 Good morning and welcome to this Davos Insight session on society and security. I'm David Bloom, I'm an economist and a demographer at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health and I also chair the Forum's Global Agenda Council on the Future of the Health Sector. I'm delighted to have this privilege to moderate this panel on society and security which is one of the main pillars of this year's annual meeting of the World Economic Forum. I'm joined on stage by five distinguished panelists who are truly exceptional in terms of their achievements and their perspectives. Very briefly starting to my immediate right is Ahmad Eravani, President and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of Islam in the Middle East and a member of the Forum's Global Agenda Council on the Role of Faith. Welcome Ahmad. Thank you. To his right is Willi Matunga, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Kenya. Very good to have you here. To Willi's right is Catherine Sullivan, U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. Welcome Kathy. Ernesto Zadiel to Kathy's right, former President of Mexico and currently Director of Yale University Center for the Study of Globalization and a member of the Forum's Global Agenda Council on Global Governance. Hello Ernesto. And to my left is Salil Shetty, Secretary-General of Amnesty International and a member of the Forum's Global Agenda Council on Fragility, Violence and Conflict. It's good to have you here Salil. All five are astute observers and very discerning listeners and they participated in all sorts of public and private conversations that comprise the formal and the informal backbone of Davos. Now as we all know Davos doesn't have just one pulse, it has many. Some might even go so far as to describe Davos as pulsating. Anyway, the pulse that we're going to take in the next hour is the one having to do with trust and security. And to set the stage I'd like to offer three quick comments about trust and about what we're trying to do. First of all, I think of trust as a very special class of intangible assets. It's special because of its ethical and moral linkages. It actually represents the last in the progression of words that go from true to truer to truest to trust. And it's an asset because it's something of value that can be a big contributor to human well-being and progress, I think as we all understand. Second comment, trust is something that can be both augmented or depleted. But there's an important asymmetry here because while it sometimes takes a very long time to build trust, it can vanish in an instant and then it actually becomes much more difficult to rebuild. Third comment, one thing that I actually hope that we don't do during this hour is to dwell too extensively on the facts and figures about trust. I actually propose that we run this conversation on the premise that popular confidence in our public and private institutions to fulfill their missions reliably and fairly is generally low by historical standards and not showing much signs of rebounding. Now does anyone on the panel disagree fundamentally with this view that we're operating on somewhat shaky ground with respect to trust? Okay, so we've reached our first agreement. Well done. My compliments. We trust you. Thank you, Ernesto. Okay, so let's use that premise as our jumping off point for our discussion. And what I'd like to do is focus on three questions during this hour. Okay, first of all, why is trust so depleted? Okay, second, what are the manifestations of that decline in trust? And what can we expect to see or experience if we stay in this trust rut, if you will? And third, and finally, who owns this problem? Okay, and what do they need to do individually and collectively to slow or reverse the decline in trust and to forestall the consequences of continued low trust? So Akhman, I'd like to start with you, if I may. And I'd like to ask you, how worried are you with respect to the crisis of trust? And what do you see out there that makes you concerned and keeps you up at night? Thank you very much. First of all, let me thank World Economic Forum for setting up this panel and you for moderating it and also offer my greetings to all of friends who are here and all of the viewers around the world. After, I mean, I got the invitation to be in this panel and did some research and reflection on the topic. I came to the conclusion that the major driving factor that has erodes and continue to erode trust in public and private sector institution is corruption. Corruption in government institution and in the private sector is the general umbrella that covers or array of issues that leads citizen distrusting the very institution that are meant to help and support them. Under corruption, the question of morality and integrity arise. Furthermore, corruption spreads deeper than just the government and usual institution that we are familiar with. Since I'm from the Middle East, and during last few days here in WEV, in many meetings, we have been involved in dealing with the issues of trust, in particular in the Middle East, and we have been together in one of our panelists in some of the agri-programs. Then I want just to take two minutes of the time of the people here to tell a little bit about the issue of mistrust. And the problems in the Middle East. So there are three major issues points to be discussed as far as the Middle East concerned. Middle East suffers from a complex set of trusts eroding phenomena. A, economic malaise and lack of hope for the future improvement in the daily loss of the citizen. B, political instability and lack of security, which feed into the declining hope and declining of the confidence in the resolution of their problem. And C, endemic corruption, which I referred as umbrella at all levels. Now, these three sets of problems seem to have brought down the legitimacy of the governing institutions to the lowest level ever. Legitimacy, performance, nexus is further deteriorating the complex social and political environment in which citizens find themselves. Civic engagement is barely a part of political life of most of these countries. Private sector and non-governmental institutions are very weak and no meaningful emergence of dynamic citizen participation in the political and economic life of the countries of the region are inside. All of these are happening at the time that there was a moment of hope and trust building after the Arab Spring that proved to be a mirage and soon the hope were dashed. So these are the kind of, I think, phenomena that I have concern about. And hopefully if we get a chance, then I have some suggestions about how to face this kind of eroding trust in global and in particular in the Middle East. Okay, thank you, Ahmad. I sort of hear in what you're saying that you almost think of trust as a kind of a fabric and once it begins to unravel, it unravels quickly. And corruption is basically leading to a race to the bottom. That's to the collective detriment of all of us. So thank you. Let's go from there to Willie, if I may. So Willie, maybe let's focus a little bit now as the kind of zero in on some one of the most fundamental institutions that we have, the rule of law. Are you more or less worried than Ahmad when it comes to the rule of law? Yeah, I'm worried. The factors, and I'm talking about Kenya, I'm not talking about other judiciaries because that's the one I'm familiar with. The factors that affect confidence in the judiciary are many, but I want to focus on three. Access, legitimacy and political disputes in a divisive or divided country. So access, only 5% of Kenyans access the formal court systems. The 95% go to other forums of justice because they don't see the formal one as legitimate. If I could just, what would be an example of an informal system of justice? Well, the traditional justice systems, a lot of Kenyans go to the mosque. They go to the elders. They go to their pastors, to their bishops. They go to the, there's so many elder, you know, kinds of elders where these, you know, disputes are bitrated. So formal courts are not the only forums for justice. They, you know, they are others and one of our challenges in the judicial at the moment is how you connect the formal to the informal because the informal is a forum for 95% of the people. Unlegitimacy is, of course, tied to that. If people feel that they will get justice if they take their dispute to the bishop, that's what's going to happen. The formal systems are places for lawyers, people with long passes and they are seen as places for, you know, for the rich that has been the history and that has to be changed. And the last factor was, which I think in the case of Kenya is very, very, very important is there is no court that is going to rule on a political dispute and convene the loser that there was justice because the country is deeply divided ethnically, you know, in terms of religion, race, occupation, generation. So it becomes very, very, very difficult for judicial officers to convince the losers that there was indeed justice in the particular dispute. So I understand that relying on a private adjudication involving the mafia is a bad thing. But what's wrong with it in general? Why can't we get justice through our faith institutions, for example? Why doesn't that give us the resolution that we need to issues? Are they more prone to corruption, just to follow up on Ahmed's point? Yeah, personally, I am supporting these alternative forms of dispute resolution. They are very, very, very, very important. And 95% of our people go there. So as I said, what we're trying to do, because we have a very progressive constitution, is to connect the former to the informal. Because there are certain councils of elders who marry off girls who are nine years old, who don't punish rape, defilement, murder. So they're all kind of things that we think subvert the values of our new constitution. And that's why the connection is going to be very important. Okay, so legal development and its connection to social goals is basically the point you're making. Yes. Okay, so that's well taken. Thank you for that. Maybe we just take a moment. I mean, is there anyone in the audience who has a comment or a question on anything they've heard thus far from Ahmed or Willie? I hope, I know people here are not shy, and I hope you won't be during this session. We'd like to get your involvement. So I'll give you, okay, so maybe we'll just, if I could just ask you to identify yourself. And you agree with which comments in particular? That there was this moment of hope and there was high expectations. And it's almost better to have no expectations and live in that world than to think that you're gonna have freedom and democracy and trust with your government and then see it completely taken away and the whole world confirming that it's okay to do that after supporting revolutions and whatnot. Thank you for that, terrific. Anyone else? Okay, so let's continue. Kathy, let's see if we can get you into the mix here. So one question I have for you is whether the shortfall of trust at the national level impinges upon our ability to cooperate internationally. And I ask that to you because I know that you're involved in work on climate change. So what's the connection here? I think all the scales impinge on each other when it comes to a global issue like climate, the metaphor that was used in one of our sessions is, we're past an era where you might think that all the different countries of the planet were each their own ship sailing on a common sea. It's now clear we're all in different cabins on the same boat. We don't know each other all that well, we have a collective problem we have to find a way to solve. So every dimension of trust vertically or horizontally through layers and sections of society I think plays in here. And another dimension on the climate issue which I think about a lot given both my background and where I currently work is science is fairly obscure and abstract and distant to many, many people if not most people. And yet it is our scientific ability to look at this earth and to measure it well, which is completely new to this era. Part of my history I had a lifetime as an astronaut. So one of the few people that got to see the earth from orbit myself. But all of us share a part of that in common because we are the first wave of humankind that has the ability to take a snapshot of the earth's physical and chemical and biological conditions in a quantitative way that we can turn into actionable information. It's absolutely novel in human history that we can do that. And we are in diapers when it comes to understanding how do we bring that information into even our family or our village decision making. Much less national or collective. And if it's such an alien thing to you, science is not. Some odd thing, only a small number of people do. Then how do you build trust in the insights that is providing you about the state of the planet, about the trajectory of the planet and the ways that that might affect your country, your village, your business? So I like the comment. I like the idea of anchoring a kind of anchoring trust in fact. Actually, Willie, you probably know the story of what Catherine is saying. Reminds me of the lesson that they teach all first year law students. They tell them if you've got the facts, then argue the facts. If you don't have the facts, then argue the law. If you don't have the facts or the law, then just argue. And I think the point is you're always best off when you have the facts. And I think we are, as you say, in a position to get them. Yes, and I would just say the key to facts or data or it's a shared experience point. Something we can come together on and come to some common understanding of. And then try to grow pathways forward from there together. Catherine, are there any workarounds here for dealing with mistrust? I mean, is trust a necessary condition for making progress? I mean, aren't contracts a way around mistrust? I mean, I could just shake hands with Ahmed or Willie and we just agree and we don't need, right, if we trust each other, we don't need a contract. If you don't have trust, then you write a contract or a treaty in the case of climate change. Yeah, so we can spend a lot of time in semantics here. I think you start down that road with some judgment about how much you trust that person and what confidence you will put in that contract. And that can range from very low to very high. And yes, the higher it is, the less need you feel to maybe write it down and memorialize it with someone else. When you do the writing down, holding out, you're inviting a third party to help hold each other accountable to that. That's why you're bringing someone else in, anticipating arbitration. But it's still all, I think, comes back to trust. And I think what may be one of the trickle charges and game changers for the climate question, but we'll have a challenge of will it move fast enough, is people are beginning to experience at the scales of their own lives, impacts from changes in common patterns that they're used to. And they're hungry now for information that will help them make better plans for their future. So they're leaning in on that level. And it may be that we have to go back to more grass roots and grow up from the bottom before we can really tackle the other scales and dimensions of the problem. But if that's too slow, we will have a different challenge. So fact-based progress makes a lot of sense in the areas you're talking about. I think in the faith area, it's not necessarily such a natural way forward. So maybe you could say something, Akman, about faith-based institutions and the crisis of trust if you think there is one. Yes, that's a very good question. I wish we had more time to get into this. There are two sides of issue within the, at least let me talk about Islamic institutions. In one side, you see that some of the institutions that, some of them are very new based institution are getting lots of trust, especially of young people in the Middle East and the region. Because they try to represent themselves as someone who take care for the poor, who take care for the justice issue and all of this. And they are trying to gain the trust of the people who have had lots of mistrust on the official institution in the name of religion. So I can see that mistrust is happening and there is within some official institution of Islamic calerical system in a way to say today. And the reason for that, that people saying that the olama, the scholars, the representative of religion, some of them or most of them or institutionalized, they are not thinking of them in different ways. They are not bringing new solution to the new issues they are wanting to know. In different ways. For example, there are many challenges today coming towards them. And they are not ready to answer them. More than challenges, scientific challenges, whatever you want to name it. So they are not ready for that. In terms of their practicality in their life, they are acting also. Usually, they should resemble Prophet Muhammad and the saint and the expectation of people is to see them in that way when they see injustice. Just to raise their hand and be against that, but they see less. Especially in some of these countries that the institution of the mosque or Islamic institution have been supported by the government. And financially, they are relied on the corrupted government. So they don't have that kind of freedom to talk. So when you don't talk, when you don't act, then you are losing your trust. Okay, thank you. Let's, Ernesto, switch now from faith institutions to economic institutions. And let's take a broad view of them as comprising public and private and national and international level institutions. I know that you have some concern about lack of trust in those institutions. What is the basis for that lack of trust, as far as you know? Well, I mean, what's the meaning of trust? When you have an understanding between two parties, and one party fails to deliver what it promised to the other party, then trust is lost. It's as simple as that, it's common sense. And the fact is that people have expectations, people have aspirations. And people have had promises from institutions that due to various circumstances, not least the economic crisis that we have gone through. And also all grievances of economic injustice and social injustice. People feel that those institutions, local or national or even international, have failed to deliver. And therefore trust is eroded. Of course, this is influenced very much, this moved very much by the results that they have in front of them. And also the way in which those economic circumstances affect their everyday life. But I think the fundamental problem is that relative to expectations, institutions are failing. But those expectations also have to do with the way in which institutions conduct before people. Sometimes inflating expectations, sometimes not telling people how complex problems are and that the solution of those problems demand great effort. The political battle sometimes is reduced to a manique ambition of the world. The world is divided between the good and the bad. And I happen to be in the good side. And whoever is my adversary is bad, no matter what. And then if I am aspiring to have his or her power, well, I disqualify totally what that person says of belief or that other political party. And then in that way, I win the favor or the vote or the support of the people. And of course, if I win, then I am in trouble. Because now I have to tell people the truth, that problems were much more complex than what I said before. So that failure of fulfilling expectation has to do also with the way in which the social and the political dialogue is carried out. And ironically, this problem has not lessened but rather made more acute in this modern world of very extensive communication because somehow these forces to simplify the message. Nowadays, we don't deliberate. We Twitter or whatever, I don't, by the way, I don't even know how to do it, right? But we don't deliberate, right? And we are always trying to give the quick effective message to win the sympathy rather than deliberate to understand the other and to make the other understand a little bit of what I am trying to do or to understand. So I think that is a big problem and has to do of course with policies which are sometimes wrong and other times I write but they convey a price in the short term to be effective. But fundamentally, I would say more than policies, the problem is in the design, in the rigidity of institutions. And part of that rigidity is because special interests everywhere tend to capture those institutions in the benefit of those particular interests, not in the benefit of the generality of the people. And I think this is a fundamental problem in democracies and also of course in regimes that are not democratic. So at the end, I think that poses a problem of justice, right? Because people feel that there is no justice. If the institution is favoring the powerful, the rich, or the influential, then there is no justice. Because the principle of equality before the law is being violated in terms of security or in terms of economic justice, in terms of social justice. So I think that is the problem. So I appreciate you're connecting the issues to the legal system. I also appreciate this other point that you're making which is that it's not the lack of trust in our economic institutions is not just about their failure to deliver. It's also about their failure to manage expectations. And it's not really their fault in a sense, because as you say, in the modern internet age, it's very difficult to control information. It wouldn't be very careful about using that term. Manage expectations starts to listen in manipulation. I think what we are talking about here is about telling people the truth. Yes, we want to be better. We want to have a higher per capita income. We have to have this or that. But you know what, let's make a deal. You will work hard, you will pay your taxes. You will abide by the law. And I as institution will be transparent, will be accountable. And I am willing to pay the price if I don't fulfill my commitment towards you. But if I only ask you to have obligations and the institution is not transparent and is not accountable, then I think there is no reason to trust. So are there no limits to transparency? Is it not the case that too much transparency can also not be disabling? Well, you know, at least in the cases I think about in many issues. I think I haven't yet found a reason not to be transparent. Of course, you have to be careful with, because again, if you're talking about a special interest, sometimes there is transparency before a special interest, but the rest of the people or the rest of the society don't have access to that information. So that's not transparency, right? Transparency is transparency. And I think you can talk to that much better than this. That's called insider trading. That's exactly, politically, economically, financially, absolutely. So transparency, data, accountability, rule of law, fairness. And truth, and truth, okay. Deliveration. Okay, so we're working towards the path forward. That's very helpful. Thank you. So I'll come to you in just one moment. But does anyone now want to jump in and ask a question or make a comment? Please, so can we just hand the microphone to this gentleman, please? Karim Nesina from AT&T. I would have a full-up question for President Zidio, but all of you. I agree totally on the transparency side. But how can we ensure transparency with a decision-making process that was based on compromise? So we have a challenge of people wanting to have an answer immediately, while at the same time, our decision-making process, wherever we are in the world, take time to find a compromise between different people, like you were raising. So how can we do the two? There is a tendency for people to be negative from the beginning, just because they don't have the information. The time that you try to find a compromise and then to explain them, it's almost impossible to change their mind, even if you know that you're right. So imagine if you're wrong. So how can you move to a system that allows fastness, transparency, to compromise seeking? Well, that's why I speak about telling people the truth. Do not oversimplify problems and always tell people what is your best judgment about what it will take to get to the point you want to be. I think that's very important, because of course, if you tell people, yes, this problem has a solution, and you create the expectation that tomorrow, just because you have the good will, the problem will be solved, then you are falling into your own trap. So I think it is a process, but it will not happen if you don't tell people the truth about the complexity of the problem. I'm going to weigh in with some sympathy to that question, though. Complex problems come my way, and I have to find a way to make the rapprochement maybe with Salil to find a way forward, and I don't know that way forward right now. And there are groups of people who have certain expectations or hopes of what course I might take, and how do you start down that road together? Well, one thing is I need some space, let me say some unobserved space where I can start to calibrate to determine what degree of trust I can have in Salil or whoever the other parties involved in this are. And find where we maybe have some ground of shared understanding and shared expectations that we can begin to build on. And then get enough trust that when you go to try to move your constituents, when you go to try to explain this reality to yours, and I go to explain to mine, I trust we're going to stay on the same course, we're trying for the same goal. It will be hard for each of us, but we won't cut and run as we would say in English. And I know, you're watching in my own world and in our political world in the United States, the insistence that I have always a camera on my shoulder, even those early conversations. And the speed with which someone might react if I actually said to Salil, well, I might be willing to consider that and go so far. And someone in my gallery disagrees with that. The speed with which the gate comes down, the penalty, the shouting begins to try to prevent me from doing that is so fast that I can never start to build a road forward with Salil. And I wrestle with that because I very much agree with transparency and with candor, but I also have a responsibility to lead. And lead oftentimes means go somewhere where there isn't a road yet, where people don't have full agreement yet. It is to some degree your responsibility to try to form a vision clearly enough that you then can share it with your folks and see if they will come with you. But when you're sitting in the presidency in Nesto, my seat's leading an agency, where do I get that little bit of safe space? Or do we now have an era where we don't agree that leaders should have any such safe space? Because as long as they get a bit of a shadow of a safe space, corruption will come in right away. But Cathy is talking about something very important, which is the ethics of responsibility, right? And for ex-circumstances, I have to live through that. When I started doing my most important responsibility in the Mexican government, the situation in my country was very difficult. We were in the middle of a terrible financial crisis and otherwise. And the government had to take very difficult actions. And of course, that was not going to be popular. I would assume that a lot of people, and it was objectively measured, was angry at the government and certainly angry at me. But having deliberated about the nature of the problems and the kind of actions that we needed to take, I took them. Saying to people, we have to do this because otherwise the situation will be worse, there will be pain and please be patient. Of course, they say, don't get me patients or I will not give you any patients. But if you do the right thing, eventually people say, well, maybe you had to do that, so we had a space. But again, it has to be based in transparency about the nature of the problem. And also tell people how much pain we are going to take to do that. And I think it's good, believe me, because if you do the right thing, eventually you will be rewarded. When I finish the government, I say, oh, Sergio has high approval rates. They show me the graphic. I say, when was my proudest moment as president? Not when I was very popular. But when I was taking actions that were very painful, and my popularity was lower than Mexico's rate of inflation. So let's hold that for a moment. But you raised the issue of patients. Okay, and I just want to point out that our most patient panelist is Salil. And I want to give Salil a chance to jump in here. So Salil, I actually have this view that innovation is the most powerful engine of human, or one of the most powerful engines of human progress. When I think about innovation, I like to distinguish between technological innovation, which is revolutionary, and institutional innovation, which tends to be much more evolutionary. So my question to you, jumping off from there, because I want to try to now move the discussion to be more forward looking and remedial in nature. And that's what I've been waiting for you for. Do you think we need to pick up the pace of institutional adaptation? Or is it time for a more fundamental rethink and reinvention of our institution, something more revolutionary? Is that what's needed here? First of all, I should just say that I've never been in a panel with religious scholar, a woman astronaut, a serving Chief Justice, and an ex-president. And it's never gonna happen again, so thank you for setting up such an amazing panel. I wish I were the astronaut. It was easier job. And I think, I'll come to that, David, but I do want to say that there's a couple of things, because if you're jumping to how do we fix it, without actually agreeing on what the framing of the problem is, we might be missing a trick there. So yes, I mean, unaccountable governance is at the root of, I think it's been said many times. But the second element, which I think several of you talked about, we have to frame it from a discrimination and exclusion perspective, because it doesn't just happen. It's quite targeted. The way in which inequality happens is, it's related to indigenous people, it's related to women, there is a pattern through which this happens. And we have to understand that if you're gonna fix it. So I don't want to say that. And the third thing is that now there are non-state actors who are at play, whether it's extremist groups or corporations, who states are unable to regulate and control. So we shouldn't forget that, because that's relatively, I mean, maybe it's not so new if you go back in history, but there is a new dimension to this. And finally, the last one which we shouldn't forget is the international dimension to this. And you were kind of taking me in that direction. And the global governance system is broken. Security council is, they're just competing, West versus the blocks fighting with each other. And one of the main reasons why people feel lack of dignity and distrust, injustice, et cetera, is also related to the double standards of the Western governments. And this is a deep issue, particularly in the Middle East. But it's not just the Middle East. If you go in the streets of India and talk about this, they'll say, oh, the Americans, what do you expect? This is what they do. And unfortunately, things like the Senate Committee report on the CIA, and even the reactions after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. They kind of, this leads to distrust. If we're discussing distrust, we shouldn't forget about that. Now, so if on the security, like you're asking if innovation can happen in any kind of fast track, can we leapfrog? I think you can only leapfrog if the urgency of the situation demands it, because even in a sort of organizational setting where organizations have leapfrogged, it hasn't happened because the CEO wanted it to happen. There has to be a massive crisis. And maybe we're getting to that point. And then we realize that actually, we don't have ethical leadership at the global level of any ale coming. We talked about Mandela, and that's over. We have a security council, which is, as I mentioned, we have, essentially, people are holding nuclear power. I mean, I would have thought that you say, if you have nuclear power, you shouldn't be allowed into the security council. This is the opposite. And so the veto is used selectively. If it's anything to do with Israel, the Americans block it. If anything to do with anybody else, Chinese and the Russians block it. So yes, it's possible, but it doesn't look likely. So with respect to fixing the global governance system, which, as you say, is broken, I think a lot of people would agree with that. Should we basically be not wasting the next good crisis? Is now the quiet time where we should be developing our plans for reinventing the global governance system, and then as soon as the next crisis comes along, take that opportunity? I think that the only way, I mean, obviously President knows a lot better about how the potential is going to be done. My hope was that you'll get a Monday or an Aung San Suu Kyi or somebody like that who'll actually start pulling people together and saying, let's stop having these side deals because the UN doesn't work. Let's create a G20. If the main climate process doesn't work, let's go for bilateral deals, because that's what's happening in practice. Regional answers, global doesn't work. Let's coalition of the willing model. But we have to have a global system because if you want, these are global problems, whether it's security or climate or poverty or all of these. If you are looking to me to find an answer, I don't have it. But I mean, you mentioned Mandela, okay, so you're invoking leadership and moral authority now. I mean, is the problem with the structure of our institutions or is it the people who populate them or both? Actually, and I'd like to actually, Akma, I hear you on this also. Is it the people, is it the people or the structure of the institutions or both that are the problem? And I'd actually like to hear everyone on this. For the issue of the crisis of mistrust. Trust, yes. I think we are all guilty. Can not just bring and put the accusation on one side. In fact, I was thinking where we were talking now that the issue of mistrust is deeper even than institutions or among the government sectors. It's even within us and even within the families. That's the big problem these days we are suffering. And the whole global world that you see that maybe within the family, children are sitting together with their families but they don't have trust to each other. Okay, Willie, are you agree, disagree? Where do you see? I think it's both, it's institutions and the leadership. I know, I agree with you that we have a crisis of political leadership all over the place. And that in some countries, political leadership is about everything. The institutions will not grow if the political leadership puts hurdles along its way and that has been my experience. So it's both because with good leadership, institutions will develop and once they develop and they are strong, they will check on the political leadership and we need to deal with both. The other dimension to this is that the fundamental accountability mechanisms which we have in place, say in a bigger picture, if you look at democratic countries, the idea is that the voting process leads to accountable people being elected and then, but first of all that's not working very smoothly. So there's a kind of disillusionment with that model. And secondly, people are not ready to wait for five years and there are so many governments who say that because we've been voted into power, that makes us legitimate. That's gone. I mean, people are not gonna accept that just because you've got elected once. After that, you don't need to be accountable. Okay, I think we have time for maybe one more question or comment from the floor. Anyone care to raise something? You'll have one. Yes, please. Sorry. You chose from Japan. I'm interested in the relation between religion and the issue of mistrust in general. In particular, Islam and the issue of mistrust. Do you think if Islam could play some kind of role in a positive sense to regain or to rebuild trust of people? Yes, I think of course in particular Islam as we know that religion and politics and law integrated. Muslim are taking their laws from Quran and Sunnah. So if we try to help and bring a kind of reform within Islam and give a voice to those people who are thinking in like today's world and they are familiar with the need of today's society, then of course then using the methodology which we call it ish jihad, a kind of looking at the text and try to find out the answer based on modern need, then definitely can help a lot as it has been helpful in many ways. Islam, a religion of peace and definitely can play its role and it's playing somehow although it's not an ideal and we have to try to give it a chance more. And that's a very good question. I think religion can play its role in general and Islam in particular about the medialist issues in creating and regaining trust. And if we have another circle, I wanted to even talk about that and how we have experienced how religion played its role even in calming the problem and animosity between Iran and the US. And this is what we have been, our center has been doing using that influence of religion and presence of religion within the American society and integration of religion and politics within the Iranian system and try to connect them and create trust based on that trust then the political leaders are going also to talk to each other. So definitely it can work. Thank you for that. So I'll do one more question and then we'll keep moving along. I have the impression certainly that as far as our social institutions go, civil society on the trust scale is definitely higher than most others. And I wanna know if that's your perception from where you sit, number one. And number two, what lessons can other institutions pick up from civil society that might help them rebuild and manage trust a little better? Think of trust as an asset, you have to manage it. So that's what I'm getting at. Of course, we could first of all spend an hour discussing what is civil society. So I won't go there, but assuming that we're talking about the more organized forms, I think all the trust barometers, et cetera, do say that it's higher. I think it's rather unfortunate that it's higher. It actually reflects more badly on the states and on the copper. I'd rather that our states are more trusted than civil society is more trusted. It's just the sad reality of where we are. And I think generally speaking, it comes to the same point. I mean, there's of course organizations and organizations, but broadly the decision making is more participatory. There's more accountability and transparency in the better organizations, particularly the membership. My problem is the opposite in amnesty. We have seven million members, we can't make any decision without almost everybody being involved in everything. So, but yeah, that comes with the cost of course, but I would say the features are clear. I think there's leadership as a key part of it as well. Okay, thank you. So we have about 10 minutes left. So I'd actually like to move forward and ask everyone a final question. Catherine, maybe if I may, I'll start with you. So what do you actually think, and then we have maybe take a minute tops here. What do you think needs to happen in 2015 for us to transition from the decumulation to the accumulation of trust? Well, I've been thinking about that throughout the entire forum because I keep hearing lots of conversations that suggest to me, maybe we're going into the start of a longer period where we need to de, not de-accumulate trust, but disaggregate to smaller scales and rebuild trust there and come back up. Civil society has a fabric of trust as that because people make a more active choice to become part of it than they often do to be a citizen or to be in a faith community. You sort of get that and it's more distant. You make a choice and you make a lean in commitment as a participant of a member of an organization. So whether it's Estonia being able to really move rapidly forward on e-government because their post-Soviet trials erased this late, the group that was not trusted was no longer gone and Estonians looked at each other in a very different way and said, it's now us. It's now us we need to do something. Like instantly they were at a Twitter's own community that was spontaneously self-organizing to build something new together. And I saw so many examples in that vein at this meeting. So do we irrevocably or inevitably have to work at that level for a while and sow the seeds of trust and let those networks of networks and networks of influence grow into whatever the next wave of global governance? Is it maybe not be any more a single global structure but networks of control and influence? So a more fine grained approach and realization that we're all in this together. And whatever the next global governance is, emerging from that, perhaps even more than being intentionally designed and imposed on it. Again, look at the Estonia example in several letters. If you had asked the people who were in their seats before the great turmoil, is it time to redesign our system? That would have been an interesting exercise. But once the transition, once the shock, once the catastrophe happened, those are not the people going to do the new design. And Catherine, what on a scale of one to 10, one being extreme pessimism, 10 being supercharged optimism, what's the likelihood that we see that kind of change in the next year on a large scale? You can't say it fine. Yeah, no, I know, that's just a shooting, isn't it? I would say six or seven. I think there's so many seeds out there. It is one of the places where I think the individual access to new conversational technologies, putting control back in the individual opportunity initiative back in the individual hand to begin remaking my connections. I think offer some promise. Okay, good, thank you. Ernesto, same question. What needs to happen in 2015 to move forward in this domain? And then how likely on this one to 10 scale do you think it is? Well, first of all, we need to contain and start to reverse some of the conflicts that are affecting various parts of the world. I think we are going through a very delicate situation. It is true that if we measure relative to the past, or only violence is less prevalent now and conflicts are less numerous, but I think the ones that we have are very, very, very dangerous. So I think it's time to cool down. We are seeing again this confrontation, for example, between Russia and the West. And I think it's very important rather soon to start cooling off that confrontation. I think everybody has to commit more seriously to do what it takes to solve issues in the Middle East. I mean, the human tragedy of what has happened in Syria and its neighborhood and before in Iraq, and I mean, it's just amazing. I cannot believe that we are talking about this in the 21st century, after what happened in the 20th century. And when we see how easy it would have been to prevent this escalation of conflict, by the way, if the international institutions have been supported and allowed to do their work, rather to undermine the international institutions, then I think it's very sad. Now the cost is much higher. So I would say that's point number one. Recognize that many of these issues, and let me just talk for a moment about... Okay, but just a moment, because they're gonna cut us off. The issue of violence in my country. You know, yes, we have problems that are created in the weaknesses of our legal and security system. But I would say a good part of that problem, which has costed literally thousands of lives, has to do with our wrong-headed drug policy. That my country, and more especially the most powerful countries, have followed for too long. A policy that is not based on science, a policy that today neglects all the evidence that we have that it is wrong. And yet governments continue to promote organized crime, continue to promote black markets to enrich criminals that kill people in my country and in many countries. And many people who probably have a medical situation of addiction are put in jail for consuming drugs or for trading being on the edges of that black market. So I mean, we need to address those issues more frankly and don't say, no, I don't want to talk about that because it's not a popular issue. It's radioactive, which is the attitude that I have found when I try to speak about this question. Okay, so cool down, get our heads right. Scale of one to 10 this coming year. Is this gonna happen? I hope it happens because I see very dangerous trends, particularly because the economy is going to be very difficult for some areas of the world, not least Latin America. And I think they are going to be difficult for Africa where there is ferment for conflict. I am very worried about Africa, for example. Because we have had a good run and now it could be over. Okay, you're being too transparent now. You're giving all the reasons. I just want a number. One to 10. You can tweet? I don't know. Okay, you can be a non-resource. At your university, you do that. At my university, we don't do that. This is getting complicated. Okay, okay, we're getting personal now. Okay, Salil, 15 seconds and a number. I think first of all, we have to stop taking shortcuts. Human rights is the long-term solution. So post-Paris, you start behaving like post-911. That's going to come right back to you. I think a very concrete thing which we can do is that the Security Council, the permanent five should stop. They should not be allowed to use the veto when it comes to mass atrocity situations like Syria. I think if we can do those two things, just you can't send the army in northern Nigeria and think you're going to find the solution. That's a shortcut. Okay, so no shortcuts and sort of veto lists. V-5, veto goes when it comes to mass atrocities. Okay, score? Is this going to happen in this year? 5.7. Okay, Willie, I'm going to come to you next, but first, Ahmad. Yes, I think the key answer to this, I was thinking again about what would be the best important element that I can use for that. I think reform is something needed in the long term, reform in all of these issues that we don't have time to explain it, and also the responsibility of intellectuals, intellectual people, scholars, thinkers, religious leaders to come ahead and be more active. Especially religious leaders, that's my message to them that religion is not just going to your mosque, to your chest and preach about good things, but you are forgetting your people. How was Jesus? How was Prophet Muhammad? How were the other good people? Come and try to be productive in the issue of environment. People have lost their trust even on God, because even the nature doesn't help them these days. So try to come and be more active and show your responsibility and your duties within the society. The return to core values. Yes, core values and be in the society, be with people. That's very important, show themself, you care for the others. Okay, okay, good. Chief Justice Willie. Give a number? You know, we're running out of time. I should write a stated scheme with the reference to the university. I no longer have a meaningful average because Ernesto withheld, so. I stay very pessimistic. When I look at the global political leadership, I don't see any commitment to dealing with these issues. I was very shocked in this, you know, in this annual meeting when I found out that the so-called illicit economy is worth 3.3 trillion and it's operating within legal, you know, legal systems. So I think until I see that political will to change and to care, I'll still remain under five. Okay. To the, Rebecca, do we have three minutes for wrapping up? Okay, so let me try to bring us to closure by first of all thanking the panelists, the participants in the room, the participants, an audience outside the room for engaging in what I think is a very insightful, broad-ranging and frank distillation of the Davos insights on trust and security. So thank you all. By way of summary, and we've covered a lot of ground, so you'll please indulge me for a few months. I sort of take away three messages, I guess, from the discussion. First of all, I actually share, I think Willie's pessimism by and large. I think the world is really in a rather perilous state with respect to trust and security. I think at risk are the capacities of our most fundamental institutions, our economic, our legal, our faith institutions, our international institutions and so on to deliver everything from continued material gain inclusively and sustainably to the adoption of superior values that uphold human rights and promote improvements in human security to the development of vaccines for Ebola. We haven't talked about that here, but that was a very actively discussed issue at the forum to the elimination of corruption, to the rule of law that fits our highest aspirations to the elimination of international double standards, as Helio mentioned. Second takeaway, I actually think Davos has accomplished a lot in terms of getting us to acknowledge these issues and to further our understanding of their nature. It kind of reminds me a little bit this last hour of being in an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. And just for the record, I have not participated myself, but I know from the movies that the first thing that happens in those meetings is someone stands up and says, I am an alcoholic. And I think that's important because acknowledging the problem is the first necessary step towards designing and adopting a solution. And I like to think that Davos has helped the world take that important first step. Finally, I'm struck by the sense that there are no quick fixes that I've heard to the precipitous decline of trust, pretty much not across the board, but close to across the board, it sounds like to me. And I think that the road back is gonna be tough. In charting the path back or forward, what I heard is that we need to keep our eyes on fundamentals, like monitoring and accountability, like the vital role that civil society plays in that process. In fact, to my mind, if civil society institutions, and please forgive the use of that term because it is a little bit ill-defined, I agree with you, it's a little. If those institutions were linked in our stock exchange, and I were an analyst, I'd rate them a buy because I think that civil society is gonna be a growth sector for many years to come, and I think that's a good thing that it is. And also, as discussed and mentioned, by way of fundamentals, I think there's no substitute for moral authority and leadership. And by the way, to our aspiring leaders in the room or outside the room who are looking to define their political and public identities, I would pay attention to the kinds of things that have been discussed in Davos and here in this session, because I think there's some great opportunities here for defining yourself for a successful future. Before I close, I would like also to extend my compliments to the forum's team that designed this year's Davos program. They've given a very interesting and thoughtful group of people many opportunities to engage with a set of issues that are absolutely essential to the current and the future state of the world, which after all, improving that is the mission of the forum. I also know that these conversations are not the end, but actually quite a bit closer to the beginning of much deeper and more intense efforts that are gonna be carried on under the auspices of the forum's many global agenda councils. They're well represented on this dais, in fact. And I find that very heartening and I wish everyone well in those efforts. So I hope that everyone here and outside will join me in thanking the panelists on the audience and the forum organizers for a terrific session.