The U.S. Congress had ruled that a referendum be held in the District of Columbia, seat of the federal Capital, Washington (one of the 15 legislatures which have still not reinstated capital punishment after it was suspended in 1972), to coincide with the presidential elections, on the reinstatement of the death penalty on that territory. We are connected live from Spain with Fernando Savater, pre-eminent philosopher, political analyst and opinion-maker for "EL PAIS", who has kindly accepted to answer a few questions for Radio Radicale.

- The referendum is apparently the supreme ritual of democracy. However, do you really believe that the referendum is a valid formula to decide on matters such as human rights?

- No. I believe democracy is based on the rule of the majorities vis-à-vis certain issues: electing the representatives, confirming a series of concrete civil laws, etc. On the other hand, there are other fundamental issues, issues of principle, which represent the basis itself of democracy; human rights and the like must be subtracted to these mechanisms. What I mean to say is, I don't think it is possible to use the principle of the majorities for matters of principle which are intrinsic in a real, advanced and enlightened democracy. The death penalty in that case becomes a barbaric ritual, a demonstration of atavistic fear, prior to the existence of individual rights and guaranties. Therefore, I do not believe it can be submitted to a vote.

The same concept applies to a referendum which aims, for example, to deprive a racial minority, or women or other categories, of their right to vote. This is not democratic. Therefore, I think the rule of the majority should not apply to matters of principle such as the death penalty.

- In your opinion, is there an alternative to the death penalty, to curb crime? In other words, is there a valid alternative to the law of retaliation, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?

- Absolutely. First of all, because the death penalty has not proved to be an effective means. Obviously, I would oppose the death penalty even if it had revealed effective in preventing crime, socially speaking. However, the point is that this is not the case. Countries which apply the death penalty have extremely high crime rates. The United States itself, for example. Therefore, I believe there are other means: prison, and in the context of prison, the re-education and rehabilitation of the inmates. Also, social prevention, avoiding, as far as possible, situations of alienation, unemployment, dejection, lack of education, etc. These are the main causes for crimes. I believe the penalties which society can inflict on a person who commits a crime should aim to improve the individual and uphold his rights, and not just to protect society. Obviously, the death penalty does not serve these purposes.

- Lastly, the Radical Party has promoted an Appeal endorsed by intellectuals and politicians, which states that the use of the referendum to reinstate the death penalty is purely demagogic.

Do you share this view?

- According to what I said before, yes. I think this is a concession to society's reactionary and atavistic forces and fears. People prefer to adopt brutal measures rather than try to understand the problems deep down. In this case, the death penalty is nothing but a concession which has the purpose of leaving problems as they are. And probably of increasing the crimes which the State will commit against the criminals themselves, as well as the ones committed by the criminals.

- Would you be willing to sign this appeal? In fact, will you sign it?

- Absolutely. As I said before, I agree, and will sign the manifesto.

- This concludes our interview for Radio Radicale. Thank you very much.