Once a slogan associated with the eighteenth century revolutions in America and France resounds in our ears today – or does it?

 

The 144 "Notables," assembled by Louis XVI in 1787 to discuss reforms in France, ultimately led the way toward dismantling royal absolutism. They developed arguments for change that brought about popular demands for representation where financial issues were concerned. Their arguments contrary to royal fiscal proposals, frequently seen as merely a reactionary defense of privilege, in fact gave the country a political programme demanding greater participation in government. Thus, as in America some years earlier, the idea was forged into the democratic political maxim of “no taxation without representation”.

 

In October 2010 on the floor of the European Commission (EC), in Brussels, an articulate, bold and fluent Mr Nigel Farage of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)& Co-President of the EFD group, stood up yet again to upbraid the EU and its President for effectively levying taxation on the peoples of Europe without having a democratic mandate to do so. Among other factors, he accused José Manuel Barroso of trying to impose “taxation without representation”. He has frequently drawn public attention to the fact that Mr Barroso as President of the Commission is unelected by the people of Europe directly but only in reality selected or approved by secret ballot as the unique candidate of choice by the EC. Such observations have been repeated on several occasions. At the time, he was proposing a large direct tax to be levied by the European institution on the peoples of the continent, as a remedy for the ailing economies of the EU.

 

By May 2013 nothing very much has changed for the better. With unemployment at a record high and rising, the situation worsens on a weekly basis. The problem according to Otmar Issing, a former European Central Bank (ECB) board member from Germany, resides in the solutions being proposed to solve the crisis. These, he claimed, would violate the fundamental democratic principles of no taxation without representation."Political union is impossible to achieve within a few years. It cannot be a means of crisis management". (27 May 2013 Financial Times). Does the 10% “savings tax” on banks levied in deeply recessional Cyprus recently form part of this undemocratic model to “crisis management”?

 

Another proponent of the responsibility of governments to respect the liberty of the individual from excessive state interference, that taxation illustrates, is the American Senator Ron Paul. He has unreservedly condemned consecutive US administrations for military overspending and the illegitimacy of direct taxes such as those on income. An immense disservice by the mainstream media has been done to the American and European public by painting him as an irresponsible eccentric. It can be objectively substantiated that state administrations can use indirect tax revenues alone to govern sensibly and that massive government revenues including direct components do not result in greater infrastructural benefits for the people they are supposed to serve.

Judging by the way the EU is currently shifting billions of taxpayers Euros around to “bail out” failing banks and fiscally profligate member states, Senator Paul virtually validates the salient observations he continues to make. He is both frank and perceptive when he claims that excessive government revenue collection leads to disproportionate waste and overspending. Considering US governments have spent over one trillion dollars on military affairs since the Iraq invasion to oust Saddam Hussein, he can justly claim Americans are being taxed without any political representation for their general dissatisfaction with fiscal policies.

 

In France, under the present socialist direction of François Hollande, the question of direct taxation itself is inflammatory. On one side we have those who are being highly taxed on their income over a defined threshold of earnings and, on the other, people who reside in France without necessarily being enfranchised but who still have to pay income tax. Over this complex of personal circumstances stands a government desperate to turn around a long-troubled economy, while at the same time endeavoring to satisfy waning support with continued promises of social equality.

At this juncture, we need to remind ourselves of the so-called trinity of Jacobin rights, “citoyenneté, nationalité, droit de vote” or “citizenship, nationality and the right to vote”. As one aspiring to French citizenship noted in Le NouvelObservateur in 2010, ‘It is impossible to think of one of these hypostases without the two others..hitresunumsint”; these three are one, to use parallel theological language. In other words, the actual concept of a person living like a citizen in France but without the right to vote impinges upon the central theme of our subject here.

 

Nikolas Sarkozy spoke on voting at local elections in Le Monde in 2005. He was in favour of enfranchising those who had been living in France for 10 years, working, paying taxes and integrating into the French system.In stark contrast, however, in November 2011 he had altered his perspective at local election time. His own political party in government was not prepared to shift its position on the issue and Mr Sarkozy reflected his inability to act otherwise when he declared that to allow enfranchisement in this way constituted a risk at a time when the French people needed to come together.

 

In the meantime, the French media and the suffering public have noted those many well-known priviligiés who profit from their star-studded careers and who avoid paying French taxes anyway by living overseas (see Midi Libre 10/09/12). They court both empathy and sharp criticismdepending on how arguments are rationalised. Nevertheless, the fundamental issue remains a constant source of aggravation. The aftermath permits us to wince at the undemocratic flavour of cynicism as we watch politicians, urged on by unelected financial advisors, deciding how to spend the fruits of our labour without any reference to us. It is also an incitement to protestagainst this contravention ofwidely espoused eighteenth century principles upon which our political systems are founded.