Americans talk about the intent of the "framers of the constitution" in many contexts and to prove many conflicting points. What remains a constant is that they are almost always referred to in reverent tones. The framers may have had historical events on their side, but they were also adept in statecraft. They knew how to write in a voice that would inspire their intended readers and those who would read it for generations to come.
The well-intentioned writers of the 450-page European constitution, which is on the verge of being voted down by the French, have not been so lucky. The "Eurocrats" do not have a momentous historical moment to seize, and have not succeeded in finding the tone or content that would inspire support among the intended beneficiaries.
The French are not known for their "esprit critique" for nothing. A politically mature electorate such as France’s does not jump on every initiative that is touted as a panacea. France showed it was not the 51st state of the United States, for example, by holding firm in its belief that joining the US-led Iraq invasion was wrong.
If the French as a people can be criticized for sometimes being too negative, too cynical, and too resistant to change, they can also be admired for being discerning, analytical, and independent in their decision-making. In the case of the European constitution, the French are showing signs that they will once again assert their independent cast of mind by voting down the referendum. Maybe the problem is not Europe, which the majority of French voters still support, but the document itself. If the French hew to their lack of conviction that this is the document that will create a united and democratic Europe, rather than going along with it for the sake of European unity, maybe the result will be a new constitution that will better reflect the aspirations of the European people.
Comments