Ivan Krastev: Can democracy exist without trust?

Five great revolutions have shaped political culture over the past 50 years, says theorist Ivan Krastev. He shows how each step forward -- from the cultural revolution of the '60s to recent revelations in the field of neuroscience -- has also helped erode trust in the tools of democracy. As he says, "What went right is also what went wrong." Can democracy survive?

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, global issues, the arts and more. Find closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages at http://www.ted.com/translate.

Follow TED on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/tednews
Like TED on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TED


If you have questions or comments about this or other TED videos, please go to http://support.ted.com

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[88Keyz102]

Democracy isn't advantageous if a voter can only vote for a few narrow undesired choices.

[JZGreenline]

I watched this video 4 days ago and @ the time I said I did not get anything out of what he said. One commenter told me I need to re-watch. And I have to agree this is a great speech.

What he is saying for every action there is a reaction, and for every good there is an evil. And I see this now. Consequently for all the bad there is some good. I think finding hope out of this very pessimistic speech is exactly what Krastev wanted from us.

[shmufle]

if ppl are stupid, democracy doesn't work

[thrivesurvive]

If we get money out of politics and stop gerrymandering, democracy can work.

[wINNIEbOS]

what is the book he's talking about? I can't quite figure it out.

[thernr]

The problem: Corporation are people, and have rights (they have free-Speech), but not responsibilities (e.g. if it causes murder it can't get life sentence).

[DaD3VIL07]

"Very true but, direct democracy tends to be biased towards the favor of the majorities vs. the minorities". This is a very common criticism of direct democracy, but when you add the principle of free association - where individuals can form groups freely (and conversely, leave freely) then your criticism becomes a lot less relevant. I can't disassociate myself from my state, but with a direct democracy & free association I could do so from any groups I would be a part of.

[gorrellp]

Very true but, direct democracy tends to be biased towards the favor of the majorities vs. the minorities, hence here in America where I live we would have had a hard time abolishing things such as slavery and the rights of women. Hence we have to trust a fewer group to make decisions based on the common standing (Representative Democracy).

[DaD3VIL07]

Notice that all discussion of "democracy" falls within electoral governance. They daren't mention federated direct democracy (actual democracy, you know, where the people rule.)

[laguna888888]

the pesimists, the optimists and the Bulgarains!?

[VoiceOfAleppo]

great talk