Ivan Krastev: Can democracy exist without trust?

Translator: Anders Krohn Reviewer: Anders Finn Jørgensen

I'm afraid I'm one of those speakers

Jeg er bange for, at jeg er en af de talere

you hope you're not going to meet at TED.

som du håber, at du ikke vil møde på TED

First, I don't have a mobile,

For det første har jeg ikke nogen mobil.

so I'm on the safe side.

Bare for at være på den sikre side.

Secondly, a political theorist

Derudover er en politisk teoretiker,

who's going to talk about the crisis of democracy

som ønsker at tale om demokratiets krise,

is probably not the most exciting topic you can think about.

formentlig ikke det mest interessante du kan komme i tanke om.

And plus, I'm not going to give you any answers.

Som om det ikke var nok, er jeg ikke her for at give jer svar.

I'm much more trying to add to some of the questions we're talking about.

Jeg er snarere kommet for tilføje endnu flere ubesvarede spørgsmål.

And one of the things that I want to question

En af de ting som jeg ønsker at sætte spørgsmålstegn ved,

is this very popular hope these days

er den meget moderne og populære ide,

that transparency and openness

at transparens og åbenhed

can restore the trust in democratic institutions.

kan genoprette troen på demokratiske institutioner.

There is one more reason for you to be suspicious about me.

Der er endnu en grund at være mistænkelig i forhold til mine intentioner.

You people, the Church of TED, are a very optimistic community.

I, publikum i the Church of TED, er en del af et vældigt optimistisk fællesskab.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Basically you believe in complexity, but not in ambiguity.

Jeres mest generelle karaktertræk er at I tror på kompleksitet, men ikke på flertydighed.

As you have been told, I'm Bulgarian.

Som I er blevet fortalt, så er jeg fra Bulgarien.

And according to the surveys,

I følge undersøgelser

we are marked the most pessimistic people in the world.

er bulgarer de mest pessimistiske mennesker i verden.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

The Economist magazine recently wrote an article

The Economist skrev for nylig en artikel

covering one of the recent studies on happiness,

der dækkede en ny undersøgelse a lykke.

and the title was "The Happy, the Unhappy and the Bulgarians."

Titlen var "De lykkelige, de ulykkelige og bulgarerne".

(Laughter)

(Latter)

So now when you know what to expect,

Eftersom I nu ved hvad I kan forvente,

let's give you the story.

så lad os komme i gang.

And this is a rainy election day in a small country --

Vi starter på en regnvejrsfuld valgdag i et lille land.

that can be my country, but could be also your country.

Det kunne være mit land, men det kunne også være dit.

And because of the rain until four o'clock in the afternoon,

Det regnede indtil kl. 4 om eftermiddagen.

nobody went to the polling stations.

Som en konsekvens heraf var der ingen, der begav sig ned til stemmeurnen.

But then the rain stopped,

Men så stoppede regnen,

people went to vote.

og befolkning gik ned for at stemme.

And when the votes had been counted,

Da stemmerne var blevet talt,

three-fourths of the people have voted with a blank ballot.

stod det klart, at tre fjerdedele stemmerne var blanke.

The government and the opposition,

Regeringen og oppositionen

they have been simply paralyzed.

var ude af stand til at handle.

Because you know what to do about the protests.

De vidste hvordan de skulle forholde sig til protester.

You know who to arrest, who to negotiate with.

De vidste hvem der skulle arresteres og hvem der skulle forhandles med.

But what to do about people who are voting with a blank ballot?

Men hvordan forholder man sig til en befolkning, der stemmer blankt?

So the government decided to have the elections once again.

Derfor besluttede regeringen sig for afholde endnu et valg.

And this time even a greater number,

Ved dette valg stemte et endnu større antal,

83 percent of the people, voted with blank ballots.

83 procent for at være præcis, blankt.

Basically they went to the ballot boxes

Befolkningen gik simpelthen til stemmeurnen

to tell that they have nobody to vote for.

for at fortælle politikerne, at de ikke havde nogen at stemme på.

This is the opening of a beautiful novel by Jose Saramago

Det er begyndelsen Jose Saramagos

called "Seeing."

fantastiske roman "Seeing".

But in my view it very well captures

Men i mine øjne er det glimrende eksempel

part of the problem that we have with democracy in Europe these days.

på en del af det problem vi har med demokrati i Europa nu til dags.

On one level nobody's questioning

På den end side er der ingen der stiller spørgsmålstegn

that democracy is the best form of government.

ved, at demokrati er den bedste styreform.

Democracy is the only game in town.

Demokrati er det eneste spil man kan spille.

The problem is that many people start to believe

Problemet er bare, at mange mennesker begynder at tro,

that it is not a game worth playing.

at det ikke er et spil, der er værd at spille.

For the last 30 years, political scientists have observed

I løbet af de senest 30 år har politologer observeret,

that there is a constant decline in electoral turnout,

at der er et konstant fald i valgprocenter

and the people who are least interested to vote

og at den del af befolkninger, der stemmer mindst

are the people whom you expect are going to gain most out of voting.

er også den del af befolkningen, der ville have det største udbytte ved at stemme.

I mean the unemployed, the under-privileged.

Her henviser jeg til arbejdsløse og samfundets bund.

And this is a major issue.

Det er et kæmpe problem.

Because especially now with the economic crisis,

I forbindelse med den nuværende økonomiske krise står det klart,

you can see that the trust in politics,

at troen på på politik

that the trust in democratic institutions,

og på demokratiske institutioner

was really destroyed.

er blevet nedbrudt.

According to the latest survey being done by the European Commission,

I følge den seneste under udført af EU-kommisionen

89 percent of the citizens of Europe believe that there is a growing gap

mener 89 procent af borgerne i EU at der en stigning

between the opinion of the policy-makers and the opinion of the public.

forskellen mellem politikernes holdninger og borgernes holdninger.

Only 18 percent of Italians and 15 percent of Greeks

Kun 18 procent af italienerne og 15 procent grækerne

believe that their vote matters.

tror at deres stemme gør en forskel.

Basically people start to understand that they can change governments,

Kort sagt tror folk at de kan udskifte regeringer,

but they cannot change policies.

men de har tabt troen på, at de kan ændre den førte politik.

And the question which I want to ask is the following:

Spørgsmålet jeg ønsker at stille er følgende:

How did it happen that we are living in societies

Hvordan er det sket, at samtidig med at vi lever i samfund

which are much freer than ever before --

med mere frihed,

we have more rights, we can travel easier,

flere rettigheder, større bevægelsesfrihed

we have access to more information --

og lettere adgang til informationer

at the same time that trust in our democratic institutions

at troen på demokratiske institutioner

basically has collapsed?

er brudt sammen?

So basically I want to ask:

Sagt med andre ord, så ønsker jeg at spørge:

What went right and what went wrong in these 50 years

Hvad har vi gjort rigtigt og hvad har vi gjort forkert i de seneste 50 år

when we talk about democracy?

med demokrati?

And I'll start with what went right.

Jeg vil starte med hvad vi har gjort rigtigt.

And the first thing that went right was, of course,

For det første var der selvfølgelig

these five revolutions which, in my view,

de 5 revolutioner som i mine øjne

very much changed the way we're living and deepened our democratic experience.

har ændret den måde vi lever på og forbedret vores demokrati radikalt.

And the first was the cultural and social revolution of 1968 and 1970s,

Den første revolution var den kulturelle og sociale revolution som i 1968 of 1970'erne

which put the individual at the center of politics.

satte individet i centrum af politik.

It was the human rights moment.

Det var menneskerettighedsbevægelsen.

Basically this was also a major outbreak, a culture of dissent,

Denne bevægelse medførte paradigmeskift, en kultur a holdningsforskelle,

a culture of basically non-conformism,

en kultur af non-konformisme

which was not known before.

af hidtil uset karakter.

So I do believe that even things like that

Jeg tror at sådanne ændringer

are very much the children of '68 --

er konsekvenser af ændringerne i 68.

nevertheless that most of us had been even not born then.

Også selvom mange af os ikke engang var født.

But after that you have the market revolution of the 1980s.

Derefter kom markedsrevolutionen i 1980'erne.

And nevertheless that many people on the left try to hate it,

Til trods for at mange på venstrefløjen forsøger at hade den,

the truth is that it was very much the market revolution that sent the message:

så er sandheden at markedsrevolutionen grundlagde ideen:

"The government does not know better."

"Staten ved ikke bedre".

And you have more choice-driven societies.

Således fostrede den samfund med flere muligheder og valg.

And of course, you have 1989 -- the end of Communism, the end of the Cold War.

Derpå kom 1989. Kommunismens endeligt og enden på den kolde krig.

And it was the birth of the global world.

Det var starten på den globale verden.

And you have the Internet.

Dernæst kom internettet.

And this is not the audience to which I'm going to preach

Det er ikke nødvendigt at overbevise dette publikum om,

to what extent the Internet empowered people.

at internettet gav individet mere magt.

It has changed the way we are communicating

Internettet har ændret den måde vi kommunikerer på

and basically we are viewing politics.

og den måde vi betragter politik.

The very idea of political community totally has changed.

Selve ideen om politisk fællesskab har ændret sig markant.

And I'm going to name one more revolution,

Jeg vil dog nævne endnu en revolution.

and this is the revolution in brain sciences,

Dette er revolutionen inden for hjerneforskning,

which totally changed the way

som i den grad har ændret

we understand how people are making decisions.

vores forståelse af beslutningsprocesser.

So this is what went right.

Det var altså hvad der gik godt.

But if we're going to see what went wrong,

Men hvis vi skal betragte hvad der gik mindre godt,

we're going to end up with the same five revolutions.

så ender vi hos de samme fem revolutioner.

Because first you have the 1960s and 1970s,

Først har har vi 1960'ernes og 1970'ernes

cultural and social revolution,

sociale og kulturelle revolution,

which in a certain way destroyed the idea of a collective purpose.

der på sin vis ødelagde ideen om et fælles formål.

The very idea, all these collective nouns that we have been taught about --

Alle disse kollektive navneord som vi er blevet lært:

nation, class, family.

nation, klasse, familie.

We start to like divorcing, if we're married at all.

Vi begynder at synes om skilsmisser, hvis vi overhovedet bliver gift.

All this was very much under attack.

Alle disse kollektive enheder var under angreb.

And it is so difficult to engage people in politics

Det meget svært at engagere folk i politik

when they believe that what really matters

hvis de er af den overbevisning, at det eneste der betyder noget

is where they personally stand.

er hvor de står personligt.

And you have the market revolution of the 1980s

Så kom markedsrevolutionen i 80'erne

and the huge increase of inequality in societies.

med den store forøgelse i ulighed.

Remember, until the 1970s,

Kan i huske at indtil 1970'erne

the spread of democracy has always been accompanied

var udbredelsen af demokrati forbundet

by the decline of inequality.

med et fald i ulighed.

The more democratic our societies have been,

Desto mere demokratiske vores samfund er blevet,

the more equal they have been becoming.

desto mere lige er de blevet.

Now we have the reverse tendency.

Nu har vi den modsatte tendens.

The spread of democracy now is very much accompanied

Udbredelsen af demokrati er i høj grad forbundet

by the increase in inequality.

med stigninger i ulighed.

And I find this very much disturbing

Dette finder jeg dybt problematisk

when we're talking about what's going on right and wrong

når drejer sig om hvad vi gør rigtigt og forkert

with democracy these days.

i forhold til demokrati nu til dags.

And if you go to 1989 --

Hvis vi så bevæger os videre til 1989.

something that basically you don't expect that anybody's going to criticize --

Her har vi noget som vi antager, at ingen vil kritisere,

but many are going to tell you, "Listen, it was the end of the Cold War

men mange vil sige: "Hør nu her, det var enden på den kolde krig

that tore the social contract between the elites and the people in Western Europe."

der ødelagde den sociale kontrakt mellem eliten og folket i Vesteuropa.

When the Soviet Union was still there,

Da Sovjetunionen fortsat eksisterede

the rich and the powerful, they needed the people,

havde de rige og magtfulde behov for folket

because they feared them.

fordi de frygtede dem.

Now the elites basically have been liberated.

Nu er eliter mere eller mindre sat fri.

They're very mobile. You cannot tax them.

De er meget mobile. Du kan ikke beskatte dem.

And basically they don't fear the people.

De frygter ikke folket.

So as a result of it, you have this very strange situation

Som en konsekvens heraf har vi fået denne meget mærkværdige situation

in which the elites basically got out of the control of the voters.

hvor eliten kom uden for demokratiets kontrol.

So this is not by accident

Det er derfor ikke et tilfælde

that the voters are not interested to vote anymore.

at folket ikke har en interesse i at stemme længere.

And when we talk about the Internet,

Og når det kommer til internettet,

yes, it's true, the Internet connected all of us,

ja, det er sandt at internettet har bragt os tættere sammen,

but we also know that the Internet created these echo chambers and political ghettos

men vi ved samtidig at internet har skabt ekkodale og politiske ghettoer,

in which for all your life you can stay with the political community you belong to.

hvor vi for resten af vores liv kan blive sammen med det politiske fællesskab som hører til.

And it's becoming more and more difficult

Det bliver sværere og sværere

to understand the people who are not like you.

at forstå de mennesker som ikke er som os selv.

I know that many people here

Jeg ved, at mange mennesker her

have been splendidly speaking about the digital world and the possibility for cooperation,

har snakket ivrigt om den digitale verden og muligheden for samarbejde,

but [have you] seen what the digital world has done to American politics these days?

men har I set hvad den digitale verden har gjort ved moderne amerikansk politik?

This is also partly a result of the Internet revolution.

Dette er også til dels på grund af internetrevolutionen.

This is the other side of the things that we like.

Dette er bagsiden af medaljen.

And when you go to the brain sciences,

Og i forhold til hjerneforskning,

what political consultants learned from the brain scientists

så har politiske konsulenter lært af hjerneforskere

is don't talk to me about ideas anymore,

at man ikke skal snakke om ideer

don't talk to me about policy programs.

og at man ikke skal tale om politiske programmer.

What really matters is basically to manipulate the emotions of the people.

Hvad der virkelig betyder noget er at manipulere med folkets følelser.

And you have this very strongly

Derudover er den stærke tendens til,

to the extent that, even if you see when we talk about revolutions these days,

at når vi snakker om revolutioner nu til dags,

these revolutions are not named anymore around ideologies or ideas.

så er revolutionerne ikke nævnt ved navne, der associeres med ideologier og ideer.

Before, revolutions used to have ideological names.

Før i tiden havde revolutioner ideologiske navne.

They could be communist, they could be liberal,

De kunne være kommunistiske eller liberale.

they could be fascist or Islamic.

De kunne være fascistiske eller islamiske.

Now the revolutions are called under the medium which is most used.

Nu bliver revolutionerne navngivet efter det medium som er mest brugt.

You have Facebook revolutions, Twitter revolutions.

Vi har Facebook-revolutioner og Twitter-revolutioner.

The content doesn't matter anymore, the problem is the media.

Indholdet har ingen betydning. Problemet er medierne.

I'm saying this because one of my major points

jeg siger dette fordi en af mine hovedpointer er,

is what went right is also what went wrong.

at hvad der gik galt var også hvad der gik godt.

And when we're now trying to see how we can change the situation,

Og når vi nu kigger på hvordan vi kan ændre situationen,

when basically we're trying to see what can be done about democracy,

når vi kigger hvordan vi kan forbedre demokratiet,

we should keep this ambiguity in mind.

bør vi have disse dobbelttydigheder i baghovedet.

Because probably some of the things that we love most

De ting som vi elsker aller højest er formentlig

are going to be also the things that can hurt us most.

også de ting som kan skade os mest.

These days it's very popular to believe

Nu til dags er det meget populært at tro,

that this push for transparency,

at denne bevægelse mod gennemsigtighed,

this kind of a combination between active citizens, new technologies

denne kombination mellem aktivt medborgerskab, nye teknologier,

and much more transparency-friendly legislation

og meget mere transparens-venlig lovgivning

can restore trust in politics.

kan genoprette troen på politik.

You believe that when you have these new technologies and people who are ready to use this,

Vi tror at når vi har nye teknologier, og folk er klar til at bruge dem,

it can make it much more difficult for the governments to lie,

så vil det gøre det meget sværere for regeringer at lyve,

it's going to be more difficult for them to steal

og meget sværere for dem at stjæle

and probably even going to be more difficult for them to kill.

og måske endda gøre det svære for dem at dræbe.

This is probably true.

Det er muligvis sandt.

But I do believe that we should be also very clear

Men jeg mener at vi må gøre det klar,

that now when we put the transparency at the center of politics

at vi sætter transparens i centrum af politik.

where the message is, "It's transparency, stupid."

Præcis der hvor budskabet er at transparens er åndssvagt.

Transparency is not about restoring trust in institutions.

Transparens handler ikke om at genoprette troen på institutioner.

Transparency is politics' management of mistrust.

Transparens er politisk styring af mistro.

We are assuming that our societies are going to be based on mistrust.

Vi antager at vores samfund vil blive baseret på mistro.

And by the way, mistrust was always very important for democracy.

Og i øvrigt så var mistro altid vigtigt for demokrati.

This is why you have checks and balances.

Det er der for at vi har en opdeling af magten.

This is why basically you have all this creative mistrust

Det derfor at vi har en masse kreativ mistro

between the representatives and those whom they represent.

mellem repræsentanterne og dem de repræsenterer.

But when politics is only management of mistrust,

Men når politik kun er styring af mistro,

then -- I'm very glad that "1984" has been mentioned --

så er jeg ovenud lykkelig for at "1984" er blevet beskrevet

now we're going to have "1984" in reverse.

nu hvor vi vil opleve "1984" i på hovedet.

It's not going to be the Big Brother watching you,

Det handler ikke om at Big Brother holder øje med dig,

it's going to be we being the Big Brother

men snarere om at vi er Big Brother

watching the political class.

der overvåger politikerne.

But is this the idea of a free society?

Men er dette ideen om et frit samfund?

For example, can you imagine

Kan i for eksempel forestille jer,

that decent, civic, talented people are going to run for office

at ordentlige, civile, talentfulde mennesker vil være politikere

if they really do believe

hvis de oprigtigt tror

that politics is also about managing mistrust?

at politik handler om at styre mistro?

Are you not afraid with all these technologies

Er I ikke bange for alle disse teknologier,

that are going to track down

der vil spore

any statement the politicians are going to make on certain issues,

ethvert udsagn en politiker giver?

are you not afraid that this is going to be a very strong signal to politicians

Er I ikke bange for at dette vil sende et stærkt signal til politikerne

to repeat their positions, even the very wrong positions,

om konsistens, uanset om det er forkert eller ej,

because consistency is going to be more important than common sense?

fordi konsistens ender med at være vigtigere end sund fornuft?

And the Americans who are in the room,

Og til de amerikanere der er til stede idag,

are you not afraid that your presidents are going to govern

er I ikke bange for at jeres præsidenter vil regere

on the basis of what they said in the primary elections?

baseret på hvad de sagde i primærvalgene?

I find this extremely important,

Jeg synes at dette er yderst vigtigt

because democracy is about people changing their views

fordi demokrati handler om at vi ændrer vores holdninger

based on rational arguments and discussions.

baseret på rationelle argumenter og diskussioner.

And we can lose this with the very noble idea

Og vi kan miste den meget noble

to keep people accountable

der handler om at holde folk ansvarlige

for showing the people that we're not going to tolerate

for at vise folk at vi ikke vil tolerere

politicians the opportunism in politics.

politisk opportunisme.

So for me this is extremely important.

For mig er dette ekstremt vigtigt.

And I do believe that when we're discussing politics these days,

Jeg mener, at når vi diskuterer politik i dag,

probably it makes sense

så giver det mening

to look also at this type of a story.

at kigge på dette scenarie.

But also don't forget, any unveiling is also veiling.

Men husk også, at enhver afsløring er også en sløring.

[Regardless of] how transparent our governments want to be,

Uanset hvor transparente vores regeringer vil være,

they're going to be selectively transparent.

så vil de være selektivt transparente.

In a small country that could be my country,

I et lille land, det kunne for eksempel være mit land,

but could be also your country,

men det kunne også være dit land,

they took a decision -- it is a real case story --

tog de en beslutning, det er en rigtig historie,

that all of the governmental decisions,

om at alle regeringsbeslutninger og

discussions of the council of ministers,

diskussioner i ministerhøringer

were going to be published on the Internet

skule offentliggøres på internettet

24 hours after the council discussions took place.

24 timer efter diskussionen fandt sted.

And the public was extremely all for it.

Folket synes godt virkelig godt om det.

So I had the opportunity to talk to the prime minister,

Jeg fik muligheden for at snakke med premierministeren

why he made this decision.

om grundlaget for denne beslutning.

He said, "Listen, this is the best way

Han sagde: "Hør nu her, det er den bedste måde

to keep the mouths of my ministers closed.

at få alle mine ministre til at tie stille.

Because it's going to be very difficult for them to dissent

For det vil være meget svært for at skifte mening

knowing that 24 hours after

velvidende at 24 timer efter

this is going to be on the public space,

vil deres udsagn være offentlige,

and this is in a certain way going to be a political crisis."

hvilket vil medføre en politisk krise."

So when we talk about transparency,

Så når vi snakker om transparens,

when we talk about openness,

og når vi snakker om åbenhed,

I really do believe that what we should keep in mind

mener jeg virkelig at vi skal huske

is that what went right is what went wrong.

hvad der gik godt og hvad der gik skidt.

And this is Goethe, who is neither Bulgarian nor a political scientist,

Dette er Goethe, som hverken er bulgarer eller politolog,

some centuries ago he said,

der for nogle hundrede år siden sagde:

"There is a big shadow where there is much light."

"Der er en stor skygge hvor der der er meget lys".

Thank you very much.

Mange tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)