 Good evening and welcome to this open forum. Tonight we're debating the end of democracy and the fact that so many of you have turned out to debate this gives me great faith that the democratic form is not dead. But still democracy is under serious challenge. There are accusations being flung at democracy from all over the world that democracy produces corrupt politicians who are incompetent. That democracy is failing to protect minorities that even minorities in France and in the United Kingdom are feeling unsafe. That democracy is too short-term it's failing to deal with issues like climate change. That democracy has become money politics that the largest wealthiest interests in any society can buy the outcome that they want. So those are the those are the critiques of democracy. Why is it that people including several of tonight's panel have fought so hard for more democracy in their countries? They've fought with a vision that democracy is a form that enables any society a societies in which people don't agree in which people don't like each other necessarily have clashing interests to elect to be represented by lawmakers who make law in their name to hold those lawmakers to account to ensure there is a rule of law and to ensure that minorities are protected. These are the values that underpin democracy. So we're very lucky tonight to be joined by such a formidable group of scholars and politicians to reflect on what do they see the end of democracy and what are the things they really are trying to do in their own countries and in their own professions. And I'd like to begin by asking Mr Ali Tahuni who's president of the Libyan Constituent Assembly and was a leader of one of the political movements of the Arab Spring to begin by telling us is he disillusioned with the idea of democracy in Libya. Mr Tahuni. Well thank you for inviting me. I'm not disillusioned with the idea of democracy in Libya because we haven't really experienced democracy in Libya and the idea that I think it's very important to get through. I for one fought for 40 years against Qaddafi regime and I was lucky enough to be part of the Arab Spring and the Libyan Revolution and I became part of the leadership. I was minister of finance and oil and deputy prime minister and finally acting prime minister and now I'm elected to part of the CDA that's the constitution drafting assembly and I'm also now the president of that body that is writing the constitution for the future. But the point that to get through is the failure of democracy in many ways is a separation of the political process from the economic developments or at least that's a key element in it. We in the Arab Spring we went from the side of anger against the regimes that existed for so long these undemocratic regimes and that anger and that motivation to destroy the old regimes was the right one was the correct one but I think the failure of the Arab Spring the failure of the leadership is that we really had no clear idea about the alternative to the old regime that we destroyed even though these regimes are based on a very strong ruler and a very weak institutions but that's really not an excuse so the key element I think that we always need to think about is that in the strive for that change we really have to be very thoughtful about what is it that we're destroying which is a lot of times clear but what is it that we are really bringing that is at least marginally better than what existed before. Thank you very much can I can I move to the man on your left Wang Hui Professor at Tsinghua University but a commentator on Chinese politics to ask you Mr Tahuni has just told us that before political movements destroy what is they need a clear vision of what they want to replace it with is there a clear vision emerging in China of what a new politics might look like? It's a gradual process it's very difficult to say there was a whole change I was the activist in 1989 if you ask me at that time it seemed that everything was clear that we can borrow the whole form political form of democracy from western countries to China but if you ask the people now what kind of political form you want I guess they still say we need something for example the the individual rights the rule of law and so on so forth but not necessarily we are asked to transplant that the system into China partly because certain kind of the success of the economic developments and also not only for this but the wiping up of the poverty large large scale deduction of the poverty but on the other hand we suffered from social inequality corruption and a certain kind of political control and so on so forth so it's a kind of very complicated issue this is the phenomena second I think as I agree with that the separation of political form and economic developments and and actually the social form is a universal phenomenon I found that the we can perceive we can compare the different performance of political systems like a chinese political systems western democracy obviously we saw there's a two kind of the political systems however if we conceded what is the what are the the real social crisis we found a lot of the similarities social inequality corruption and the detachment between the political system and the social form and the issue of minority these were the the real problems with our society but we we also found these similar phenomena in other society which mean that these were when we think about that how to reform chinese political systems we need to take consideration of the reflection on the political system here then we can find the new way to move forward but in a word what would a political form in china look like that follows the social form for example obviously there were different views in china and i think that the let's start it from the the problems not the then we can see how to overcome that the difficulties the first four i think that the decline we're talking about the representative democracy both in the representative democracy and the chinese system is not the representative democracy one party system but both were just different extent suffered from decline of representation because the political parties their claim represent the people's interests but actually the gap between the ruling class or the party and the people were it is a huge gap there and in different levels in different system in china how to for example in chinese system communist party claim that to be the representative of working class or the people but if you perceive that the corruption the scale of corruption obviously there was a crisis of representation it's so that's why the people when the social moments they on the one hand they argue for the protection of the citizen rights but on the other hand they actually resort to some older slogans like the redistribution on the slogan of socialism to revive certain kind of the elements in a way for the more democratic way so this is the the so it's not i don't think it's very difficult to say that we can think about these things in a total level it is a totality by trying to find some elements from within the system how to revive something to overcome other aspects thank you and let me turn to you for a quick moment how many of you think that politicians in your country are becoming more and more distant more and more alien to the populations they're governing so how many of you think the distance is getting greater how many of you think that politicians are still close to the those they're governing that's a very strong how many of you are Swiss so we should point out we should point out that we sit here this evening in one of the homes of democracy and i think we've just seen one of the effects of that so so thank you um do you have any question at this point who came tonight with a burning question that you thought i really want tonight's panel to answer the following question nobody one person good i'm going to take one question before i move to the next panelist can we have the microphone to the man with the burning question it's truly a burning question thank you very much morris bondley from the university of lozane and i would like to ask how do you strike a balance between on the one hand you've mentioned it before the rule of majority and on the other hands the protection of the minorities that's really the question that can that is burning thank you excellent and i'm sure the panelists are going to give convincing answers um i would like now to move to i think you're well you're definitely the only mayor i've ever met who's been a heavyweight boxing champion victor klitschko the mayor of Kiev um we're pleased to have you here with us mayor let me cut to the chase will u crane be a democracy in five years time yes very we will be european country no we european country first of all good evening ladies and gentlemen i'm i'm very happy to be in panel and say a couple of words first of all to give answer for the question yes we will be european country because we european ukraine in europe geographically ukraine we we ukrainian with our history with our mentality we european but we far away from europe with standards of life and i'm more than sure the movement what we're doing right now is european movement and we sign association agreement and we want to be european country with european standards of life is first point can i can i pick up one of those standards for you mayor some would say and this i could put to all the panelists but one of the cancers of democracy is corruption will if if ukraine will be democratic in five years time do you think it will also be on path to be a society with less corruption yes ukraine today is famous was famous as mass corrupted country in europe and to destroy corruption is main task for present government for the people because people expect to changes in ukraine short story short story is usually story for 250 around 250 million people who live in old part of soviet union i born in soviet union is the best country in the world i think because every morning we think it's our country is the best country is our idea socialism is the best idea in the world we say just good for our government we was very happy we have less money but we live very poor we don't know about that people can live better we truly believe is our country is the best in the world pristoreka came and saying sport i have a chance to troll outside of the country because nobody had a chance to troll outside of of soviet union very few people i was shocked my first visit was to united states to florida i come back and then talk to my father what i see it's it's amazing his dream my father was a air force officer he truly believed he was communist he truly believed it's our system it's our country the best one told me vitale it's not true especially they use you as ambassadors show you good part of country and right now you explain to everybody the united states better than our country as soviet union okay the next my visit was exactly the same i visit another country in europe capitalist country and slowly i changed my opinion i changed my vision 1991 ukraine iron iron carton fall down and we everybody have a chance we have a dream to build modern european democratic country in this time our neighbors poland slavak republic chevro public starting to make a movement for example gdp in poland was twice less than in ukraine in beginning of 1990 right now gdp in poland four times bigger than in ukraine they make a lot a lot of changes because they take direction european direction and we listen so long time from in our government we make changes in our in ukraine very soon life will be better and in reality corruption grown up the some part of the people who still big resources in country in very short period very short period of time making billions the rest of the country 99 percent of population survive we believe we support president yanukovich who promised to all country listen everyone and sign association agreement and to make our country european democratic modern country without explanation very short in uh one half years ago in villians without explanation he doesn't sign association agreement told i don't want the whole country was really disappointed because people still believe we getting better life we will be really democratic country modern democratic country students children 17 18 19 years old make a demonstration yanukovich have great idea send special police forces bloody and badly students nobody expect the next day millions of people coming to the street and say we don't want to live in dictator we don't want to live in authoritarianism we want to sign association agreement please yanukovich don't do that and we call everybody revolution of dignity euro am i done because main point we want to be european country but not everybody was happy from this idea also our east neighbors was not happy ukraine will be not part of new big empire like before but we ukrainian don't want to be back in ussr we want to be modern european democratic country it's uh thank you i'm gonna that that was wonderful picture of what you have lived through as a mayor i'd like i'd like to turn just in these introductory comments and please do wave your hands during any part of this discussion when you have a burning question to put to our panelists um you are part of this conversation um and in the absence of waving hands okay i've got two hands here so i'm going to take two quick questions from down here our one mic we've wrong footed the microphones mr lechko i have a burning question the relationship now of war and democracy we are living of course in a very difficult situation why we are sitting here is bombing ukraine east ukraine and we have great problem even with your president who is here also bombing the same the same people from ukraine the east ukraine my question is is it's possible in this time of war to have democracy because the war situation now is not possible to to follow the democratic european idea though i i'm here to hear your statement to find a political solution if we only i heard on the military so-called solution we will never have um democracy this is my question to you because it's a burning question for all the people that it comes not together democracy and the in the military situation i know it's not one-sided it's both sides but we have to reflect this context democracy and the actual situation so is there a negotiated solution is there a negotiable solution we uh try everywhere find the compromise but it's not the question we can't find compromise regarding our independence regarding our unity of of ukraine it's democracy democratic movement if president don't listen the population if president disappoint millions of people don't support of which of the people live better and make money for himself on his family everybody know about that the people come to the street and kick out this president we reloading whole system we have new president who is elected by people in first first time in our history in first round of president election because majority of the people give give him support we reloading whole system can you can you imagine short pictures about ukraine the representative of party if Yanukovych doesn't have support in capital of ukraine they cancelled mayor election capital of ukraine live three years without self-government without mayor of Kiev we make mayor election city council election we make parliament election it's democracy open okay i'm gonna i'm going to um move now to the man on my left now the secretary general of the oecd but for a long time a member of the mexican government as finance minister and in other roles in other cabinet roles during a period in mexico's history where mexico undertook a gradual i think it's fair to say but my good friend angel guria will correct me um where mexico undertook an a gradual transformation from a one-party state the pre of which he was a member to permitting an open contested election which resulted in the one party losing the election so tonight we've heard from two revolutionaries wanting to get rid of governments posing the question what an earth will replace them and already from one and now from another uh speaker who can speak about a more gradual form of change do you think it worked downhill or do you wish after all that you'd be in a revolutionary or it didn't work because we lost no um actually i think uh like everything else this started in the 60s more and more the government introduced representation of the oppositions and then it came a moment when you know they had a multiplication of parties and you have party of the right the left etc and uh the traditional parties lost their footing um in many parts because they were being questioned they got things wrong that didn't deliver but also as an inevitable result of a more educated much better informed society you know we are next door to the united states and as a former president of italy said um ah if only the the italy had 100 kilometers of border with united states we would be the most wonderful country in the world and said yes so would we but we have 3 000 kilometers and that's a little bit more complicated no but the the point is the following it was in a way this is you have all the information you have all the education you have you know a healthier a more participatory it was inevitable that there would be a a a change by the way now the government that lost the the that election 12 years later to six-year governments later is back so now there's alternates really and I would say from not only from my own experience now I've been at the helm of the OECD now for nine years and of course governance and government is a critical element of what we do looking at and you're in Oxford you're about government you know you're the school of government in in in Oxford so I like to say I think there's no end in democracy democracy is alive kicking progressing you know and and getting more and more countries now we are more than double the number of countries that can be that can be described as fully democratic than we had in the 70s and the number of autocracies which is to be about 80 or something like that now they're really you can really good autocracies you know well functioning well defined autocracy maybe 20 but so democracy is making progress what is not happening at the same time is that because democracy is happening and then people are actually becoming more demanding and then they want to transform the institutions and what do we have now what are the legacies of the crisis low growth highest unemployment since you know we always compared to the crisis of the 30s doesn't make any sense this is the biggest crisis in our lifetime period so so low growth high unemployment growing inequalities all over the place and then what is the result a massive erosion of trust and trust in what well and everything we built in a hundred years in presidents and prime ministers in ministers and political parties in multinationals in you know banking systems in international organizations all the institutions we built including the the institutions around which our democratic system was built and they are casting doubts on that because they're saying this is not delivering for me this democracy this system is not delivering and is not providing solutions for my problem they're not they don't go cosmic and they don't get academic about it's my problem you know and it's not delivering and this is why we have this loss of trust in the OECD which are the most developed countries in the world we have less than 40 percent or around 40 percent of people don't you know are the only ones who have some kind of trust the rest don't trust and the numbers are growing so you you have a very serious problem because one should not confuse that because governments don't deliver that it is democracy that is either wrong or that we are going to finish with democracy no the question is it is democracy that is generating the pressure the demand that there is transparency and that people deliver on the quality of the services this is because its democracy is there and now they have different ways of telling it and ultimately of course you know we'll meet in the next election but people don't wait for the next election they also they go to the NGOs they go to television they go to the media and the freedom of the media is a result of democracy it's not the other way around you don't get democracy because you don't start with freedom of the media and then produce democracy it is democracy that allows for and then it kind of reinforces itself as you go along but this is what is happening our governments have not delivered in what they were supposed to do what they offered which is ultimately more well-being more welfare for the the whole of the people particularly for the most vulnerable and therefore don't confuse the questioning of the efficiency of governments and of the mandate of governments with democracy itself democracy as Mr Churchill once famously said is the worst of all forms of government except for all the others so but let me thank you let let me push you because are you saying that the problem is that politicians have over promised politicians have said that they will deliver well-being and growth and they can't or are you saying that politicians the politicians we've got are not competent enough to deliver economic growth both and then there's some more there's a question of the thresholds of tolerance why because you know you got highest ever unemployment numbers again you know Switzerland is a bit of an island so it's not very typical but you are still as we speak now we still destroying jobs losing jobs in the euro area the average is 11.5 in the euro area unemployment and youth unemployment 23 and a half percent and still in some of the world's most important economies in europe and democracies in europe you have 50 percent youth unemployment so when you when you get this you know you imagine a young man who went to university has his diploma and can't find a job for two or three years he has been an unemployment benefits he lost him now because it's it that expires and he reads that the richest individuals in this country don't pay taxes because they put their money in some tax haven but then that the biggest companies in this country don't pay taxes because they are multinationals and they go to tax havens also and they have all sorts of patent boxes and this and this and that and they don't pay taxes and then they are getting lousy quality of delivery of services and then also they certainly find that not only do the rich and the multinationals and they don't get good services but also they find that there's corruption and that the the procurement systems are wrong and that there's conflict of interest there's lobbying there's revolving doors etc and he is there you know and he is saying you know what am i doing here and then the frustration turns into bubbling anger and then you got people out in the streets expressing their anger in sometimes extremely extremely destructive clearly socially unacceptable ways but again you know it's it's something that was created by the fact that you know democracy made it possible for the expression to happen but then it comes when the fringes the abuses etc when people you know use their their freedom under democracy in order to express sometimes in undesirable fashion but again these are the messages what should a democracy in your view do when the freedom of speech is used to insult a minority i think there should be very clearly balances one cannot use a censorship or oh no i think you you should equilibria let's say one cannot use or extend the freedom of one individual or group of individuals to an extent when it steamrolls the rights of others there there has to be this is what society is about about balancing about equilibria and fundamentally about the respect of others the question is that has to be number one very carefully written number two very carefully practiced and number three it is one of the greatest tests with globalization with migrations and with societies which are aging and which need migration and therefore diversity in order to continue to function and to grow clearly there has to be an element of tolerance which has been absent in many cases and it is very dramatic that today in the 21st century we are seeing these examples of intolerance on many countries and many sides the world today is not a very fine place but again don't blame democracies these are the faults the flaws of the rules the regulation the practices and of course our education systems are we teaching the right things the values the tolerance which are the fundamentals for a functional society let me just pick up and ask the audience you just heard an eloquent argument for a balancing I think is the diplomatic language used by the secretary general but a curtailment of freedom of speech when it's used to insult a minority how many of you think that freedom of speech should include the freedom to insult a minority if we put it in that language how many of you believe that okay and how many of you reject that view now very very interesting so those of you that can't see there's quite a a much larger number that take the opposite view I'm going to now move to the governor of Colorado because one of the things that Angel Goria has put to us is that governments are failing to deliver he said partly it's politicians over promising but it's partly a lack of competence on their part as an aside let me say as dean of Oxford University School of Government we're doing our best on the competence side to to educate a new generation of leaders but governor on one issue that democracy gets a lot of criticism the short termism of democracy the failure to deal with long-term issues like climate change you've actually led interesting initiatives in change in Colorado what's made that possible well and before I say that the question about how do we protect the rights of minorities I think other in that context we lost the notion there's not just democracy right democracy has to be built on a platform of the rights of private property rule by law freedom of speech freedom of assembly freedom of religion all that is part and parcel and I think that's what protects the minorities when you when you get into a good constructive democracy what we've tried to in Colorado in Colorado is unusual and that we are as partisan as the United States has become we're almost equally one-third Republican one-third Democrat and one-third independent and in a funny way that allows us to go out even as the the new media demands instant answers they they want leaders that say yes here's what do this whereas good democracy is more nuanced it requires a thoughtful discussion and allowing both minorities and majority opinions to be heard and and and and discussed so when we look at hydrocarbon exploration in Colorado has a great deal of natural natural gas great deal of oil and yet a lot of people there it's very beautiful not unlike Switzerland lovely mountains and beautiful clean air and water so we had to balance that and we spent a great deal of time trying to make sure that we had the representatives of the oil and gas industry in the same room as the representatives of climate change that all the non-profits the NGOs that were arguing for the people's rights and in essence metaphysically we kind of locked the doors and they spent the first three or four months just arguing over the definition of terms and different scientific papers but after a certain point in that discussion that relationship they began to get to compromises and we were the first state to actually have an integrated set of regulations around methane and natural gas emissions when you're exploring for oil and gas that people thought we could never get to but it really was a a process of of listening i mean one of my cabinet said that the single best way to change someone's mind on any issue is to listen harder and get them to repeat again and again why they are so against one thing or another uh too often now we end up with a vetocracy i can't remember who said that but you know the constituencies all the special interest group band together and they will really can block almost any effort around progress and that's part of the the challenge the only way you can really just kind of diffuse that is to get people in the same room to listen with you know water is precious in colorado in all of the american west like most of the world and we're now trying to make a statewide water plan that we will integrate with the other water plans of western states and part of that again is is building those relationships having over several years making sure i mean democracy is dependent upon empathy if you can't put yourself in the shoes of someone else and if you're if you're if the people of your state or your government can't do that it'll never succeed but that comes more naturally through a long term of discussion and building those first it's an acquaintance sense of relationship and then you get to trust and transaction so i think that's one thing that we've i mean the big argument in the u.s is one side says government should be bigger do more one says government should be smaller do less the real issue is government has to work whatever it does it has to do it efficiently and effectively uh in a transparent fashion it has to do it elegant elegantly there has to be some customer service so we've tried to change the discussion to how do we make government work and we're not going to worry quite as intensely about more taxes or less taxes you know professor uh wang mentioned that politics needs to reflect in some way the society over which it's governing and um when we look at the united states those of us that watch fox news cnbc etc what we see is a really startling polarization of american political debate um with which seems terribly extreme i think it's fair to say for most europeans um is that reflecting a society which is becoming more extreme or is it driving a society to extremes and does that make government more difficult well it's both i think part of this is what anhel was talking about the the shrinking of the middle class the number of people that have been out of work for over six months i mean and i was when i was many years ago was out of work for almost two years and it changes how how you how you relate to your friends and your family what you see in the mirror and many many people are going through that you tie that in with the bitterness of the partisanship so that i mean attack ads and they're spreading slowly but surely around the world but you know the united states we we invented jazz we invented a number of great art forms but we unfortunately have invented this this form of marketing and politics called the attack ad which is just ruthlessly insidiously uh it diminishes people incredibly and i you know i just went through a difficult reelection and made the some said foolhardy promise if we would not do any attack ads i think guys perhaps you only contested statewide race that did that and we we won but very narrowly and you never see it in business you know mutak kent when i were talking in davos two years ago and you know coca-cola and pepsi are let's just say they're rather competitive well you never see coca-cola doing an attack ad against pepsi because attack ads and and creating that anger works if you they did the attack ad pepsi sales would go down pepsi would have no choice but to do an attack ad against coke coke sales would go down coke would attack pepsi pepsi would attack coke you would diminish sales in the entire product category of soft drinks what we're doing with these attack ads is we're diminishing the product category of democracy and people turn off the news they stop reading policy magazines or reading in depth about the issues and we accept that at our own peril especially with young people you see them they want to get just the the headlines and and too often will not go into the depth needed to really understand these issues is there a lesson there for other democracies around the world i mean until the 1980s the united states had regulation on its media right fair comment or whatever it was fair argument you were going to present one extreme view you actually had to present what the other side of that view looked like and it seemed to me that deregulating that opened up this extraordinarily polarized debate would is it too late to put the genie in the box back in the box in the united states would you draw lessons from that for other democracies well certainly i i think it probably is too late in the united states that freedom of speech has now been embraced at that level and the uh thank you the full service service i tell you that's why the united states and mexico has such a strong relationship and we're going to build a stronger actually next fall we're going to have the first summit of all the governors of mexico all the governors of the united states and all the premiers of canada to begin having these same kinds of discussions but anyway i think that the it's like trying to define what is fair what's not we have been working on trying to create nonpartisan uh committees that might look at attack ads and say all right we can't stop them right that's a freedom of speech issue but we can give the person who's being attacked a significant amount of money to to run an ad and defend him or herself against those attacks so there are several different possibilities to defend against it but clearly it's not healthy after the election no matter who wins if you have that nasty an election it's hard for the people to come together i mean democracy is supposed to after the after the heat and battle of the election everyone should come together put aside their differences and work for the common good and we've moved further and further away from that over the last 25 or 30 years i have let me just i have something to add okay yeah uh so let's see what what i'm listening to tonight i'm listening to a system that is polarized i'm listening to a system that doesn't have a lot of protection for minorities i'm listening to a system that doesn't have a lot of inclusiveness in terms of economic growth and here i am an advocate of democracy in that part of the world and i think that's a very hard system to defend or take with me back to Libya i think i think that's a very important point and my point here is when you look at democracy it's not really the goal is democracy is the goal what democracy delivers and and what i mean by that is that if we if we are looking into these emerging if we're looking at something that is mature such as the United States and Europe and look over more than 200 300 years and we're still struggling and i agree with Churchill when he said that's maybe not the perfect system but that's the best that we have but then you realize the challenge of transferring this experience to other parts of the world be it Russia or be it the Ukraine or be it the Middle East for example so and what we're talking about is we're looking into a process where people participate but we are emphasizing only the part whereby the political participation in Libya we had four elections after the revolution so if if we define democracy as elections we are in our way into a democratic system and we are further we're not even close to the beginning of that process and what for you is the the first necessary step towards democracy in Libya i think i think that economic growth maybe it's my training as an economist but i think at the end of the day if you really don't have inclusiveness in terms of the economic opportunity it's very hard to defend any economic system i'm a strong advocate of democracy and part of the reason is i can't really figure out a better system and and not only a better system i think what we have here it's the cost of the failure of the democratic process i in many ways you can say that they are still very low because nothing emerged so far that that can beat with democracy but to answer the question directly i think what i came from i think the idea is that we lived for so long in that part of the world and it's our fight by the way there is a lot of intellectuals in the middle east who basically say that our problem is the west or imperialism or i think it's an indigenous problem there is a revolution that happened five years ago in europe and that revolution destroyed an economic system replace it where that's the industrial revolution democracy came as a legitimate to legitimize that economic revolution nothing like that happened in our region and because of that we still in many ways are destroying what exists which should be destroyed but we haven't really brought about the alternative and i think the key part of the alternative is not just the inclusiveness the political process but we have to find and a sustainable economic model that especially for the youth for women i think that's the most important aspect of bringing this democracy in reality to that part of the world and are there any things that the rest of the world you know people in this room from many parts of the world are there things that the rest of the world can do to help libya become a democracy or is the most important thing that they should do to stay out i think uh i think both that this yeah no i you know for example i'm in charge of writing a constitution to libya and it's very hard to write a constitution at any time let alone you writing a constitution during a war and that's the question earlier asked about democracy and and and you know when you are in a war literally the place that we meet uh almost every three four days a car a bomb car will explode next to it so on one hand you could say that this is a kind of a losing enterprise uh this is kind of a celebration of stability if you like we can't you know we can't do that and uh but on the other hand i'm a strong believer that uh that that do you need uh uh uh that that the old regimes are done with and we need to start somewhere and it's not the idealism but i'm a strong believer in democracy i'm a strong believer and maybe we can find a better way of of institutionalizing these economic minorities all of these issue in the constitutions the west can help and then they are helping in terms of technical assistance in terms of the the the EU the united nations but by and large i i i think what is happening in the middle east it's our problems we have to face it we haven't really faced that problem seriously over generations and i think at the end of the day the rest of the world can help but the people who really like in libya we're fighting we're fighting terrorism we're fighting these radicalism literally fighting them and i think at the end of the day that's what need to be done uh and the west can can cheer or can help great i want to come to you now for your more of your questions for our panelists could we uh sorry where is the microphone yeah if we can bring it up to here do tell us who you are by the way just very briefly hi i'm jasmine i'm a student and my question is well you've been talking a lot about how government's meant to be effective and how perhaps politicians have underperformed but at the same time you're also talking about the electorate that has a very short attention span and will only consume very heated debates so i wanted to ask you from what i've been reading on the discussion about importing democracy in china um there are a lot of people who hold the opinion that the quality of the electorate or the quality of the political discussion the suju is really important for democracy to work uh what do you think about well for you personally do you think that it's not only the politicians who contribute to our democracy whether it functions on to what extent is um the quality of the electorate important and to what extent is the quality of the electorate um dependent upon uh inequality socio-economic inequality thank you hmm any any thoughts on this i mean one part of that question if we put it even more sharply to the politicians on our panel is you know our politicians failing to frame democracy and frame issues give their societies a narrative which they can understand and join forces on you know some of tonight's discussion has been about the way in which in every one of your countries there has been a polarization and a splitting whether it's led to war in ukraine or very divisive politics in the united states or you know tribal split in in libya and surely a political process has to sit above that incredibly difficult job but it has to sit above that and offer people a chance to negotiate across their differences but for people to believe that don't politicians have to lead don't politicians have to frame the issue in that way like give us the narrative john you know one two things and the other part of the question the quality of the electorate which i don't think can be underestimated it's why almost i mean every country in the world is working so hard on education but i think the the but sorry i i frame i reframe the question because so many politicians say it's not our problem it's the quality of the electorate which i i'm picking it back and saying well politicians actually frame some of the quality of the electorate well and the electorate is is receiving or what they feel the politicians create which oftentimes is the politicians create a small amount of here and other at events create a large amount and the electorate also i think politicians are sometimes held hostage when i actually when i had i used to own a restaurant a large restaurant and we used to give every twice a year we'd give our employees a bonus in summer and in the winter holidays and we were very successful and then we had a recession a couple years and we couldn't give them that bonus well you would have thought we'd taken their children it was it was their right they've been given it and i think that you know how we frame questions you know the politicians that that we can we make try to convince people that we can deliver many things that often are very difficult to get again we all can talk about income inequality or inclusivity within democracy but the the actual solutions are challenging and especially to find solutions that that the electorate believes in and i don't disagree the the politicians or could certainly be doing a better job but there's no shortage of people trying to figure out the solution at something um for example you know that in china there was an experiment for the election in the local like in a village level and a township so those people most of them were the peasants they were capable to vote so a scholar he made a joke he working on these compared the performance of the for example in the university the professors not necessarily their performance for the election were better than the peasants partly because you know that the peasants when the redistribution of land or redistribution of something they know where is their real interests so they follow that logic and then to another level it's so in that sense education is important but on the other hand at the suju if you talk about the quality then i think it's really to some extent in conflicts in that level because a lot of in in china is a lot of the experiments in this level the peasants can do that the question is that it's not about their suju the quality it's about the for example the people who have the money who can manipulate behind a door and so on so forth or when we talk about the freedom of the speech that's good however when we talk about the freedom of media sometimes misleading too because media could be manipulate could be in terms of like hobo must say the refutalized so in that sense can be manipulated that also happened in the in different levels in like a village level or in other levels so this is the uh so we in that sense i think when we talk about the democracy why i sometimes i feel it's difficult to answer the question as a whole the end of democracy or the future of democracy democracy is there as a value we're very positive for us however we need to reflect the historical condition why in many cases the democracy doesn't work so in that sense when we talk i think about the political reform in china we should rethink about that and as this is the one second when we talk about the democracy sometimes because it's a modern invention for us how sometimes when we only focus on that which prevent us to think about the elements from our tradition to modernize that certain kind of the tradition could be a kind of the elements in the modern form so in that sense it's workable or the function so this is the the election or the recommendation or something else together for big possibilities i think this is the how can realize that great so that's why for me sometimes the over normative answer to this question is very difficult to answer because all these political practices what's happened in a very concrete historic condition so so there's a strong message here that democracy has to be homegrown and i think it's probably something that every one of the panelists seem to be saying you're going to disagree well no the question is that this this is a fundamental question but it is it's almost i would say electorates are the ones who drive the quality of their leaders more educated better informed electorates more engaged electorates this is i say this because engagement and sense of commitment with the process is absolutely critical people who disengage because they feel you know they're not going to make a difference they have nothing to say etc deserve what they get huh but if you get engaged and you're better informed you then leaders will be increasingly better in the sense of transparency and sense of quality the things that deliver the quality of the decisions etc because they are more and more scrutinized again this is about you know there's not one democracy there's there's evolving levels of democracy there's the depth the breadth the quality of democracy there's some democracies that are more mature than others but unhealthy but there the the more it evolves the more the electorate will dictate and will demand and will produce better authorities but surely politicians frame the issues for the electorate when the united states announced the war on drugs as an approach to addiction problems within the united states a policy which deeply affected mexico colombia and all other countries in the region it framed the issue for an electorate the united states has an incredibly educated electorate but nevertheless that framing opened the door to a very particular set of policies shouldn't politicians take responsibility for that i mean it's not the education of the electorate absolutely and uh eventually you know uh you will have also the same electorate will know whether it works or not that's the ultimate question and that is if you elect somebody and he says let's go this way with health care and you know you support them you trust him he has the votes he can deliver well then you fix the problems that arise around the edges the computer problems the glitches etc but if you have half of the electorate saying the government should not be telling me whether i should go or not go or whether i have the right or not the right you know i can do whatever i want with my health with my life if you have a large part of the electorate talk about polarization that says that they don't need a single core uh uh syllabus for mathematics so you had you know every state had a different one and the results of course the united states came out average on the pizza tests when they spend three times more money than say slovakia per student and they came out just same level of slovakia okay so it's i think switzerland came out quite well oh yes um president obama called it the sputnik moment the sector of education of the united states mr duncan called it a wake-up call why because you eventually things happen or not so people have but you're right and and and and nary is is suggesting that eventually when you elect somebody they are going to lead and then you follow but then you have to measure the consequences the results and if you don't like them of course you'll vote them out or you vote for somebody else next time vote is the ultimate instrument but as they say people don't have to wait until the next election they have many other ways in a democracy to express themselves and to express the fact that they don't agree with what's going on day to day thank you more questions there were several more questions here yes lady in the white scarf hello my name is tatiana i'm a student you were talking a lot about empathy and about a gap between what people need and what politicians think that people need so taking into account that the ultimate feedback the election happens only once in several years what would you suggest politicians to do in order not to lose this connection with people and what you are personally doing mary klitschko people have expectation people people have need feeling they have influence in politics they have influence in in movement in the country if politician doesn't implement which is of the people they will be reelected it's simple i come back to my speech i remember so that time we have to think exactly the same no freedom no rights no freedom of press freedom of opinion in soviet union you have to think exactly the same like politburo like a music party if you have different opinion you have big chance to landing in prison exactly the same come back to my speech regarding ex-president of ukrainian college he promised to listen in election promised to listen everyone he promised to sign the association agreement they don't deliver the promising people was really upset and we have new president we have new politician who will be implement the reaches of the people if they don't do that will be immediately reelected thank you very much i'm going to take two more questions i had one down here yes anita farney from switzerland and from the states uh mayor klitschko answered a bit of my question now i agree that one should try to encourage people to become engaged that's very easy to say in a from a country that's already a democracy how do you encourage people who risk their lives or encourage them to risk their lives um in becoming engaged which is the case as mr klitschko say in many countries terrific question thank you could you pass the microphone to the gentleman to your right yes hi i'm peter neiman i actually work as a medical doctor both from germany as well as the u.s in my interactions with patients especially the younger ones i i have encountered more and more a desire for transparency more more a desire for interactions and i feel really that the digital age with the smartphones internet has really changed how how we approach things we interact more we communicate more and it seems like that most people want to participate in democracies and it seems that the best way for that to happen would be to have simply what we have here in switzerland more direct democracy more elections not just elections every three years five years six years but maybe once a month and if that's really the answer and i'm not talking about electing a new parliament i'm just talking about a say on immigration a say on the budget many things if um if the answer is direct democracy why aren't we engaging that so is the answer direct democracy and if it is why aren't we implementing it more thank you thank you very much there was another couple of questions just in this this is clearly a fertile corner um yes you sir thank you very much uh and i'm a student from shanhai to hong university china and i have a question actually is a little bit different because i'm thinking about the the democracy on a on the planetary scale especially on a you know the global scale different to the democracy on the national scale because it's something about the election of the ruling organizations and the ruling parties and i know the OECD is one of the world leading organizations so i want to know the exactly the difference of the democracy of the world scale and the democracy of the national scale yeah great we're going up in ambition i don't believe that everybody at the back doesn't have questions so yes there's there's a question right there thank you i'm an economic student and as a swiss i'm gifted with the right to vote a right that many other people in other countries have to fight for with their life but when i look around the people in this country especially at my peers over half of them do not take advantage of that right they don't vote how would you address them and encourage them to participate again right i won't embarrass you now by asking how many of you didn't vote um especially since you were also keen on democracy but back of the room yes there a hand at the back oh and and sorry why don't we take this gentleman and then the question at the back then i'm going to come back to our panelists and our panelists before we close are each going to give you one idea on how we can strengthen democracy just one idea each yes sir yes ladies and gentlemen i thank you for the invitation i'm an architect i would like to thank you for the invitation i'm an architect and i don't have a question but i have expectations i expect a lot of things because i think that in this world we should lead and govern our economies democratically we should take everybody's interest into account also take into account the rights of minorities in order to be democratic on the other hand i think that democracy will have to be led democratically as well in other words we have to make sure that we can afford what we want and wish for and sometimes it means that we have to renounce something because we simply don't have enough money in order to fulfill your wishes important point about how we balance democratic governance and equality with the hard trade-offs that politicians have to make last question at the back we saw we've been seeing a lot of revolutions in the middle east that were democratic revolutions but it seems now that they're on hold and things have become very violent and i just wanted to know where the panelists think they're eventually going to be heading is this going to eventually turn into democracy i hope so but uh it doesn't seem like it's head in that direction right now thank you very much i'm going to just come to each panelist and he'll actually on that last question you were very optimistic about democratization but lots of countries have gone backwards they've had military coups and some would say that there's no linear path to democracy we all clap when a country has an election but some countries steer straight into a sort of stagnant gray zone where they don't keep democratizing um and nor do they get better government so should we pause before we're as optimistic as you suggested we should be on hell about democratization you know what's what's the one step what's the one proposal that you would have us pay attention to to strengthen democracy first of all uh be aware be convinced and act accordingly this is the only way uh and second uh in the end it's about individuals it's about the citizen it's about the citizens do they feel better off the ultimate mandate regardless of the level of development regardless of the level of wealth is am i better off is uh the system and that system is democracy at large but it's also you know the the election system it's also my civic engagement it's also the level of information the the capacity i have to to participate etc is it providing me uh for a better uh level of well-being uh and uh i think this is the the ultimate question this is in the most intimate decision the most intimate concern you ask yourself that question so i would just you know just just make people focus on that because the external consequences or the transparency of elections and things like that all are instruments they're all tools in the end it's about getting people you know being to be to be better off and just very fast universal against local democracy frankly i think it's a false dilemma uh universal means you accept the concept that not consensus not unanimity but that a majority will allow things to happen but that the people who also expressed their will if they are outvoted and outnumbered will accommodate the decision of the majority as long as you do not have a role in you know steam rolling of those rights of the minorities that means this is where those checks and balances in a democratic system come come in and last but not least the quality of a democracy is filled with checks and balances probably the more mature the better practicing democracies they are more filled with some rules some regulations some codes that one must observe because those are the ones that limit the capacity the theoretical capacity of everyone to just take their own wishes to the ultimate consequence those are the rules those are the laws this is what you know elected officials do this is what this is what legislations or congresses who parliament do so as i say in the end it's what was it Tipo Neil who said all politics is local i think in the end it's true about democracy too there are democracies not one democracy thank you governor Hickenlooper um Anna from Switzerland said you know half her peers don't bother voting same as true in the united states would you require people to vote would that strengthen democracy you could require people to vote but i don't think that's the solution i agree to the problem uh and i think the challenge is to get people to believe uh to believe in their institutions to believe in their local government first eventually their larger government uh i think the the real challenge of rekindling belief because there are so many ways to turn it off is to focus aid the traditional media television newspapers to to make sure that they see there's they have a self interest in making sure that not every idea not every individual is vilified that that that actually finding you know positive stories and some optimism helps people believe in in a future but i think especially social medias is a great so many young people don't vote in in so many democracies the people that have the most to gain by the democratic process are show have the least percentage of their other citizens voting and i think social media can be a vehicle by which you know it's not just facebook or or or instagram but all the very varieties of social media can really be a catalyst for again not just young people but all manner of citizens to begin to be engaged to begin to believe and ultimately i think that that belief in that engagement will result in more people voting we you know this last off your election we had almost two-thirds people in colorado voted and we worked very hard on social media to make sure that everyone kind of understood the key issues how important jobs were this is all about a war on to get more jobs for more people in colorado uh and both almost all the candidates were arguing different sides of that but but social media had a big part of that of getting more people to vote of course the problem with social media as a way of engagement is that it doesn't do the other bit that governor hicken open reminded us the listening hard bit and there isn't there is no substitute for bringing people together um we're running quickly out of time but governor klitschko i did want to put to you um this problem of how you reach the whole of your population clearly you have strong supporters in ukraine but there are also ukrainians who are taking up arms against your political movement how do you reach out to all of them i'm sorry i don't understand the question exactly can you please missy already made you a governor so i think you're okay sorry sorry mayor sorry i apologize mayor klitschko absolutely so i just wondered the challenge surely for a national ukrainian politician is how to speak to all ukrainians including those who are taking up arms against the government how do you even begin it's very it's very important uh i talk to it's very important for every politician never lose the contact connection to the people if you lose connection you doesn't have a future it's very important to understand what people expect today's world very small we everybody receives so much huge and so much information from media uh internet television radio from everywhere it's very important to um relies to understand in which world you live which you value what you want in life uh which position have you country you city you building your family uh regarding ukraine it's very important for everyone it's uh woman give a question how people was motivated to risk his life for values they fighting for his values they fighting for vision they fighting for dream for new country because they have good example is work around the world but the people politician line is nothing happens they see the huge difference somebody explain about country about problems and the same time by make a competition between politician which plane they buy how many millions and how far the plane fly they bought how how how many meters and how expensive the cars and the people see that and understand the country developed in wrong direction and that's why they truly believe we have to make changes we have influence and if you don't believe yourself you can uh you have influence in your country and uh you city nothing change in your in your life and regarding myself i know maybe better than anyone no fight no win and you have to fight in your life for your vision for your dream for your values thank you very much um mr tahuni the questioner at the back asked are any of the middle east revolutions going to lead to democracy so outside of libya where are you most hopeful that one of the countries of the arab spring will end up more democratic is there any one country that you're optimistic about uh i i'm i'm very optimistic about uh tunisia they are already in the process i'm optimistic about uh also egypt to some extent and very hopeful even for libya today the same thing libyan are killing libyans wholesale the same thing that happened in ukraine uh but i just want to end with this note i think idealism is greatly discounted i think it's great to dream uh and to take a stand about what is right and what is wrong and sometime we make uh uh we make it make it very complicated defining what is right and what is wrong i think right is very simple right is living to live in dignity right is to live in peace right and when we take uh take care uh for the weakest among us i think uh right is uh to uh again now uh make sure that your neighbors is as good as you are what is wrong everything is against that is wrong i think for especially for the young people i want you to embrace uh the idea of fighting for what is right now in the case of libya you know i fought for 40 years to bring democracy i'm a strong proponent of democracy still am even with my comments about what i've what i've observed today and what i've observed living in the united states but i i want you also to embrace the idea that democracy comes from different forms democracy have different ways of expressing itself and at the end of the day as i said earlier it's not really democracy it's what democracy delivers that we should really concentrate on zero one thank you very much professor wang did you want to add anything at all we're just out of time last sentence first of all in china i think top issues that we need the voice for the lower suja strata in our public space that was because we are the the the world of actually now we had the 300 million people working in these their condition was really poor so in that sense i think this is a very important thing second these kind of the struggle together with the experiment i think the experiments is very important here and there not simply say that the only radical change stirred the suja instability but on the one hand you have needed the suja struggle but on the other hand you need the different kind of experiments for develop more open society at the democratic society i think thank you very much i think tonight's panel has highlighted for every one of us a sort of checklist some things we should think about when we adjudicate our own democracy and democracy in other countries for me those things include from what we've heard is the democracy we're looking at does it build on a country's own traditions do people recognize it as their own democracy is freedom of speech balanced with the protection of minorities which doesn't mean censorship it means are there social forces that balance the effects of freedom of speech to keep a community together to the extent it can be is democracy causing people to listen hard i i won't forget governor hickenlooper's statement that the best way to persuade across communities is to listen even harder is democracy permitting that or is it yelling loudly from one group to the other group and then about the politicians three tests are the politicians over promising on what they can actually deliver second are they actually delivering what they can and should deliver and third are they putting are they creating a narrative which brings everyone in a society together are they creating a narrative which makes all people that they govern feel included or are they creating in their responses whether it's to terrorist attacks or to drugs or to whatever are they creating a narrative which splits their society into subgroups that's a pretty rich test uh or set of tests that our panelists have given us i'll take it back to the school of government i head to think hard about how what we do um can do that and i hope that you'll all take that back to think about your democracies and how you can strengthen them but can you join me in thanking wonderful panelists professor hung wanghui mr ali tahuni president of the libyan consti constitutional assembly victor klichko mayor of Kiev governor hickenlooper from colorado and anaheel guria secretary general of the united nations a huge hand for them