 I want to start by saying I have an irrational love for two institutions. One of them is Parliament, especially the Westminster Parliament for what it could be. And the other is SOAS. And I love SOAS because it has everything I really adore. It has masses of politics. It has people, really exciting people from all over the world. It has connections to parts of the world that I love dearly, including Africa, Asia and Latin America. And our director, Baroness Amos, symbolises all that, partly because of the work she's done, which you probably know about, so you probably don't need to be reminded, but of course she is a British politician. She was Secretary of State for International Development. She was UN Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and she's known across the world. So she embodies SOAS and who could be more appropriate to launch our new global research network on parliaments and people than Valerie Amos, who I welcome up here to make some remarks. I gather this isn't that one isn't working so I might as well move it out of the way. Emma, thank you very much. It's a bit of parliament as a bit sort of quirky, eccentric and weird. So I'm slightly taken aback that you think that's what I'm like. And even more weirdly that you think that SOAS is like that. But I absolutely take the point that you make about both of them being very interesting institutions. So a huge thank you to Emma and also to Ruth. Ruth, where are you if you run away? And to Ruth because the partnership with the Hansard Society in terms of today's conference is really important. And I'm very pleased to be here to try to bring together the elements of why this work is important for SOAS and why it's important for parliament. So I'm going to say a few words as Emma mentioned because I think it is important that we formally launch the global research network for parliaments and people. And then there'll be an opportunity I found out to my horror for a Q&A with me. I thought I was going to be on a panel. So keep the questions easy please. And there will be a panel after this session at quarter to three. Thank you. So just a few words about the project which is designed to create opportunities for scholars in particularly fragile states to undertake research on democracy, public engagement and women's political participation. And the aim is to link researchers and arts organisations interested in deepening democracy by supporting their research and advocacy of those three themes. Representation, exclusion and reimagining politics. And I'm very sorry that I wasn't here this morning because I gathered that there were some great presentations from Ethiopia, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Now it's work which as I said at the beginning very much resonates with the approach that we take at SOAS. We really pride ourselves on taking alternative perspectives. On being a school that is rich in the history, the heritage, the scholarship of the regions in which we specialise but in ensuring that those perspectives are very much at the forefront of our thinking. So we like to think that we are turning the world upside down, that we are challenging conventional orthodoxy, that we are really at the heart of the decolonisation agenda in the way that we work and that we do that through our understanding of distinct and diverse languages and the cultures of the societies in which we work and study and where the collaborations and partnerships that we have in those countries are absolutely crucial. We are very, very aware that without innovative partnerships we can't work with colleagues to make political institutions more accountable or indeed figure out what more meaningful engagement between political leaders and society might look like and that's a question I think not just for politically fragile societies but increasingly for mature democracies as well. The Arts and Humanities Research Council is supporting the network, encouraging those partnerships across social sciences, arts and humanities disciplines but also between scholars and creative industries. Here in the UK we are very, very conscious of the importance of this and the AHRC has really been leading the way in terms of trying to create that space to enable that engagement across social sciences, arts and humanities because much of the conversation about deepening the engagement on research in the UK has been around science and engineering and what we have been seeking to say is that innovation has to include social sciences, arts and humanities in its thinking. I've spent a lot of time in my political career directly involved in aspects of British political life so I have first hand experience of what I think is the importance of representative democracy and the challenge of staying true to your values given the compromises required particularly when one is in government. It's a bit more straightforward I think in opposition but it's not necessarily easy and there have been many recent challenges in the United Kingdom in other countries across the European Union, in the United States and elsewhere in terms of the role of conventional political parties especially as we have seen the rise of social media, different forms of communication and the way that they have been used either to attack or defend parliamentary democracy. The most important recent example in the United Kingdom of course is around the debate that we had in advance of the referendum with respect to leaving the European Union but the aspects of the debate that became a critical part of the engagement of the British public around that issue has spiralled into a whole host of separate issues that people care about at the top of that agenda, the issue of migration, rights of refugees, the issue of free movement for example but also associated issues to do with human rights, the role of the European Court, the role of Parliament, a whole host of issues that have sparked debates which I think are essential to our understanding of our democracy but also critical to our engagement with democratic institutions going forward. It's a hugely contested space in the United Kingdom at the moment. There are issues around Parliament versus the people, perceptions of that around the role of the media. We had one newspaper famously calling our judges the enemies of the people when they voted that Parliament needed to have a say with respect to Britain leaving the European Union. There are issues around the role of the House of Lords and the fact that the House of Lords is not elected and the balance that exists in our democracy between Parliament, the Executive and the Supreme Court. We've had some really critical conversations I think in the last few years. I mean they have really become more intense in the last few months seeking to explain what is happening in Western democracies particularly in Europe and the United States. There's a common theme that runs across them all that right across the political, social class and race spectrum in the West Citizens have lost faith, trust and belief in our democratic institutions. Now I think that the seeds of that were planted a long time ago but that it was the 2008 global financial crash that turned this into an existential crisis for social democracy in the West. Why do I think that? I think that because the mainstream political business and academic establishment collectively in my view bought into a fallacy, believed that boom and bust was beaten forever and that the case for a post cold war, liberal, social, democratic, globalised free market consensus had been won. So those of you who are really working to establish these democratic processes in your countries please learn the lessons from the things that we took for granted. We assumed that because there was a kind of feeling that there was a centrist and centrist in the sense of centre left and centre right view of the world that had been bought into by the countries which were seen as victorious after the Second World War that this had been consolidated through national and international institutions and it wasn't true. And that consensus delivered the things that citizens were looking for so for example a lessening of poverty across the world for example but what sufficient attention wasn't paid to was the ways in which societies that became more plural more diverse also began to engage in challenges around national identity for example. That issue of national identity and who we are for example in relation to the United Kingdom I think has become very, very prevalent and that notion of Britishness and who we are I think has been at the centre of our debate not just around Brexit but also around how we see ourselves as a nation going forward. So there are some key lessons to learn I think from some of the mistakes that we have made in terms of what we have taken for granted in the way that our democracy has developed. I think we forgot that politics is ultimately about individuals, families and communities. We took the public for granted. We told people about the benefits of globalisation and didn't prepare them for or help to mitigate the risks. So as societies develop the political institutions, the parliaments, the politicians, the civil society organisations need to help people to understand that change and not just to understand the change in a positive way but to face up to the challenges that those changes bring. Today we are facing an unprecedented set of global challenges, threats and unsolved crises. I think across the world we are struggling to make sense of conflict, mass migration, refugee flows, inequality, environmental degradation, climate change, threats to civil liberties, religious fundamentalism. The list goes on and on. In the midst of all of this, the changes that we are seeing politically in terms of I think the growth of different sorts of democratic processes in countries which are fragile and where it's really important to consolidate those changes but also challenges to those democratic processes in more mature democracies is something that both sides need to learn from. I'm particularly concerned about the way that there is now a kind of oppositionist view emerging about facts, fake news and who engages in the debate and how and how we take on board the challenges and the issues that people care about. If we learn anything from the major political shake-ups that we've seen recently, I think that there is one very important thing that we have to learn which is the importance of seeing what the world looks like from a perspective that is unlike our own. There have been endless analyses of the reasons behind the election, for example, of President Trump, the breakthrough of the far-right in Europe, the vote, as I've mentioned, already to leave the European Union. What is crucial I think about all of those is that they highlight the major fisions and differences which exist in societies and which have been, as it were, highlighted by these changes rather than managed through strong leadership. So there are big questions, I think, which have been raised about how do we therefore ensure that everyone has a voice? How can we bring those debates and discussions into parliamentary discussions and also into the discussions and debates that governments have? Now a key part of the decolonisation agenda, including at SOAS, has been around how we decolonise our curriculum. But added to that, I think, is the importance of looking at how we decolonise research. How do we ensure that we put in place and work within a partnership and collaborative framework that ensures that national scholars have the resources, have the capacity to engage on an equal footing with researchers from the west? This network is all about achieving that. I'm extremely proud that SOAS is a key part of that. For us, that part of turning the world upside down is about ensuring that the power with respect to research, analysis, in-depth scholarship and understanding actually rests with the scholars from those countries themselves. And that through that cross-fertilisation with scholars from, for example, the United Kingdom, that we can have a richer and more nuanced understanding of the challenges that we face in terms of securing democracy. So thank you very much. I'm delighted that we've been able to launch the network today. And I look forward to engaging in Q&A with all of you. Thank you very much. And Emma's promised if we run out of things that she's going to ask questions. So please, the floor is open. Now, there's someone at the back. And if you don't mind saying who you are. Hello. I'm an independent researcher. Thank you very much, Baroness Amos, for that very clear and eloquent talk. I have a question in regards to SOAS's stance on decolonisation. And I mean this with the utmost of respect for yourself and Parliament and SOAS. I was wondering to what extent SOAS's campaign to decolonise academia has led to somewhat of a demonisation of Britishness and really British nationalism and pride in British history. And really whether we need to re-educate society as to what the dangers of globalisation are and provide a better understanding of that given that Britain has always been a global empire and both of us wouldn't be here without it. I think there are two different points there which is about decolonisation in British history and then a different point which is around globalisation. No, I don't think that the SOAS campaign actually demonises British history at all. So the decolonisation campaign is something which SOAS students have campaigned on for a long time. We now have a joint agenda between our students and the school in terms of a vision, in terms of decolonisation and what we're seeking to do as a school. We think that we have a long way to go despite the fact that we are at the forefront of this. Certain parts of the media have sought to make fun of this in the sense of screaming headlines that said we no longer wanted if you were doing philosophy to look at Kant and so on and so forth, which is completely nonsensical. What we're saying is that the reservoir of engagement and scholarship and knowledge doesn't just rest with scholars who have worked historically in the West, that actually that there is a reservoir of scholarship across the world which we need to tap into. Linked to that, I think that there is an issue about how we properly interpret British history and what it means. So I grew up in a country, Guyana, in South America, which was a British colony, became independent in 1966. If you spoke to my parents, they are no longer with us, but they grew up learning about British history. They didn't grow up learning anything about Africa, the slave to Rahid, what that meant. It was about Britain. They learned about Britain. They knew more about Britain than they knew about any other place in the world. So I do think that there is something about those of us who have grown up through those periods of colonialism, post-empire in our countries, and what that means for the way that we understand the world. So there is something that we have to challenge there which relates to the broader agenda of decolonising our minds. Which brings me to your third point about re-educating society on the dangers of globalisation. I think it's about the challenges of globalisation. I think for a long time, the way politically we talked about globalisation was purely in terms of its benefits. We didn't talk sufficiently about the challenges. If you look at the way, I come back to being parochial for a moment, about the impact that that has had on parts of the United Kingdom, the big divide that we see between, as it were, London and the rest of the country. Huge parts of the country where which no longer has industry or employment. Yes, you do have to help people to understand the impact that it's going to have. Politically, you have to find a way of giving people hope. That's not a task for science. That's a task for the society as a whole. Particularly, it's a leadership role that our politicians have to play. I think everybody's in that post-lunch, had too much sandwiches. Shall I do something which people always do to politicians and ask you from the opposite direction? Are we going far enough? With the decolonising particularly of research, which I suppose is my passion? No, I think we're still at a very early step. We're taking baby steps, which everybody lords as if we've taken a giant step for mankind. I think this network is crucial. I think that the engagement that SOAS and other universities, the scholars here want to have across national boundaries, across regional boundaries is really, really important. I don't think we can take our eye off the ball for a second. I think it's very important that we demonstrate the huge success of these partnerships. We're going to have to continue to push for money. I think we will have to work very hard to make sure that our colleagues from the global south, for example, are seen as principal researchers on major collaborative projects. No, I don't think that we have yet gone far enough. I'd like to hear from all of you. Do you think we've gone far enough? Please, speak to me. Do you think we've gone far enough? Yes or no? No? Could you say a bit more about why? A mic is coming to you while you think. I think quite fundamentally because we're still always asking, even when we're asking for the voices of local researchers, we're asking for them to put that voice into the special box that we call research, which we create, which is not necessarily the same thing. Which actually leads me to what I wanted to ask you as well, because you've given a very good description of the crisis in our democracy here. I'm looking at this particular project of SOAS and Hansard, and providing opportunities for local researchers to understand the participatory democracy in two countries with incredible challenges, actually, in terms of that. It does seem like we are at a big paradigm shift, or whatever you want to call it, in terms of political participation, and models and understandings of globalisation, and yet those countries that we're talking about, and I'm sure Ethiopia will be the same as it is for Myanmar, are actually being pushed into an understanding of a modern country, which is at least in the 1980s or possibly the 1990s, 20 years out of date, because those are the models that are still being pushed, that neoliberal, WTO dominated, which creates the very inequalities that are causing chaos in advanced very, very long-seated democracies. It would be very interesting to just consider how this particular project might have as a overall goal or overall understanding some way of creating an equal conversation between those challenges, the challenges that we face as a longer-standing democracy, and challenges of, or certainly in Myanmar, what is potentially, possibly, but may not be an emerging democracy. So I'd say three things, and it doesn't just relate to the project, because I think we have to recognise that there are things that the project can deliver, and that there are wider things that we have to work across societies and across international organisations to deliver. So the first thing I would say is that there's been far too much emphasis in my view on a kind of narrow view of democracies being about elections, as opposed to being about a whole set of institutions that need to be created, nurtured, grown in a country. So rule of law is important, freedom of participation is important, the ability to have civil society organisations, a whole range of things are crucial. So it's not just about elections, and I think it's very important to push back against that very narrow perception of that. The second thing in terms of models being out of date, there's an opportunity here, as it were, leapfrog, to look at the mistakes which have been made in the past, to recognise that some of that is about context and place. I do think the world is different now, and in some ways more challenging because of what we are seeing with the turning inwards in various parts of the world, but at the same time, we are more connected than ever before, and there is a greater understanding of our interconnectedness than ever before. So I think there's something to build on there. And then the third thing I would say is the opportunities for the creation of not just partnerships and collaborations, but the opportunity to work across different sorts of organisations in different kinds of countries to push for change at the global level, I think that opportunity exists today, and we need to build on that. So on the one hand, we need to protect multilateralism in my view, but we have to push for a different kind of multilateralism. We have institutions that are way out of date and don't actually reflect the way the world is now. One of the things that concerns me about the current debate is that it's turning into talking more and more about the sovereignty of individual nations rather than looking at the interconnectedness and importance of multilateralism in supporting the development of democracy in different parts of the world. We have time for one more, yes? But I can't see anyone burning to ask me a question. That's fine. As long as people haven't gone to sleep. You could argue in the UK that the politician who made the most difference to the Brexit vote was a match in an MP. So big money, elite power structures have also jumped the stage in democracy. I wonder whether trying to build up democratic institutions isn't directly on the scene. He's fighting the last battle. Yes. I think to a certain extent that's true. It becomes about accountability, I think. There are lots of aspects to it, but there are two aspects that I would point to. You'll point about billionaires and others speaking directly to people. It's not just that. It's also that they are having an influence across the world. Some view this as positive and some view it as not so positive. In terms of how they're choosing to spend their money philanthropically. And the amount that individuals are spending through their foundations is bigger than the GDP of some individual countries. So there is an influence on the broader development debate that we need to be aware of. But I think that the second element of it, the bit that is crucially linked to this issue of political participation, democracy, greater engagement and everything else, is about accountability. And how do you create accountability mechanisms moving forward as you have this direct engagement because President Trump will say that he's accountable to the people who voted for him and that he is speaking to them directly through Twitter. That's what he would say. And to a certain extent he is. So it's a huge challenge. And I think the whole decline in the membership of traditional political parties is just one element of that. So it's really forcing a rethink. But the fact that it's forcing a rethink in countries like ours is an opportunity, I think, in countries that are fragile in terms of their political processes to think about this differently. And I think the big question in mature democracies that we're confronting is how do you turn social activism into a political movement into something that is much more a structured political process? We're very far behind, I think, in our thinking of that. And I think that countries can leapfrog us in the way that they think about it. Emma? Could I thank you very, very much? Yes, you can, but thank you. Thank you for your work. It makes a huge difference to have support at the very top of SOAS for this decolonising research in the shorthand. The supporting national scholars, which is something which has become really, really important the whole of SOAS, though it's not just this project. But thank you also for reminding us of the unbelievable complexity of the political environment we're dealing with, because that's good for us. And could we show our appreciation to you, sir? Thank you.