its realization (which supposes a WORLD GOVERNMENT) a triviality.
Perhaps we have to think about totally new forms of regulation, about an intelligent AUTOPOIESIS (self generation) after the creation of non hierarchic NETWORKS of theorists and activists on the international level and after cerebral investigation found out – much to their dismay – that the human brain does not function in a hierarchical, but in a decentralized way and as a network.
The fact that the State (in Europe) up to now guaranteed social standards and rights does not mean that this model could be transferred to the world as a whole, and that – if this possibly existed – this would be desirable, because a World State would include a centralist concentration of power to which there would not be any counter balance and therefore any control.
The opposite model to a World State would be a heterogeneous NETWORK that through the means of Campaigns and single projects would have a certain impact, a network however that would not be above that what it seeks to influence and that takes into account the possibility of its own errors. This would result in a decentralized NETWORK that consists of different single initiatives (that under some circumstances could be organized under one roof organization), it would result in a structure of organization which are no longer based on common ideology, a common social status or a common origin. That would result in a model of interventions, the hereby connected heterogeneous theoretical DISCOURSE and investigation and no longer in any form of government.
The consent on a probable constitution and its realization are two problems, which together do not weigh heavier but less heavy. That means both of them have to be considered together right from the beginning. We do not think, however, that the implementation of a World Constitution could be forced (and we even doubt if this was desirable), but we hold the conviction that the public DISCOURSE about a World Constitution in which as many people as possible should be included – would be a movement in the right direction. This Discourse should happen throughout all groups and classes and especially include the MINORITIES (Deleuze), which means the many and the SPECIAL (the invisible who do not possess any form of representation).
It cannot be that some left wing intellectuals-to which we probably have to count ourselves – constitute “basic laws for all” and define by that WHERE and WHO will get rights and when the rights will be again taken from him or her. Instead the discourse about a World Constitution – that means about the question of how (pathetically formulated) mankind could organize itself - should be carried into all areas. Each single “paragraph” (if something like this has to exist) should therefore be generated in an open communicative process and be recycled into it again. This would be a permanent circulation between rather intellectual circles (who would have to take care for the international communication by the net) and the non represented: the SPECIAL and local.
The possible effect of such a “constitution“ would then no longer be situated in its real juridical implementation but in a vivid discourse. How could this look like in reality? The globality of a social movement should recur to the local, to the discourses, to the conflicts and emancipation fights which happen every day in the most different places and groups . These real happening discourses should not be allowed to come to word uncensored . Allowing the non represented to come to word does not mean to write about them and to summon up situations and utterances, but “come to word” has to be understood literally and cannot mean something else than including oral speeches. According to our experience AUDIO is preferable to Video because without picture the image of social classification functions less strong and especially the friend-enemy differentiation can easier be avoided.
In the very beginning of this discourse process would stand the collection of self descriptions of social movements, of production and living-conditions, for actually those life-worlds should be given the word whose problems should be solved with the help of the instrument of World Constitution. The first paragraphs which would result in this way should be fed back in to the discourse. In fact one would have to work with operative rules in order to overcome our own functional prejudices. What would it be like if we (the reader and we, writing this) would move, a recording device in our hands, to a place chosen at random and if we would design the first paragraphs of a World Constitution and discuss it together with the five first persons passing by? The audio-tracks, generated in this way, should then be made available to the local public, respectively, globally through the NET, through free radio stations or AUDIO installations. These audio tracks could then build the starting point of discussions. These discussions could again in form of audio recording (which are played in the places of origin) or in form of interview questions be carried back into the life-world etc. etc.
In this way a “Poly log“ could be generated which would no longer be put into a hierarchic order – that means that not only “recording from the life-world" is commented on by intellectuals – but in which a structure of mutuality is generated, in which in the opposite way the intellectual discourse is commented and criticized by “the (man on the) street”.
One of the first requirements in which certain circles here in Europe could agree is the general freedom of movement and the freedom of communication. One could think of implying the above proposed technique and ask persons, chosen at random, the question if a human basic right should exist to move freely on our planet.
We would however from the beginning advise against big words, festivals and programmatic in a World Constitution. Whoever creates an ABOVE – the person of respect, the meaningful scripture – also always creates a BELOW by doing this. This has an aesthetic dimension, too, and this can be fed back to the forms used: Documents like e-mails and bits and pieces of thoughts would fit better (than elaborate books) because with their help the intellectual community and the non represented would come to their rights also on the formal level.
From the same author:
![[MAILTO]](?source=moinmoin&mode=attachment&uri=%2Fwiki%2Frightsidebar%2Fimg%2Fmoin-email.png){kind=small}
hello@zgberlin.com
