 Felly, yn fwy gweithio, ddweud â'i gweithio fyddion, mae'n gwneud o'r program o television, ac mae'r hashtag, ddyn ni'n gweithio, i gael gwneudio'n gwneudio'n gweld ym mwy o'r wneud, which you either want to say yourself or you would like to just put into the mix for the speakers to correspond to. That is a hashtag leadership in crisis. Bear that in mind if you want to tweet. Annemarie, rydw i'n deall, i ddim yn gwneud, becaw mae roedden nhw'n gweithredu. mae'n ddweud ychydig i ddechrau y ffordd o'r pwynt yn gweld. Dyna'r ffDaig, y cyfnod ymlaenio cyfnod ar ein bod yn ddiddordeb yn yn ôl i'r cyhoesio'r cyhoesio cyfnod. A dyna'r sphysgau o'r perddwyr o'r ddechrau debyg o'r Ocsford, mae'n ddweud yw'r ddweud yw'r ddweud, mae'n ddweud ystod ysgrifennu ac mae'r dros oedd Mr Barosso yn gweithio ar gyfer hyn, ..daw'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. I hope I'm being fair to you, but he has some very important points... ..that he would like to make. So please use your mobile device and please vote. Can I assume that everyone has now voted or is voting? I'd like you all to introduce yourselves. Annmarie. I'm Annmarie Slaughter. I'm the President and CEO of New America... ..which is a think tank in civic enterprise in Washington and New York. I'm a Princeton Professor Emerita of Politics and International Affairs. Where is your cadenas? I'm the Minister of Finance and Public Credit of Colombia. I'm an economist. I have been minister several times. And I worked at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. for a number of years, too. Moses Knighting. I'm a senior fellow, a distinguished fellow, actually. I'm the Garnig Endowment for International Peace, which is a think tank in Washington. Finally, Jose Manuel Barroso, we all know what you have been doing, but what are you doing now? I have been 10 years now leading the European Commission, and in fact now I'm giving courses and conferences. I will be associated to two universities, but it's not yet a formal decision to be announced very soon. You've got 50 minutes and you can make the announcement at the end of the session, if you want. Thank you very much indeed. I hope I've made clear the slight hovering on the fence that you are doing today, but you have some important contributions. I'm now closing the vote, so if you haven't voted, tough for the moment, but you will need that device later on. I now have a picture of the room and the way you are thinking. I would now like to ask Anne-Marie Slaughter to speak for the motion. You have five minutes, Anne-Marie. Great. Thank you. I actually thought the motion was simply public leadership is failing. I was prepared to argue that, not simply failing to deliver social cohesion and stability. Let me start by saying I define public leadership for these purposes as government leadership. I'm going to argue that government leadership is unquestionably failing to deliver social cohesion or much else. I'm going to start with the United States because it's a very easy case. In the United States, what are we grappling with right now? A racial divide and a class divide, the likes of which we have not seen for decades. We should be having a national dialogue about race, class, and justice. We are not. We are seeing demonstrations. We are hearing different views through media, but we're not having a national conversation. Second example I will give is infrastructure. We have two transportation systems. One for the wealthy who have private jets or very nice accommodations and have fast track through the long lines that everybody else has to go through. The other on trains that are honestly would embarrass a developing country. Trains that let the snow in, trains that are never on time, buses. We have two different experiences. That's a very important part of social cohesion. When you have two different experiences on something as basic as getting to work or travelling, that's very bad. The third thing I would say is we have a broken political system. Apathy is unbelievably high. Congressional ratings are in single digits. Basically the country believes that the political system is broken and yet we are unable to fix it. And majorities, wide, large majorities agree. So in three areas we are divided increasingly by race, by class, by the inability to actually fix our own problems. So let me give my last two points on the global public leadership since we are at Davos. And I would say global public leadership is equally failing. It is failing first to reform institutions that date from 1945. I keep wondering are we going to be in 2045 and we are going to still have the winners of World War II running the world with vetoes on the security council? Really? But we are incapable of actually reforming those institutions, which means the vast majority of the world's population is not represented, which of course does not foster cohesion. And the last thing I will say is we have a global financial system that invests in instability. We know that large asset managers, sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, they benefit enormously from stability and predictability. They are long-term investors and you can do the numbers, the differences between stable investments and instability are the difference between 45% return and 18%. And yet we have no mechanism for corralling investment in long-term stability, in long-term governance, in long-term civil society. So I will conclude by saying the governments of the world are starting to do something about social impact investing, but the real public leadership we need is not simply the governments. It is all of you. It is the heads of sovereign wealth funds and pension funds and major asset managers coming together and investing in impact investing, development finance, civil society funding, the kind of thing that would invest in long-term stability and cohesion in different countries, but that global leaders are not doing. I very much hope private leaders will. Thank you, Ann-Marie. The first five minutes exactly from Ann-Marie Slaughter for the motion. I will be coming to the floor for 30 minutes afterwards to hear your views for and against. It would be great to know which side of the fence you are on or whether the argument is shifting you as well. Let's now move to the first view against Maurizio Cardenas. The floor is yours for five minutes. Well, thank you. Let me make a case for why I think it is not a valid proposition that public leadership is failing. As a general proposition, it is wrong, because not everywhere in the world that's the case. So let's not answer this question just with the view of Europe or the US. Let's take a broader perspective and let's think about public leadership in other parts of the world. Let me begin with the case of my country, Colombia. Colombia has been in a conflict for over 50 years, a conflict that is well known to the world. President Santos is now leading a peace process which takes a lot of courage. There are lots of people against the peace process. It takes courage because it's changing the status quo. It's about negotiating peace. That, to me, is leadership in action, not in crisis. Think of Colombia, for example, a long-standing problem in equality and poverty, well-thought and well-implemented decisions that have the courage of raising taxation amongst the reach, expanding social programs with a clear liberal conscience, reducing inequality and reducing poverty, spending your political capital on tax reform to do that, and designing the adequate social policies takes leadership, and that's leadership in action. That's not just Colombia. Actually, I arrived late, I was in a panel outside the congress hall with the minister, the new minister of finance from Brazil. Before he came to Davos, he announced that to get the Brazilian economy back on track, to get it growing again, there is need for additional taxes in Brazil. There is need for action on the fiscal expenditure side, which consumes political capital. That, to me, is leadership. Or think of President Peña Nieto in Mexico. Everyone thought that it was impossible to implement a set of reforms like the one-day adopter, especially on the energy side, competition, and the Mexican government was able to pass all that package through Congress. That, to me, is leadership in action. So let's not answer this question. I'm asking here the voters. With an Eurocentric perspective, let's think of what's going on, what's happening in the emerging world. One of the reasons why the emerging world is doing well is because there is leadership. So let's not confuse more democracy, more participation, which is what we're seeing now in the world as a whole, with lack of leadership. I think it's just the opposite. It's more participation, more democracy, puts more challenges on leadership, but it does not undermine leadership. I think it actually expands and promotes leadership. That will be my argument against... You have two more minutes if you want. Well, I'll use them later, if possible. I can take them. This is not a negotiation, Moises. Thank you very much indeed. Let's get the second voice for the motion. Moises' name. Five minutes. Thank you. I am in favour of the motion that public leadership is failing because I am in favour of the motion that says that leadership is failing, not just in the public sector, but in the private sector is failing, in the media, in multilateral organisations, in big religion, in big NGOs. So there is a generalized failing. Both failing in terms of performance failings, both failings compared to what's needed and compared to what's expected. Expectations for a variety of reasons that include globalisation, information and all that we know, expectations are soaring and it's making it very hard for governments to satisfy those expectations. We know that. That's a very old story in which the expectations and aspirations of populations are growing at a faster rate than the capacity of governments to satisfy them. But I have a broader perspective on this because when we speak about leadership, in fact, leadership is about power. You want a leader and the leader, you want to have power to do things. And I wrote a book titled The End of Power. In that book, I argue that power is becoming very different in the 21st century. Power is not just shifting from regions and social sectors and actors, but power is also decaying. And my definition of decay in that aspect is that power has become easier to acquire, harder to use and easier to lose. Power has become more ephemeral. And power is especially limited to those in government and to those in multilateral organisations and supranational bodies. They are constrained and they leave their habitat, their ecosystem, is an ecosystem of constraints and limits that despite the courageous efforts of ministers like Minister Cardenas, who I admire and I know his work and others that he has mentioned and other leaders, they are facing huge obstacles that limit their actions. And that has a lot to do with the fact that we have not seen innovation in the public sector and government. We live in a world in which we are surrounded by innovation since we wake up in the morning until we go to bed at night. Everything we do from the way we brush our teeth to the way we eat, the way we date, the way we shop, the way we travel has been transformed by innovation. Everything has changed except the way we govern ourselves. There's taught us stagnation in the way in which we govern ourselves. And that stagnation is the one that yields the gap between expectations and need and performance. And I will just finish by saying that one area that needs dire attention and urgent attention to solve the problem, that I think we all agree that this is not a desirable condition, has to do with an institution that is deeply discredited around the world but it's very needed and that is political parties. So if there is a need, there is a need. Everybody dislikes political parties that have seen us, exclusionary, oligarchic, corrupt, old, slow-moving and untouchable. But we need political parties for democracies. We cannot have a democracy based on NGOs, on movements, on sentiments, on cathartic marches that go in the streets and end up in nothing. We need political parties that are capable of taking the energies and the expectations of the populations and converting them into action plans for governments. Llywydd, naeim, thank you very much indeed. I'm proposing, Minister Cardenas, to offer you another two minutes after we've heard from Mr Barroso. Then you can push the case against. And we look forward to your nuanced view for or against. But you're sitting sort of on the against side. Does he remember Barroso? The floor is yours. I was indeed very surprised because, in fact, preparing this, I sent and sent a message saying that I do not agree to take position against the motion. My vision is much more nuanced and I said, for me the crucial point are the conditions and constraints that public leaders face nowadays. So if you ask me immediately, is public leadership failing because these public goods are in crisis? Of course these public goods are in crisis. Social collision and stability. So we should put the responsibility, prima facie, on leadership. Leaders are responsible. This is obvious. I would say too obvious. The real problem is the problem that I think now Mois naeim mentioned. It's a more general problem. And that will be the proposition I would like to agree with. It is the forms of power, the nature and the quality of power has changed dramatically. And today leadership faces completely new challenges than before. And this is the important point. And that's what I can bring I think useful to our debate based not on such important academic work like some of you have done, but on my practice of these 10 years leading European Commission and before 12 years international government including Prime Minister. It's completely different. Today's decision making, and I can tell you on the financial crisis, has nothing to do with what was for instance in Europe. I was at that time a very young foreign minister participating in the European Council with Jacques Delors, with Francois Mitterrand, with Helmut Kohl. Sometimes we tend to idealize the past to believe the problem now is with leaders. But decisions at that time between 12 of us and today between 28. And the way globalization has changed the nature of power, the speed of decision, the news cycle 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The pressure, the overload on political leaders is completely different. The power has changed. In fact today there is less power. I will not say if I can say the end of power, but at least less power in the sense that there is less effective power. And that brings a legitimacy problem because citizens think in democracies we have elected those guys to do something and they are not able to do it. I'm not speaking about Europe because that's an experience I can share with you. Many of the problems cannot be solved at national level. Even the biggest and the more important governments on their own they have not all the instruments to solve the problems. So there are no longer the instruments at the national level but they are not yet at the supranational level. And behind that transition phase. So it's a much more complex issue. That's why I told you I'd like, I know it's more sexy to move forward or against. I know it's much more attractive. But sometimes life is complex. And I think we are not making a service to leadership today if you just say that leadership is failing because in that case we are underestimating the fact that Mr Carden has said that they are good and bad leadership. That's an important point. Secondly, we are in a way putting the blame on leadership. And I don't think it is fair to put the blame on leadership. The conditions are now much more complex. So yes, there are leaders who are able to respond, others who are not able to respond. There are problems of responsibility there. But I think the problem, I repeat, is much more general, has to be with the new constraints, the new conditions of exercising power in the age of globalization, with profound changes not only in the economy, in the finance, but in the cultural and also in the attitudes towards democracy. Mr Porosso, thank you very much indeed. I do think you're shifting on that side of the divide, if I may say, even though you're disputing the motion because you're saying there are good reasons why public leadership now is having major challenges to deliver social cohesion and stability. So I'm edging you in that direction without asking for a commitment at this stage. Minister Cardenas, take two more minutes to argue your case. I think we should not again confuse the fact that we live in a more democratic society, that there is more participation, that power is more fragmented with the concept that leadership is in crisis. I think one does not lead to the other. We could say, and I could agree, that exercising leadership is more difficult, is more challenging, but the fact that there is more participation, that more people want to have a voice, that leaders have to take into account more forces and more complex dynamics does not mean that leadership is in crisis. It means that exercising true and effective leadership requires more skills, but the argument as it has been proposed that leadership is in crisis I think is wrong, and let me repeat it again. Even in societies like ours, like Colombia, a more educated population, access to the social networks, more channels to express participation and to express points of view, you can exercise effective leadership. Of course, it's more demanding. It's not what it used to be. It requires a new set of skills. You have to be connected with the population. You have to be participating and engaged in the debate, but let me put it in a way that I think encapsulates the concept. More fragmentation of power requires more leadership in each segment, in the people that are exercising the right to protest, in the traditional political parties, in the media, there is more leadership. This has not meant in any way a reduction in leadership. There is, I guess, more competition for leadership, but not that leadership is in crisis and that we have set more limits to the exercise of power. That's true, but that does not mean that there is no leadership. Thank you very much indeed. We have just over 30 minutes to run. I have some messages here. How many people would like to join the discussion and I'm going to put a limit of one minute on any intervention from the floor? It would be very helpful as well to know which way you're currently voting. Over here, do we have microphones? A microphone? Are there microphones? I think so. Please. One microphone there and another there. While the microphones go, let me give you an idea of the kind of comments we've been getting from Victor Santos, one of the reasons, the emerging, and another one over here, please. Over here, someone over here. One of the reasons the emerging world is doing well is leadership. Bruno Berthyn is leadership failing, or public leadership failing everywhere, or only in developed markets and democracies. Are we powerless? And one other from lunatics. Leadership is needed everywhere desperately. We are to stand up and take the lead on issues in our local communities now. Let me get many more reactions from the floor, and I may be asking who's for, who's against. So if you want to declare which side you're on, it would be helpful because then I can keep balance in the argument, please first. Nick, it's not as simple as to for or against the motion. What I see from the... So you're not going to vote at all? I will, and by the end of the debate, but I'm more moving towards against the motion. Here's why, because first of all social cohesion needs to be defined in different degrees, because in the developed world, versus the developing world, there are two different chapters altogether. In the developed world, we see the problem being more between the have and have lots, whereas in the developing world, it's more between the have and have nots. So that cohesion needs to be addressed first. Like if you look at India, where I come from. In many centuries ago, the caste system provided a social cohesion where people knew exactly where they are coming from. That has been replaced today by a new order which is not so well-defined. That is why there is a certain degree of turmoil. Now, coming to leadership. Leadership under its current democratic abilities in the developing world I think is doing fairly well. We have moved from a long-term government of one single family party into three decades of coalition governments, and back into, after three decades, a single party majority. What that defines clearly is the evolution of change. Thank you. I'm going to be quite tough, please. Pass the microphone on to someone else. There's a lady over there who's got the microphone here. Please. Which way are you voting at the moment? Or are you hovering still? I am voting four, but it's not only the fault of leadership. We're dealing with radically changing population shifts all around the world. I think they're predicting by 2020, and my math might be wrong, but that more than 250 million people will not be living in the place of their origin, which is going to present enormous challenges to leaders all around the world, whether it's through food issues, water issues, climate degradation, lack of employment, et cetera. So, how do we define this notion of social inclusion? I'm not even sure what it means, truly. Also, how do we look to local levels of leadership to inspire our big national leaders? All right, fine. I'm going to ask you to respond to anything in three or four more interventions, and at the end, at like a minute, winding up and I'll be coming in reverse order for your reflections on the debate to somehow persuade one way or the other. You have the microphone, I hope, and at the back, we have two more here, please. Go ahead. Herminie Ibarra from INSED Business School. Which way are you moving? I forgot which is for and against. I believe public leadership is failing. You're for the motion. For the motion. There's very clear evidence that trust in public leadership has been dropping and continues to drop, and that is just about everywhere. And the comment I wanted to add to that is that a lot of times the debate about leadership is because people define it differently. If you, Marisio, define it as the acts of heroic single individuals, of course we can find many examples, but what we're lacking is institutional leadership, collaborative, distributed, such that we can change the institutions that several of you on the panel have rightly noted have decayed almost beyond repair. Thank you. David Totey, are you in the room somewhere? Yep. Can I get the microphone to you, because you've sent me a couple of tweets. No, no, keep the microphone there. Get this microphone over there, please. Thanks. Nelson Cunningham. Which way are you moving? I'm for the motion. My question for the group is, how much of this is structural? You know, in my own country, the United States, famously we built separation of powers into our constitution, which was designed to slow decision making. It was designed to ensure that we didn't rush one direction too quickly. Parliamentary systems operate differently. A prime minister, by definition, has at least a working majority in his or her parliament. Do we see a difference in systems? Is one structure better? Is a dictatorship better at providing the kind of leadership we need? Is a benign dictatorship, like Singapore, better than a democracy, or a presidential democracy, or a parliamentary democracy? Question mark. They do have multi-party voting in Singapore. Right, let's just pick up on those points. Mr Borosso, do you want to pick up? I can react already, because I think that's the important and a very interesting issue. First of all, I don't agree with generalizations. And I think it's completely incorrect and inadequate to say, in general, the developed world or emerging economies. Emerging economies have very different situations. They have great cases of success and we have great failures as well. And so I think we should try to avoid this kind of simplifications. The question, in fact, of speed. It's very important. But this one about structure. Structure and speed, because, look, one of the problems we have learned during the financial crisis is that the speed of democracy is, of course, not so big at the speed of markets. And so democracies, by definition, they take time. Not a complex system like the European Union today with 28 countries, 19 countries in Europe, by definition takes time. So certainly more time than a totalitarian regime. Not only the European Union, the United States, the fiscal cliff. It was paralysis in the administration in the United States. Or in Belgium, it's just a country that took more than one year to form a government. More than one year to form a government. But now the question, what is the alternative? This is the point. Do we want a centralized system that dictates someone that imposes? I continue to think that democracy, with all its imperfections, is better and in the long term provides more stability and effective responses. Let me keep your focus on leadership and the ability of leadership to handle this enormous change. Anne-Marie Slaughter. So I have to say, listening to Minister Cardenas, that you persuaded me that we are defining it too broadly, that absolutely in Colombia and Mexico and many countries around the world, there are examples of public leadership making a difference. And so I do think we should be looking at the developed world and the developing world or just more broadly specific countries rather than making that divide. But what I would say, and somebody tweeted, they disagreed with me because I'm describing public leadership only in terms of government. I take that for the purpose of the resolution. So I just say what that says. For Mohammed al-Sihi, I disagree with Slaughter. She blames government leaders, I think private sector leaders are not doing enough social responsibility. So I want to speak to that. So I think part of the answer to the structural problem is that private leaders and social leaders have to think of themselves much more as public leaders so that the examples where we are addressing major public problems. So take the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, these large coalitions where you put private corporate leaders, civil society leaders and government leaders together in a way that can be much more nimble. Now, it generally isn't passing laws. So one of the questions is, is governance really changing in such a way that the old model of you pass a law and you implement it simply is not going to be fast enough? Maurizio Cadena's. Well, structure and speed. Structure, speed and what it takes to exercise effective leadership. I don't think it's heroic. I don't think it's something you have to do breaking the rules of the system. You can operate within the system and exercise effective leadership. What is the system? Well, I agree with Mr Barroso in the sense that we have no formal government that is better than democracy. I think Churchill has not been proved wrong and it's been almost 50 years. But he got voted out of power having succeeded in the war. But he didn't change his mind. So I think we're working under the framework of democracy and no one is talking about exercising leadership in dictatorships or using other type of institutions. Think for a minute about a different form of leadership. We're talking here about national government. But think about mayors. Have mayors lost leadership? Have they lost leadership? I don't think so. I don't think so. Mayors are still as important or even more. The thing is that people understand the limits to the power of a mayor. So let's not judge leadership by what leaders cannot do. Let's judge leaders by what they can do under the rules of the game. This is Naeem. First, of course democracy is superior and even dictatorships are now facing many of the constraints we are discussing. Structure and speed. Even dictators are having problems with structure and speed. Two small points. One, to the point of the leaders that are achieving things, we have that list and it is a very good and long list. But we also have a list of the leaders that are not doing well. Leaders in Argentina, Venezuela and Russia in parts of Asia are not the kinds of leaders that you would admire or that you would say that they are delivering social cohesion, stability and so on. In terms of democracy, I wanted to just point out that there is a generalisation that one can make, Mr Barroso. And that is that democracies around the world are becoming increasingly Italian. Global politics around the world democracies are becoming Italian in the sense that in Italy they overdoze on checks and balances. In terms that in Italy you cannot get anything done because there is such a proliferation of veto powers of centres even individuals or groups or entities. Are you saying that leadership is in crisis always in Italy because of the system? Yes, I'm saying that and I'm saying that the world is looking like that and the fiscal cliff and the shutdown of the US government, a government that was unable to pass a budget for several years. Why was that? Well, because the United States, like all the democracies, has gone into this situation in which you have plenty of actors, of protagonists that are more, but each one has just enough power to block and not enough players have enough power to impose their view. And that creates the paralysis and then that speaks with decisions that are late in coming, that are deluded, that they appeal to the minimum common denominator and don't get the job done. Right, we have 15 minutes to run on this open segment. I should say in the interest of balance and impartiality, Alexander Black has tweeted and Marie Slaughter talks sense. Right, let's now move on with David Turdy. The reason I'm asking, you've actually made two contributions, but particularly asking the question, hasn't the nature of true leadership changed from positional power to the ability to inspire and lead others? Right, and my point, firstly, I am the affirmative. I think governments have failed, but I also agree that private sector has failed, I think the social sector has failed, and I think that leadership at its very core has changed. It's no longer, we expect too much of individuals, we must change what we believe leadership really is, which is about good ideas, inspiration and bringing people with us. And I think it transcends political systems as well. And I think what we have is a vast abyss, a vacuum around people willing to speak up for what they believe in. And we must use digital and social ways to engage with people in a new way. And I think that is fundamentally at the issue around a new type of leadership that's emerging around the world. Successfully or not? I think with mixed... Struggling. Okay, please. Who else would like to come in? Let me get the microphone. Over here, there's a lady sitting behind Moses. Please. Hi. Just wanted to check... Which way are you thinking? Pro. The question is very, very simple. Is the concept of leadership different from different societies which are in their own evolution cycle? The reason why I'm asking this, if I look at this panel, it looks to me like a Eurocentric or a America-centric panel. I don't see any Asian voice there, or if you can give some examples of comparing Asia versus the US. Any examples? Could you think of any? I have to say, I agree with you, and I think, I will venture that if one of us were Chinese, they would be much more likely to vote against the resolution. In other words, I do think the Chinese government is perceived as delivering public services, infrastructure, many of the things I said far more effectively, not just Singapore, because Singapore... Not that they would be happy with everything, but I do think, in part, this is a crisis of democracy. I prefer democracy without question, but I think that's a fair argument. Because Xi Jinping wouldn't talk about a leadership crisis at the moment, would he, in China? Is there anyone from China who'd like to represent the Chinese view or to speak against the motion? Now that I have just spoken for the Chinese view... I'm willing to take any voice from anywhere. Anything else you'd like to pick up on that particular question? OK. The question... I can say one thing about that. When you speak about Europe, or the United States, but now speak about Europe, the question we have to ask in that case is the following. The following question is a provocative one. So do we want a Chinese model for Europe? That's the point. And I don't think there is Europeans that want a Chinese model to Europe. So that's the point. So it's very easy to say that leadership is more efficient in some other systems, but afterwards we have to ask, do we want that kind of leadership? And I don't think, I don't know any public in Europe today that pretends to have a Chinese model of leadership in Europe. Without the information rights of trade unions. We have to discuss with trade unions. Of course there are strikes, but do you prefer the opposite? That's the question. All right. But what about publics in Africa? Excuse me? What about publics in Africa? In other words, that there are publics in other countries that would look at how China's developed and would look at the crisis in Europe and the US and maybe think this is a way of government that gets things done. That's why I think it's important to make the point that leadership are not always... that leadership matters, that are good and bad cases of leadership. Right. Let's get two more views, please. There's a lady behind Moises. I'm sorry, I can't see you. I'm Mary Galadiam, a global shaper from the Washington DC hub. Which way are you thinking? I think I'm against the motion. Tell us your reason. Can you live in Washington? I know. I know. I know. But I actually... I've been convinced through this conversation. I know. We can fight about it later. Mary, don't influence the vote in that way. Hold it. So I actually have evolved over the course of this conversation and I think the reason is we are at this moment defining leadership as the way people feel and what they can see. The reason leadership seems to be working in the developing world is because people can actually see the road being built. They can see the schools being built. There's a thing they can touch. Their lives are markedly different in a way that they can put a case around. Whereas in the United States, in the developing world, it seems as though leadership is much more ephemeral, right? Barack Obama signs an executive agreement that means at some point in the next 6 to 12 months, maybe, 500 or 50,000 more people will have access to a set of visas in a lottery system that's really complicated. So they can no longer do the connection between my mother gets to come to the United States and stay because of that signature. In the way that in China, while I would never want the Chinese system, I can see my kids get to go to a school that didn't exist 20 years ago on a road that I can drive on because I now have enough money to do that. So I think I'm on the I'm against for that reason. OK, right. But would you like to repeat your facial expression at the end? Probably not right now. Pass the microphone back to Michael and then to Mabel, please. Introduce yourself if you want. I'm Mabel and I do think that our leaders are failing us. And I'm expressly worried about the fact that it seems that the whole values framework, which I think ultimately our leaders need to defend just as equality, compassion. I mean, there are very few leaders who are standing up for it and guiding us. But I also wonder then, isn't it that when the leaders fill the people, aren't the people supposed to make the leaders lead? And to which extent are we responsible ourselves for not demanding better leadership and making sure that we get it? How do you do that? I guess voting for less mediocre leaders, you know. That's the point. Enjoying political parties. For the political parties. Minister, let me just ask you. I mean, would you like to respond to that directly? I mean, you are serving minister sitting here on this platform. Voting for less mediocre leaders. That's making a very significant judgment about the way people see leaders in the way that they don't understand necessarily the challenges that someone like you is now facing. I think the way to deal with that, if the idea is to elect better leaders, is to have better elections. Elections where there is more information, where you really get a sense of what the platforms are, of where you really have the elements to exercise your vote with the conscious and the information that it requires. I would agree that political parties play a very important role. It is of the essence of the democratic system. So, but electing better leaders, I think, talks more about the elections than leaders. And maybe we have to do something about elections. Can I come in? Please. Just a very important point that was made. The question I want to put to complicate things further is the following. But why is it happening now? I mean, is that because the leaders today are less compassionate than before, they are more stupid than before, they are more incompetent than before? It's true, as was said by one of the participants, that empirical data confirms that there is a crisis of leadership in the sense of the people in advanced democracies tend to trust less leaders at the national level, at the European level, and at the global level. If you ask people about the efficiency of the United Nations or the IMF, if you ask people about the efficiency of the European Union, if you ask people about the government and the parties, the parties in Europe, in the Eurobarometers we have, people they have mistrust about institutions at the European level, but they have even much more mistrust in general about their national or party leaders. Is it because the public is now much better informed? Partly. Electronically and digitally. Partly. So my point is the following. It is not because the quality of leaders suddenly became completely different. It's because the nature of power has changed dramatically. And I think we should pay attention and discuss this, because if not what we are going to do, and I'm going to use a word that was not yet used today, is that we are going to fuel to support populism, to support those extremism that exists not only in Europe, by the way. President Obama came recently to the European Union. We spoke about the Tea Party. It's a form of populism that exists not only in Europe. And if you say that leaders by definition are incompetent, political parties are corrupt. In that case we are going to fuel those extremist populistic, sometimes in Europe, xenophobic and ultra-nationalistic. In some cases at least I don't like those values. That's why values are important, but I want to make the case that the problem is not leadership in crisis, the problem is more general than the crisis of leadership. Fine. We have ten minutes to run. Let me persuade everyone to stay in the room so I can work out whether the view in the audience among you has changed at all, so please don't leave. Could I find Sakal Isaac? Where are you? He's over there. Good. You're there. Who's Sakal Isaac? Oh, thank you. Get a microphone to you as well, Sakal. Let me hear three or four more contributions. Michael first. Thank you, Nick. As usual, I thought Mabel von Rania taught great sense. Someone once said, I think it was me actually, that followership is a much, much more interesting concept than leadership and a much more interesting and surprising topic for us to discuss in many ways. When we talk about a crisis leadership, we are letting ourselves off the hook. We're letting our senses, citizens atrophy and we're providing an excuse for the failure of our societies, which is actually in our own hands. And I think if we could for once think of the responsibilities that we have ourselves as citizens and not constantly decry the failures of those that we place in leadership positions above us, we might find our way to more healthy societies. So you will vote how? I'd actually vote for the motion because I think there is a crisis in leadership, but I think there's a deeper crisis in followership. Thank you. All right. Microphone here, please. Yes, please. Who's got the microphone? You have the microphone? Yes, please. And then it'll go over there, please. Unfortunately, as Slota said, that mass majority of the public leadership are failing. However, I voted against the motion because where I come from as an emerging market economy... Where are you from? UAE is a very successful story when it comes to public leadership. Therefore, I voted against the motion because we have a very successful story to tell and we have a very powerful public leadership. And you're saying you do not want to change it? We are very happy with what we have achieved and we have been very successful in all terms, in all aspects. And that has been also monitored by the wef and competitiveness in UAE. Thank you. Good. Over here and then over here. And then I'm going to close the floor, please. You have the microphone, I hope. Thank you. Introduce yourself and tell me which way you might be voting or have decided to vote. Thank you. My name is Lisette. And I think it's not only the crisis for our governments of the election parties or our politicals. I think the values are changing around the world. And we need to see that it's our blame, not only for the government or the politicals. Our kids, the families and the values that are changing all this time. That is the reason that our politicals behave the way that they are doing right now, I think. Thank you. Finally, to Segal Islak. Where are you from? I'm from Somalia. OK. I'm a global shabar from Mogadishahab. And your thought is about how leadership, there's a danger of killing, the way in which leadership functions. Exactly. Sometimes there are nations who are leaders and there are individuals who are leaders to their community and to their people. And sometimes securing power and getting what they want to get the way of the purpose that they were serving, basically which is leading the world. And if we see sometimes we know a lot of leaders vote and they support certain agendas and issues. But sometimes it just happens in front of them. Maybe a friend or ally is doing it so they just close their eyes and weigh the other way. Which means sometimes what leadership takes is to no matter where and how it happens, you have to be there and you have to serve the basic purposes of leadership. So I think the layers of leadership, and I mean the layers of power, whether it's party power, seeking the party power or seeking personal power which is the leaders power or the nation power gets the way of serving the main purpose. Thank you very much indeed. You're welcome. Would you be able to have this kind of discussion in Somalia currently? Yes, we do. Excellent. Right, I'm going to close the floor because to keep to the deal which was that you will stay until a quarter two and we'll vote before then. Can I ask you to begin to go back online please? If you've made up your mind and if you arrive late, the website is wef.ch slash vote. And you can start to vote but you won't see the result because what I'm going to do now is ask each of the speakers to give a one minute summing up and I'm conscious of two particular words that have come through, perceptions of the public and expectations. Jose Manuel, but also you have a minute. Yes, there is a problem of perceptions and expectations today because of the changes we had also in the nature of power. And even the values and the quality, let me just give an example. Traditionally it was considered a very important political quality prudence from the classic Greeks that they like prudence. This is something that today it's not certainly rewarded. Decisions have to be taken now and this perception, this frustration explains the perception of the crisis of leadership. I think the discussion was from that point of view extremely interesting because you saw points of convergence even on both sides of the motion. I'm sorry if I was trying to complicate a little bit things but I really believe that yes we have problems of leadership but it will be a reductionist view, it will be an oversimplification to attribute to the failings of leadership the current problems we have. We need a much deeper analysis that was the contribution I wanted to give to our debate. Let me even though I'm begging a little more of the time, can those in leadership whether corporate or political or public service become aware of the scale but also reconfigure the way they do their job or not? The way they've done it for years. They are aware and then I can give you my personal testimony. I've been in these last 10 years in extremely difficult moments with the financial crisis when we had around the table those who had to take the decisions and I can tell you for instance. Several times I've heard one or two of the participants saying look we have to take a decision, whatever the decision, we have 300 journalists out there, we have to come with the decision and this was not happening in 1992. So the current leaders are under a complete new set of pressures and challenges that is of a different nature, I repeat in democratic terms, not only because I see the technological and communication information but because of migration, because of cultural values and so I think we have to be careful when we point the finger to leadership because yes certainly there are failings and I agree with what Anne-Marie Slaughter said in some of our comments but the point is that it's more general than leadership but I think we can at least conclude from me that we all agree that we need a better leadership at all levels. Right okay the ability to reconfigure, let me ask all three of you as well in your final minute and particularly after you talked in your book about the end of power is it about changing the nature of power? It's a notion that there is nothing harder than to be a leader these days. Leaders are more constrained, leaders face bigger gaps between what they can do and what they are expected to do at what speed and under which circumstances. Leaders are constrained by both internal and external factors and they face a mentality revolution. The world and their constituencies and their voters, their rivals, their enemies, the supporters have different mindsets in what they expect. So the bar to be an effective leader is very high. There's no doubt that we have faced and we have examples like Minister Cardin as I mentioned are very good leaders but it takes a very very hard complex set of skills to be an effective leader and we need to change the way in which leaders are selected, trained, developed and eventually picked. The machineries through which leaders are prepared and developed is failing. And I think again I want to stress that a subject that is very uncomfortable and inconvenient and people don't like to talk about is political parties. Unless we get them right, we are not going to get public leadership right. Two more final interventions each minute, but it's your cardinas. Thank you. Well, power is more fragmented, agree. Is that bad? No. I think that's good for society. We have a system that works with more voice, more participation. With power more fragmented, of course it is harder to change things and that's why we talk about paralysis. Is it impossible to change things? No. Why not? Because still under the rules of the game of democratic principles working with parties, working with branches of power, you can build coalitions and you can build consensus. So you have examples of leadership in this new scenario with more fragmentation of power that of course require skills to build those coalitions to change the status quo. We are seeing parts of the world where things are changing. So when answering the question, when voting, don't judge by what you see in your own country or your own region. Think globally and just because there is more political participation because more people are expressing their voices that does not necessarily mean that leadership is in crisis. Thank you, Minister. Ann-Marie Slaughter, the last word for the motion and keep voting, please. So I have been persuaded that there are places where public leadership is exceeding. I will leave you with the proposition, though, that in an enormous number of individual countries and globally it is failing. And I'm struck that next year perhaps we should have a debate on the nature of public followership and what that means. But let me conclude on three positive notes on how I do see public leadership evolving positively. More women. If we had more women worldwide, we would have a more diverse set of leaders, we would have better outcomes. Second, data-driven governance, where citizens can see in real time what kinds of services are being delivered and who's responsible. And finally, and this went to my point about thinking that more government are not the only public leaders, that they're corporate public leaders and civic public leaders, so I said we're not investing in stability and growth. There's an initiative called the Bretton Woods II initiative that brings together governments, large pension funds, large sovereign wealth funds, civil society to pledge to commit 1% of their resources to invest long-term in development, financing, and social impact investing, and in civil society support. That's a kind of leadership. It's collaborative. It's not the person out there at front. It's collaborative. It's bringing people together. And it's mobilising multiple sectors for the public good. And I do think that kind of leadership is rising. And I'll leave it there. Henry Slaughter, thank you very much indeed. So we've ended the debate. That's the motion. Public leadership is failing to deliver social cohesion and stability. Is there anyone who hasn't voted yet? Please do. I'm going to tell you before we see the numbers of what you're thinking at the moment that before we came in, there was a poll on the public forum. 62 responses, 89% agreed, 11% disagreed. Now, the vote when you came in was the following. It was 85% for the motion and 15% against. Let's now see what you're thinking. And the reason I asked... Ah, four points. So you all actually move more... Minister, Mr Barroso, you've started moving something there. It's not fair because there were two on that side and one in half here. I can't claim that's democracy. I'm not declaring anything except that the motion was passed. And let me just, in concluding, just quote to you what Chiara Pieliere. I think an MEP has just tweeted. In my view, leadership's Conditio Scenicuanon is crisis. Otherwise, leadership would not exist. Can I thank you all very much indeed and we finished on time as planned. Thanks for coming. Well-moderated next question. Thanks, Anne-Marie. Thank you, Minister. Thank you very much.