Chapter 1: Subjective Figures of the Crisis ... - Negri in English

transcendence of power, must be eliminated.
One could say, in this regard, that an enormous taboo is
being destroyed. For centuries leaders have insisted that
democracy and raison d'etat go hand in hand. Now, instead, the
advent of a real democracy must mean the complete destruction
of raison d'etat. The activities of WikiLeaks and the anonymous
networks that support it, for example, make this abundantly
clear. If the state is not willing to initiate a process of Glasnost,
opening its secret vaults and making transparent its operations,
then these militants will help it do so quickly. This is not just a
matter of blowing the whistle on the greatest abuses of power but
rather insisting on transparency in the regular functioning of
government.
Protection and expression of minorities. The
protection of minorities is a classic constitutional conundrum
that must be addressed by any schema of majority rule. How can
the ruling majority be restrained from oppressing minorities
The classic republican solution is to abrogate majority rule in
certain cases by giving representatives the power of decision
making. For James Madison, for instance, in Federalist 10, the
touchstone for legal discussions of the topic, the protection of
minorities against the majority is a crucial argument against
"pure democracy" and for the rule of representatives. The
developments of the movements have shown us, however, that
the protection of minorities does not require abrogating majority
rule nor does it imply separation in identity groups. Instead, the
relationship of singularities in decision-making processes
provides mechanisms for the inclusion and expression of
differences.
Deciding which minorities to protect in which instances, of
course, requires an ethical and political choice. Not all minorities
in all instances deserve to be shielded from the majority's
decisions. Indeed, most minorities in most cases should be
outvoted. Otherwise, majority rule would be meaningless.
Madison gives two primary' examples of minorities to be
afforded protection, and the difference between them helps
clarify this point. The freedom of religious practice of minorities,
we certainly agree, should be safeguarded against the domination
or coercion of the majority religion. Madison also argues in