The French people go to the polls this month to vote on a referendum on the EU Constitution. The proposed constitution would shift power from the parliaments of member states on all issues except defense to an EU bureaucracy that allows input from EU parliamentarians. Its lack of democratic control would redesign Europe, bringing its political system much closer to China and the former Soviet Union.

Surveys showed the likelihood of rejection by the French, but that has recently changed in response to last minute promotional efforts by the government. The most recent survey shows 52 percent in favor of acceptance.

Jacques Chirac’s strategy for gaining acceptance can almost be described as the perfect political crime. He’s fooled the public by sending copies of the constitution to every voter, allowing them to read it and decide for themselves. Certainly only the few most gifted commentators will be able to explain what’s wrong with that.

As a writer, I am always sensitive to the length of my articles. Readers are often pressed for time and if you can’t hold their interest, they won’t finish reading. The proposed EU Constitution is a very long, and very bureaucratic document. Its initial pages contain flowery statements about the objectives of the EU, a legally non-binding set of statements that say what people like to hear that may have been constructed using focus groups.

Chirac responded earlier to criticism by stating that he felt that a last minute response would work better than engaging throughout the debate. The trick is actually easy to understand. If he had confidence that understanding would lead to acceptance, he would have sent copies out months ago, allowing voters time to thoroughly read, understand, analyze, and debate the details.

The government needed less than a 10 percent shift – swing voters in order to tip the scale in favor of acceptance. Chirac seems to have achieved that by understanding that a typical undecided voter is not likely to study and analyze the devilish details of a long, bureaucratic document at the last minute. So the flowery ambiguities of the first few pages have swung voters who do not have the slightest idea what they are really supporting.

The Swedes are used to open government and much more engaging in democratic process than the French. Although party leaders from the right and the left showed strong support for acceptance of the Euro, grass roots opposition from members of all parties won rejection in 2003.

Polls currently show that Swedes oppose acceptance of the proposed constitution, but the Prime Minister, Social Democrat Göran Persson, has rejected all calls for a referendum and supports passage by the parliament instead. Swedish opponents of the constitution won seats in the last European Parliamentary election and will be campaigning in the next national election. Polls are also showing a large drop in support for the Social Democrats and the Prime Minister.

The determination to force acceptance of a political system on a population that does not want it (apparently at any political cost) is being met with another tactic as well. Swedes have been collecting signatures in favor of holding a referendum. More than 120,000 signatures have been collected outside of the Social Democratic Party without influencing the Prime Minister’s position. Now members of the Social Democratic Party have started a petition and are expected to get enough signatures to support an internal vote that may result in a policy shift within the party.

Roger F. Gay