2019 SUMMARY REPORT · elections, exploring tools to enhance civic engagement that foster inclusion beyond the political class, and taking young people very seriously. In a call to

athensdemocracyforum.com

2019 SUMMARY REPORT

2athensdemocracyforum.com

Global Conversation:ReinventingDemocracySESSION BRIEFINGS


WELCOME REMARKS

Achilles Tsaltas, President, Athens Democracy Forum

Achilles Tsaltas welcomed delegates and esteemed guests to the seventh edition

of the Athens Democracy Forum, introducing the five challenges of populism, new

communication technologies, enormous gaps in personal wealth, ��the shifting terrain

of the political-party system, and a sense of alienation and loss among many people,

that represent the key themes for this year’s program. Reiterating the importance

of preserving democracy as the only viable form of social organization, he outlined

democracy as a constant process of reinvention and revival.

Mr. Tsaltas warned that many of today’s democracies are so polarized, that they

seem paralyzed. While optimists view the current threats to democracy as a natural

process of decay and revival, he said, the pessimists are likely to consider the

potential for decline into chaos and tyranny. He declared that this year’s conference

brings together a sampling of both optimists and pessimists among participants,

stating that through their debates and presentations, delegates will be able to glean

a better understanding of where democracy might be headed.

Mr. Tsaltas explained that the Athens Democracy Forum is becoming a nerve center

for democratic debate, and described the new structure of the event, now hosted

by the Democracy & Culture Foundation, a nonprofit entity, in association with The

New York Times.

Mr. Tsaltas thanked all conference partners and sponsors for their commitment.


Annika Savill, Executive Head, UN Democracy Fund, United Nations

Annika Savill underlined the task in front of delegates at this year’s event, highlighting

the inspiration they might derive from the City of Athens itself, as the cradle of

democracy. She spoke of recent developments in Sweden where a governmental

proposal to eliminate the teachings of ancient Greece from the school curriculum

met with uproar, leading to a reversal in the government’s position. Pericles is alive

and well in the classrooms of Sweden, she declared.

As head of the UN Democracy Fund, Ms. Savill stated that this is the only UN

department containing ‘democracy’ in its name, advising that conversations about

democracy were rare at the time of the inaugural Athens Democracy Forum back in

2013. She explained that the word ‘democracy’ appears nowhere in the UN Charter,

as membership of the organization is not determined by whether a state embraces

democracy, or indeed its capacity to pay lip service to it. She commented that within

the UN tradition, there is no single democratic model that fits all societies, and

equally no yardstick by which its ideals can be measured in practice. The focus has

tended toward what democracy is not, rather than what democracy is, she added.

Ms. Savill reiterated the words of UN Secretary General António Guterres in his

endorsement message: “This year’s Forum takes place when trust is low, and anxiety

is high.” She urged delegates to rise to the challenge of updating the traditional

model by listening to communities, understanding that democracy is not just about

elections, exploring tools to enhance civic engagement that foster inclusion beyond

the political class, and taking young people very seriously.

In a call to arms, Ms. Savill reminded delegates that if Athenians did it 2,500 years

ago, they could do the same today. Summoning delegates to be bold, she urged

them to ask themselves: What would Pericles have done?


Kostas Bakoyannis, Mayor of Athens, Hellenic Republic

Mayor Bakoyannis described the Athens Democracy Forum as an institution – a

laboratory of ideas, and an incubator of novel thinking. He emphasized the Forum’s

importance at the forefront of efforts to rebrand Athens as a welcoming, forward-

looking, self-confident metropolis; a capital that is as proud of its ancient, glorious

past as it is of its modern self.

Mayor Bakoyannis described the challenges faced by democracy in the last few

years as a crisis of confidence, advocating the need to think in new paradigms

as the traditional political categories of left and right have become obsolete. He

also suggested that the language of centuries past is unhelpful in understanding

and responding to 21st-century challenges, including the fifth industrial revolution,

population flows and climate change. Denouncing populism and elitism as the twin

enemies of democracy, he stated that we need a new, inclusive agenda that leaves

no one behind, especially those who feel disconnected and disenfranchised.

Quoting Winston Churchill, Mayor Bakoyannis admitted that democracy is an

imperfect system of government. He stated his view that, in recent years, we

have focused on the big picture and been rather overwhelmed. To counter this, he

highlighted the importance of local government as the closest democratic institutions

to the people, and the catalytic role they can – and should – play in delivering real,

tangible solutions to real problems, and building bridges in place of walls.



OPENING KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Donald Tusk, President, European Council

President Tusk shared a personal story of how reading Homer’s “Iliad” before he was

10, and everything else there was to read in Polish about ancient Greek history and

philosophy, inspired him to become a historian. He spoke of later defending Creon

in a secondary school debate after reading Sophocles’ “Antigone,” and the influence

this potentially had on his decision to enter politics.

President Tusk outlined violence, lies, hate speech, myths and resentment as the tools

of today’s politics; understood as war, even if shots are not fired everywhere, adding

that emotions have replaced reason. In political mathematics, he warned, dividing

and subtracting have displaced multiplying and adding. He outlined the challenge

of making politics about the common good as it once was. He spoke of Thucydides’

reflections on the ancient Greek term ‘stasis,’ meaning a part or a fraction, denoting

a state of public disorder and chaos resulting from political passions and a constant

escalation of internal conflicts. He asked the audience, are we not today facing our

own stasis, amplified by the technological revolution and mass social phenomena?

Are Europe and the world not turning, before our eyes, into ancient Korkyra? He

posited that President Trump’s United States, Brexit and permanent parliamentary

crisis in the United Kingdom, and the undermining of liberal democratic foundations

in some countries in East Central Europe and on the border of Russia and Ukraine

would certainly give Thucydides something to write about.

Speaking from the heart, President Tusk acknowledged the decision to present this

year’s City of Athens Democracy Award posthumously to Pawel Adamowicz, who was

murdered in January this year. He quoted the last words spoken by the former mayor

of his city, “Gdánsk wants to be a city of solidarity. This is a wonderful time of sharing

what is good,” lamenting that his friend and close collaborator fell victim to the very

hatred he had opposed all of his life. He was not an ancient hero, conquering or

destroying other cities, he said, instead building his city with the belief that not

everything is lost, that love is stronger than hate, that solidarity is stronger than

egoism. Reinforcing his own personal belief that not everything is lost, President

Tusk wished delegates the same faith.


PANEL DISCUSSION

Prof. Wole Soyinka, Playwright, Poet, Novelist, Essayist and Nobel Literature Laureate

Magdalena Adamowicz, Member of the European Parliament (accepting the 2019

City of Athens Democracy Award on behalf of the late Pawel� Adamowicz)

Ory Okolloh, Managing Director, Africa, Luminate, and Member of the Kofi Annan

Commission on Elections and Democracy in the Digital Age

Moderated by Roger Cohen, Athens Democracy Forum Host and Op-Ed Columnist,

The New York Times.

Ms. Adamowicz opened the discussion by explaining that Poland, once so embracing

of the liberal ideals of the West but now forging an illiberal path that her late

husband stood against, is today very divided because of populism and nationalism.

She highlighted the importance of finding a solution together, and her hope that a

definition of hate speech can be agreed in order to formulate a sound framework

of conduct to educate people, especially young people. Democracy is not a given

forever, she said. We have to nourish it.

Professor Soyinka stated that the problem with democracy today is that it is too

laid back, leaving everybody free to define it, especially oppressive governments.

He described the United States as a center of contradictions and an enigma,

comparing its position as leader of the democratic world with its favorable treatment

of questionable democracies. He suggested that if there were a competition, a kind

of counter-Olympics for the least-democratic nations of the world, the United States

would qualify on behalf of the Americas. On the tolerance of undemocratic regimes

by the United States, Ms. Okolloh expressed her view that there have always been

double standards. She acknowledged that previously, political discussions would

have taken place in a dark, back room, but that because of technology, it is now

very transparent – perhaps too transparent – and that technology makes it very

hard for consensus. She articulated democracy in terms of a social contract

whereby people vote, obey the rule of law, and so on, but warning that governments

are failing to deliver on public goods in return. She gave the examples of the ‘born

frees’ complaining of high unemployment, struggling education and public services,


and the situation in Kenya where people basically self-provide for everything. By

comparison, she said, the China model is at least providing something for the

people.

Professor Soyinka reiterated Ms. Orkolloh’s point that the social contract is very

dangerously neglected. If the people feel that democracy is not rewarding in terms

of the day-to-day ability to survive, he warned, they become available for anti-

democratic forces. He highlighted the obligation of governments to democratize

resources and social opportunities, otherwise they are throwing the populace to the

wolves. On the democratization of information through the internet, he stated his

opinion that the optimism surrounding the liberation potential of these forces has

been dashed by the users.

The panel proposed a number of solutions to the technological threat to liberal

democracy. Ms. Orkolloh declared that a lot of social media platforms were built

on the assumption that human beings are fundamentally good. She stated that we

now know that this is not universally the case, and proposed rethinking the rules

of the platforms through regulation. Professor Soyinka advocated a two-pronged

approach through educational enlightenment and sanctions against the individual

enemies of democracy, including the elites. It has to be controlled, he cautioned.

Ms. Adamowicz agreed that, for populists and fundamentalists, the internet is the

most dangerous weapon we ever invented; a weapon that is used without control.

Highlighting the importance of freedom of speech and expression, and the work of

the #Imagine There’s No Hate campaign, she concluded with a simple, heartfelt,

solution: education, education, education.


WELCOME AND PRESENTATION

Achilles Tsaltas, President, Athens Democracy Forum

Mr. Tsaltas introduced the new format of this year’s Athens Democracy Forum.

Fundamentally, he said, we decided that we wanted the Forum to grow by becoming

consequential.

In order to achieve this, he continued, we decided that we needed to take the Forum

out of the commercial structure of the conference department of The New York

Times, and dedicate our efforts to building a new, nonprofit structure around it.

The New York Times, being the independent media institution that it is, cannot get

involved in activism or advocacy, he explained. Yet democracy screams for activism

and advocacy, especially in the times in which we live, he added.

With these key objectives at the fore, Mr. Tsaltas explained that The New York Times

has entrusted him with the establishment of the Democracy & Culture Foundation with

the purpose of hosting the Athens Democracy Forum. Articulating the Foundation’s

mission in terms of empowering society through better governance and citizen

engagement, he defined the very simple impact chain through which the Foundation

– and the Forum – aim to bring about meaningful change: think – talk – do.

The Athens Democracy Forum falls squarely into the ‘talk’ sector, he confirmed. But

organized under the auspices of the Foundation imbues the event with the freedom

and the flexibility to partner with others in the impact chain – the thinkers and doers

– in order to make things happen, he continued.

We are all in this together, and we all need to listen to what everybody has to say to

come up with the solutions, he implored.



OPENING PROVOCATION: COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE

Lex Paulson, Director, School of Collective Intelligence, UM6P, Morocco

Staying true to the session heading, Mr. Paulson opened the day’s proceedings by

provoking the audience: When it comes to democracy, we have all been living a lie.

Referring to the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, he

advised delegates that the word ‘democracy’ appears nowhere. This is not a mistake,

he insisted, as the aim of the founding fathers was to establish a republic, not design

a democracy.

Quoting Benjamin Rush in 1789, Mr. Paulson articulated his view of this American

– and now global – system, in which citizens were not meant to rule, but to choose

among their betters in what he referred to as a government of the people, for the

people, by a very small, disproportionately wealthy, Ivy League-educated, mostly

male, sliver of the people. The right to vote was a major step forward, but it was not

the flowering of democracy, he warned. In fact, the widely held belief that democratic

power is derived from those who vote in elections is another layer of the same lie.

We do not live in democracies, he stated. We live in republics with slight democratic

flavouring.

Having revealed the deception of what we understand as a key pillar of democracy,

Mr. Paulson invited the audience to imagine what real citizen power would look like,

incorporating the key aspects of coming together to observe, interpret, generate

new ideas, deliberate options, implement strategies, and pool our collective wisdom.

He insisted that it was this wider range of capacities that defined the scope of

citizen power in ancient Athens. Democracy was not just voting once a year, he

emphasized. It was a constant process of learning; of generating new knowledge.

Individual experts work best when problems are well defined, he stated. But experts

and algorithms working alone will be defeated by the big, complex, public problems

we currently face, from climate change to migration to economic inequality. These

are the kinds of problems where a very large number of eyes and ears, of ideas and

experiences, can produce better solutions, he declared.

Mr. Paulson suggested that if we are going to enter an age of collective intelligence,


we need to expand our idea of what counts as expertise and solicit it from new

places. Democracy is in crisis, he warned, because it is not yet democracy. He stated

that republics from ancient Rome to right now were designed to produce ruling

elites which, as we have found, tend to produce decisions that will help people like

them. What we need to do in this century, he suggested, is expand the depth of the

republican model, and reinvent our institutions to make collective intelligence – and

thus democracy – finally possible.

In relation to climate change, Mr. Paulson stated firmly that if humanity wants to

survive what is coming, we will have to move from fragile hierarchies to resilient

networks, from closed to open data, and from guarded to distributed forms of power.

As climate collapse accelerates, he warned, it will be the societies that bet on

collective intelligence – on the active engagement and pooled expertise of citizens

– that are going to win this century. And to those who fear the incompetence or

disinclination of everyday people to rise to the challenge, he offered a simple, but

compelling message of conviction: When people put down their phones and start

reasoning, big things happen.


OPENING KEYNOTE CONVERSATION

Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Prime Minister, Hellenic Republic

In conversation with Roger Cohen, Athens Democracy Forum Host and Op-Ed Columnist,

The New York Times

Prime Minister Mitsotakis summarized recent events in Greece after the country

emerged from the biggest crisis of any mature democracy after the Second World

War. As the first to enter the populist wave, he said, we were the first to enter what

he calls the politics of post-populism, following his election earlier this year. He

stated, however, that this was not a top-down exercise. It was very much an exercise

where the political narrative of the country found common ground with society which

matured from the bottom up. And in that sense, he said, those who predicted the

demise of democracy were proved wrong, at least as far as Greece was concerned.

Speaking about the 2015 referendum when the overwhelming desire of the Greek

people to end austerity was effectively ignored by former Prime Minister Tspiras,

he expressed his skeptical view of referenda, affirming that he continues to believe

in representative democracy. He is also a believer that parties, as the mechanism

through which representative democracy is expressed, can change. He suggested

that they could be more participatory, become more open, and engage in more

public debates.

Acknowledging that his own back ground makes him a ‘poster boy’ of the elite, Prime

Minister Mitsotakis affirmed that we have to make sure governments are not only

representing the interests of a very narrow group who end up working in their own

interests. In Greece, he stated, once we managed to convince enough people that

we are here to work for everyone – particularly those who are less privileged – and

we made addressing income disparity our number one priority, they were willing to

give us a chance to implement our program. More broadly, he stated, there was a

massive failure of elites to understand the new cleavages that emerged as a result of

technological change, globalization, and the huge impact of income concentration,

especially in capitalist societies. He couched the issue in very simple terms: The

fact is that lots of people just felt left behind. There are further cleavages, he added,


between cities and the rural back country, and between young people and older

people. He stated that elites failed to understand that the grievances upon which the

populist backlash was based were absolutely real. Ultimately, he explained, the root

cause of Greek discontent was not the nativist identity politics that you see in other

countries, but a profound economic crisis.

Prime Minister Mitsotakis offered some interesting similarities between what

happened in Greece in 2015 and what is happening in Britain today, outlining a

society that is utterly divided on an existential problem, but lacking clear political

alignment in support of competing views due to divisions within political parties. In

such instances, he warned, an election cannot solve the problem.

Turning to the general sense of optimism in Greece, and the widespread belief that

the country is finally leaving the crisis behind, Prime Minister Mitsotakis declined

to frame the positive sentiment surrounding his new government in terms of the

classic honeymoon period. Instead, he chose to define the current feel-good factor

as a ‘rational honeymoon,’ based on the belief that things can truly change for

everyday people. Describing the EU, for all its shortcomings, as a unique experiment

in collective transnational cooperation which has brought tremendous wealth and

prosperity to the continent, he declared his hope that Europe will continue to be at

the forefront of many important policy debates that will shape the future of the world

in the face of unprecedented global challenges over the next decades.



PANEL DISCUSSION: US AND THEM

Nathan Law, Hong Kong Politician and Activist

Kassem Eid, Human Rights Activist and Author

Sergey A. Karaganov, Scientific Head and Dean of the School of International

Economics and Foreign Affairs of the National Research University Higher School of

Economics (NRU HSE) and Honorary Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on

Foreign and Defense Policy

Moderated by Katrin Bennhold, Berlin Bureau Chief, The New York Times

Mr. Law stated that democracy for Hong Kong was promised in the 1990s, as

enshrined in international agreements which China is wilfully circumventing. The

protesters are not fighting for independence or separatism, he confirmed. Rather,

he and the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong are fighting for democracy

and autonomy for their hometown, which he declared is being manipulated by

tyranny. He outlined the Chinese tactic of exacerbating differences among people by

using misinformation campaigns to create conflict and hatred. He pointed out that

nationalism has been a longstanding weapon of the Chinese regime, emphasizing

that people in mainland China do not have access to foreign information because of

the internet firewall, so they cannot know the truth about what is happening in Hong

Kong. The West blindly believed that China would open up because of economic

freedom, he stated, but there is no sign of this in the political sphere.

Wearing a mask to highlight the sarin gas attack he survived in Syria in 2013, and to

demonstrate his solidarity with the Hong Kong pro-democracy supporters following

the recent ban by Chinese authorities, Mr. Eid declared that politicians hide behind

masks of lies and hypocrisy every day. Defining the Assad regime as a horrible mix

of communism and fascism, he described growing up in poverty and the 2011

uprising, which they had hoped the West would respond to, to bring an end to the

tyranny his country had suffered for four decades. He told delegates that after two

years, he began a 30-day hunger strike to raise global awareness of the regime’s

‘starvation and siege until surrender’ tactic, lamenting that, although he received a

lot of support internationally, it was not enough. He recounted his two-year visit to

the United States to speak to the powerful “people with the masks,” only to end up


living in the place where Nazis are on the rise. The same fascists he ran away from,

he lamented, were waiting for him in Germany.

Mr. Karaganov expressed his view that liberal democracy is not a panacea, and

that the way it has developed over the past 30 years is unsavable, because it runs

against the basic value of mankind. He stated that countries internationally have

more freedom than ever to choose their cultural paths and economic models and,

even in some authoritarian countries, people have more opportunity to influence

those in power because of the information revolution. He defended Russia’s behavior

in terms of protecting its freedom and sovereignty, as well as helping humanity to

do away with the ‘Western yoke.’ Mr. Eid warned that the misinformation campaign

deployed by Russia is turning everyone against each other. He insisted that while

the West was busy celebrating the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Nazis and the

communists were working on their successful comeback. Democracies are under

attack, he announced, and if you do not fight for democracy, you do not deserve it. Mr.

Karaganov explained that the so-called populists are born of the inner contradiction

within Western societies. Stating that Russia also had elites that disregarded the

masses, he sees populists and Trump as a natural, defensive mechanism in an ailing

body trying to rid itself of toxins which, depending on the concentration, Western

societies may eventually recuperate from.

Mr. Law admitted that democracy is not perfect, emphasizing the need to refine it

as it unfolds, as opposed to abandoning it. Referring to the recent tensions between

China and the N.B.A., he affirmed the need to be aware of the infiltration capacity

of these regimes. In a passionate call to action, he warned that our failure to shine

a light on human rights abuses for fear of jeopardizing economic gain, will inevitably

compromise our moral stance in speaking up on other issues. We cannot bend

over just because of commercial interest, he warned. We have to speak up for the

struggles worldwide.


PANEL DISCUSSION: THE COST OF INEQUALITY

Paul Polman, Former C.E.O., Unilever, and Co-Founder and Chair, Imagine

Margot Wallström, Former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sweden

Anna Diamantopoulou, President, DIKTIO Network for Reform in Greece and Europe

Moderated by Liz Alderman, Chief European Business Correspondent, The New York

Times

Ms. Wallström emphasized rising inequality as a major threat to democracy. She

outlined the social, economic and political costs that have the capacity to undermine

faith in democracy, if it cannot produce growth and a better future for them. Ms.

Diamantopoulou commented on the disruptive impact of the fourth industrial

revolution on labor markets, due to increased automation and a lack of skills for the

new types of jobs that will be created. In terms of the ever-expanding gig economy,

she outlined diminished rights for workers who are increasingly referred to as ‘service

providers.’ Combined with the changes to be wrought within the organization of

companies themselves, the lack of certainty and stability represents fertile ground

for populism.

Mr. Polman outlined the progress we are making globally in terms of lifting people

out of poverty and providing access to clean water and sanitation, but declared that

the trend is not our friend, as we are simply not moving fast enough. He outlined a

very straightforward correlation with democracy, in that people who feel that they are

better off are willing to accept different modes of democracy. But when economies

become more difficult, he warned, populism, nationalism, racism, and xenophobia

take over. He stated that for the last 20 or 30 years, economies have failed to provide

meaningful improvements for many in society. While the banks were too big to fail

in the financial crisis, he declared, the people were certainly too small to matter.

He cautioned that our ineptitude to deal with the burning issue of climate change is

pushing more people into poverty again, stating that it is impossible to address these

burning issues if business does not step up to the plate. Business cannot survive in

societies that fail, nor can it be a bystander, he cautioned.

Ms. Wallström agreed that democracy will only thrive if people see that they are


getting something out of it. She suggested that we need a more modern, updated

story about democracy. She recommended taking a more holistic view, advocating

the UN’s Agenda 2030 as a framework combining all the elements that we need

to address to ensure peace, security and prosperity. Mr. Polman described Agenda

2030 as probably the best moral framework that we have, and also the best business

plan. We are in a bizarre situation right now, he said, because this world has more

money than it knows what to do with. He recommended putting this surplus to good

use to make financial markets subservient to the economy rather than the other way

around, and to redefining success in terms of maximizing the return on social and

environmental capital. In a sobering call to arms, he stated that the cost to society

of not reaching each individual SDG, is greater than the cost of implementing all 17

of them.

Ms. Diamantopoulou distinguished between global and national governance,

declaring that the Bretton Woods institutions now represent a very weak attempt at

global governance, while the global problems we need to confront are getting bigger.

She identified a lack of political will in pushing for global governance, warning that

it would be a great pity to garner the momentum to establish the effective global

institutions we need, only once it becomes too late, and a major global catastrophe

has occurred. On national governance, she emphasized the need for political parties

to present new ideas about new problems, including skills shortages, lifelong

learning, new organizations of workers and taxation policies. She underlined the

importance of meaningful discussion around these areas, warning that we may find

ourselves becoming nostalgic for how good things where in the past. Emphasizing the

importance of listening to people like Greta Thunberg, Ms. Wallström underscored

the importance of addressing income inequality, strengthening social security nets,

and improving job security. We need to take care of our democratic systems, she

urged, otherwise we will enter a violent downward spiral, which is very dangerous for

nations, and for the world.


CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT

H.E. Mr. Borut Pahor, President, Republic of Slovenia

In conversation with Steven Erlanger, Chief Diplomatic Correspondent, Europe,

The New York Times

Starting the conversation on the problems facing the European Union, President

Pahor expressed his view that both pragmatism and vision are required to address

the key issues. Describing the UK’s departure from the EU as a sovereign decision

which the rest of Europe has to accept, he voiced his concerns about the grave split

in British society between those in favor of Brexit and those against, highlighting

that continued uncertainty may have a negative impact on the consensus of the

27 if further compromises are made, potentially resulting in a crisis for the EU. He

explained that the threat to the EU posed by the Brexit vote three years ago has

effectively disappeared, as member states previously considering such a move have

witnessed the ensuing split – in society and in Parliament – develop into a crisis for

Britain and its people.

Comparing the Brexit vote with the Slovenian plebiscite on independence from

Yugoslavia in 1990, President Pahor highlighted the key difference in terms of the

division in British society and the unity of Slovenian society, despite a number of

national and international challenges facing his country at that time. As Slovenia

prepares to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the historic vote next year, he

underscored his gratitude to destiny that his country succeeded in being united

at the most important moment in its history. In terms of Slovenia’s place on the

international stage today, he emphasized his country’s unique position of having

good relations with everybody.

Describing the EU as the most beautiful thing that happened to nations in Europe,

President Pahor reinforced his commitment to deepening European integration and

the inclusion of the Western Balkans, provided they fulfill the criteria. He expressed

his concern that the enlargement fatigue being demonstrated by Brussels has the

potential to lead these countries down a different path, potentially threatening peace

and security within the region. He stated that, while the countries in this part of


Europe may not be perfect, the political cost of delaying the accession decision will

be significantly higher if these countries are neglected. In this respect, he is hopeful

that the EU will place enlargement firmly at the top of the agenda, rather than being

forced to take action in the future when it is too late.

President Pahor also highlighted the importance of concluding discussions on

Romania and Bulgaria entering Schengen, as part of the broader need to find a

common approach to the issue of illegal migration, which he articulated as not only

a political issue, but a moral one.


PANEL DISCUSSION: BACK TO BASICS

Dr. Huiyao (Henry) Wang, Founder and President, Center for China and Globalization

Jayathma Wickramanayake, United Nations Secretary General’s Envoy on Youth,

United Nations

Dr. Karolina Wigura, Sociologist, Kultura Liberalna Foundation, Poland

Moderated by Steven Erlanger, Chief Diplomatic Correspondent, Europe, The New

York Times

Dr. Wigura opened the session by highlighting our common understanding that there

are certain politics that can damage liberal democracy as we know it, stating that

some might try to convince us that populists are refreshing liberal democracy or

reinvigorating it. She proposes emotions as a way to create political change, drawing

the conclusion that good politics is about speaking to emotions, and choosing the

right one, at the right time, in the right amount. She suggested that loss was the

emotion that secured the victory of populists. Even when we think of development

in positive terms of education, material growth, and democratic transformation, she

ventured, it can also represent loss for families and human connections. In 2015 in

Poland and in 2016 in the US and Britain, populists channeled the feeling of loss

into civil war, hatred and disgust. But there are also good emotions like empathy and

hope, she added.

Mr. Wang suggested that the capitalist model has paved the way for a lot of good

things to happen, but everything has to be measured by the bottom line; the facts.

Drawing on the example of China, he stated that 800 million have been lifted out of

poverty, and the Chinese economy contributes more than 30% to gross GDP, which

makes it a big engine to propel global development. He suggests, however, that in

light of the rapid rate of technological development globally, now is the time for a

revamp of democracy.

Ms. Wickramanayake commented that the United Nations is very bureaucratic and

looks less like her, and more like old, Western, retired diplomats. She mentioned

that she struggles to make the work of the UN relevant to the young people of today,

which is crucial because half of the world’s population is under 30. Likewise, liberal


democratic institutions have pushed young people away. She suggested that a lack of

trust in political institutions and increased inequalities within communities has been

mobilized by populist movements to recruit young people. A lack of transparency

and responsiveness has also pushed young people away from engaging in formal

politics, creating a breeding ground for populist and extremist movements to tap into

hopelessness and frustration, which is further reinforced by the lack of representation

of young people in politics. She stated that there are many barriers when young

people do try to engage with politics, with many feeling used because politicians

only come to them at election time when there is a vote. She highlighted the recent

transition in Sudan which was primarily lead by young people, emphasizing the clear

distinction between young people in established democracies and those trying to

establish democratic institutions, predominantly in the Global South.

Ms. Wigura declared that social media is turning politics into a spectacle, which

is now prevailing over ideology, common good and reforms. She suggested that

social media has also transformed how we define ourselves into a very individualized

experience, which means that the emotionality of political subjects is very different

from 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. Populists, she said, addressed this new emotionality

and they were quick to do it. Mr. Wang continued this theme, stating that democracy

is under threat worldwide because of fake news distributed by social media. At the

same time, he compared the way people in China use their phones – to buy things,

to travel, to do anything – to a new form of democracy. Combined with this, 150

million tourists travel to China every year, WeChat is widely used, and there is always

a way to know what is going on. He urged all of us to try to view China differently.

Ms. Wickramanayake emphasized that young people do have faith in democracy,

but what they need to see are changes in the system to make it more inclusive,

transparent, and accountable.


DEBATE: LIBERAL VS. ILLIBERAL

Ivan Krastev, Political Scientist and Chairman, Center for Liberal Strategies, Sofia

vs.

Mária Schmidt, Historian

Moderated by Steven Erlanger, Chief Diplomatic Correspondent, Europe, The New

York Times

Ms. Schmidt declared her conviction that Hungary is a democracy, stating that

illiberalism is an attempt to ensure emancipation and safeguard national sovereignty.

In 2014, she said, when Viktor Orbán announced that he was going to build an

illiberal democracy, he did this to preserve the country’s success in the 21st century.

Mr. Krastev commented that, for him, democracy is the game in which governments

can lose elections. He stated that President Trump believes that his real enemy is

the Democrats, and from this point of view, everybody – the Chinese, Russians,

Ukrainians - could be potential allies. This is a major change, he said. Democracy

cannot function, he warned, when leaders believe that their major enemy is their

political opponent at home. Ms. Schmidt agreed, commenting that in the case of

Hungary, the weak opposition compelled people to place more importance on foreign

policy than domestic issues. In response, Mr. Krastev highlighted that an external

enemy like Brussels was crucial for mobilizing society.

As the fastest-shrinking region in demographic terms, Mr. Krastev explained the roots

of demographic anxiety in Central and Eastern Europe. He stated that, demographically,

his own country, Bulgaria, is the fastest-shrinking country in human history in the

absence of war and famine, dropping from nine million people in 1989, to seven

million now. So, the paradox for the region is that when we talk about migrants, they

are not there. He stated that the number of Bulgarian people who claim to have seen

a UFO is greater than those who believe they have personally met a refugee. But out-

migration, he said, is the thing that we do not know how to talk about. When people

talk about migration, he said, it is not the fear of people who may never come, it is

the fear of your own people leaving. If you have a small nation, people believe that

they are going to disappear, so substitution is a real fear.


Ms. Schmidt added that with 150 years under Muslim occupation, her country does

not want history to repeat. In what she considers a violation of national sovereignty,

400,000 illegal migrants went through Hungary because of a decision by the

German chancellor. Mr. Krastev confirmed that after the 1989 revolution, we wanted

to be like the West, and freedom of movement is the best thing about the EU, and

also the thing we fear the most. He agreed that Germany makes up the rules, but

when Hungary and Poland and all of our countries refused to accept refugees, this

was perceived as a lack of compassion. Ms. Schmidt explained that Hungary did

everything the EU asked, yet received no support when facing the abyss in the

aftermath of the financial crisis. As a result, she explained, Hungary felt disinclined

to submit to further EU demands on any matter, including receiving refugees.

Mr. Krastev highlighted that there were two Europes in the early 1900s – a culturally

and ethnically homogenous Western Europe, and a culturally and ethnically diverse

Central and Eastern Europe. He explained that after two World Wars with a forceful

exchange of people, the reverse is now true. As a matter of national sovereignty,

Ms. Schmidt stated that the Hungarian people are fed up of being told how to live,

especially after the Communist experiment was forced upon them after World War II.

We want to make our own decisions, she said.


THE ARISTOTLE ADDRESS

WELCOME BY Stephen Dunbar-Johnson, President, International, The New York

Times Company

H.E. the President of the Hellenic Republic, Mr. Prokopios Pavlopoulos

H.E. the President of Ireland, Mr. Michael D. Higgins

EPILOGUE: Prayer by Bernard-Henri Lévy, Philosopher, Filmmaker and Activist

Following introductions by Mr. Dunbar-Johnson and President Pavlopoulos, President

Higgins reflected on the significance of the agora in the history of ancient Athens

and for democracy itself. As a gathering place for discourse, he emphasized the debt

we all owe to the founding exchange of ideas, and the pursuit of truth and beauty

in its wholeness of mind and body, that is the Greek legacy. He praised Greece as

a country and a people that has given, and continues to give, so much to Europe

and the world, by way of its contribution to civilization in culture, aesthetics and

philosophy, including the founding discourses on democracy itself.

President Higgins highlighted the values and connections shared by Ireland and

Greece, which he hopes will inspire us as we work together in the crafting of a

union of European humanity that will have the capacity to acknowledge, respect

and celebrate Europe in all its diversity – a European Union which will be seen,

not only as a regional achievement, but as a global, intergenerational exemplar

because of its far-seeing humanity. We have a responsibility to assert, deepen and

- where necessary - reassert those founding values of democracy, cohesion, shared

prospects, human rights and the rule of law in an increasingly interdependent world

in which those values are challenged, he urged.

Speaking about the financial crisis and its aftermath, President Higgins declared that

today, we find ourselves confronted by the growing awareness that we have been

failing to live up to the needs, ideas and expectations of citizens of the European

Union. He expressed his view that, as a result of the blunt and insensitive handling

of the crisis, social cohesion has been significantly damaged, fueling the rise of

euroskepticism, exclusionary forms of neo-nationalism, and austerity-sourced


populism and nativism; reactions that are built on negative invocations of fear and

ignorance, including that which scapegoats the stranger; the ‘other.’ He stated that

these manifestations are not the root causes of the discontent on the European

Street, but the symptoms.

President Higgins affirmed that we will be judged by future generations on whether we

averted our gaze from the vulnerabilities of our planet, our continent, and humanity

itself, or had the empathy necessary to celebrate our interdependency. He declared

that a new paradigm of responsible economics, underpinned by eco-social policy, is

urgently required to steer us back toward the long road of societal and ecological

reparation, to address and reduce inequality while simultaneously operating within an

ecological awareness of the planet’s natural systems and their constraints. He believes

that the transformation that is required must seek to extend and deepen democracy,

and initiate changes in our political structures, our institutions, our language of

discourse, our way of dealing with each other, and in our consciousness, adding that

such a program requires not just intellectual work, but its delivery with moral courage.

The European Union was born with an invocation for solidarity, President Higgins

reminded us. If it is radical reform that is necessary, let us be courageous, he urged,

because democracy demands it, and the world requires it. We should all help, he

stated, and in doing so we will be invoking and benefiting from the power of reason

and the grace of thought that is the Greek gift to humanity; a gift that endures.


Q&A TALK WITH THE TIMES

Roger Cohen, Serge Schmemann, Liz Alderman, Alicia Wittmeyer, Katrin Bennhold,

and Stephen Dunbar-Johnson

Moderated by Alexis Papahelas, Executive Editor, Kathimerini

Opening this year’s signature panel, Mr. Cohen admitted that, overall, The New York

Times missed the possibility that Donald Trump would defeat Hillary Clinton in the

2016 election, stating that he is sure a lesson has been learned. A free and strong

press is fundamental to the healthy functioning of democracy, he said, so when the

president of the United States calls journalists ‘scum’ amid unrelenting fake news

attacks, the clear intention is to undermine freedom of the press. It is incumbent

upon The New York Times to state very clearly that we oppose this and regard it as

dangerous, he added.

Reinforcing this point, Mr. Schmemann stated that President Trump has declared us

the enemy, and the biggest challenge for The Times and the editorial position is to

maintain the same kind of distance, integrity and honesty it always has. President

Trump has reduced the level of discourse to such a low level, he said, that no liberal,

well-meaning person could accept that point of view, adding that opposing it takes

on a new, and almost universal quality among people of good conscience. It has

changed the level of discourse, and the level of what we have to respond to, he

stated. Continuing on the notion that, by default, we are on a side, Ms. Wittmeyer

warned of the spiral of unhealthy dynamics this can create. What we have to do is

not play that game, Ms. Bennhold emphasized, highlighting the positive reactions

that can emerge from reporting fairly, and surfacing the voices of people who are

potentially supportive of populists.

Mr. Dunbar-Johnson stated that the separation between reporting and Opinion was

clearer in the analogue print world, warning that in this digital world, Opinion can

often get conflated with news. Ms. Wittmeyer clarified that it is not the role of the

Opinion section to represent a particular point of view, but to host a lively discussion

by bringing the most interesting and smart representatives of various points of view.

Mr. Schmemann described Opinion as a kind of compass against which people on the


center-left can gauge their own personal beliefs, highlighting the further distinction

with Op-Ed articles – opposite the editorials – which very often disagree with the

editorial position. Declaring that good journalism is good business, Mr. Dunbar-

Johnson explained that social media has intensified the blurring of lines between

news and views. Ms. Bennhold warned that, while many people focus on how social

media helps populists and nationalists amplify and spread their views, people in non-

democracies and dictatorships actively rely on these platforms to organize.

Ms. Alderman underscored inequality as a key driver of populism globally. She

stated that the expansion of the gig economy and the increase in precarious jobs is

creating an unstable situation. Highlighting the gilets jaunes movement in France,

she expressed her view that there is a sense among large parts of populations that

globalization is not bearing fruit. Ms. Bennhold stated that when the Berlin Wall came

down, we thought that liberal democracy was the only game in town; that it was the

end of history. It turned out to be a brief vacation from history, she said, highlighting

that the story 30 years later is about an alternative system competing with the liberal

democracy value system that we have stood for, but that we have been complacent

about. She stated that the alternative system in China is successful in that,

economically, it seems to be delivering for people, for now. Ms. Alderman warned

that China has long-term leadership which looks further out, and no longer wants to

be the factory floor to the world. At some point, there will be a new superpower, and

that is likely to be China, she added. Mr. Cohen stated that the autocratic systems in

Moscow, Beijing and elsewhere are more confident when they feel embraced, rather

than confronted, by the president of the United States, emphasizing the importance

of being open-eyed about this, but also resolute and hopeful.



PANEL DISCUSSION: THE ECHO CHAMBER AND THE AGORA

Laura Chinchilla, Former President, Republic of Costa Rica, and Chair of the Kofi

Annan Commission on Elections and Democracy in the Digital Age

Crystal Patterson, Global Civic Partnerships Manager, Facebook

Alvin Carpio, Chief Executive, The Fourth Group

Moderated by Alicia Wittmeyer, Editor, Opinion Section, The New York Times

Ms. Chinchilla opened the session stating that there are no easy conclusions when

it comes to the benefits or the perils of social media on democracy. It is true that

social media did not create the problems, but it can amplify them, she warned. Part

of the complexity is that social media does not behave the same way in different

countries and regions, so understanding that some countries are more vulnerable is

crucial. She explained that they tried to analyze the 2018 Brazilian elections with the

same parameters used in the 2016 US presidential elections, but they got it wrong,

as did the tech platforms. They had been analyzing the paid platforms - Facebook,

Twitter, Google, YouTube - when they realized that the preferred platform in Brazil is

WhatsApp, which was also used by the political parties to spread huge amounts of

misinformation. When we realized, it was too late, she lamented.

Ms. Patterson explained that WhatsApp is designed for one-to-one communication,

or one-to-few, whereas Facebook or Instagram are intended to be public broadcast

channels. Steps have been taken to limit the number of people you can send one

message to, and also the number of times a message can be forwarded, to help stop

the virality of content, but it is a concept balancing act, she explained. Facebook is

under great pressure not to interfere in personal communications, because people

rely on WhatsApp as a cheap and easy way to stay in touch with friends and family,

particularly in places where it would be prohibitively expensive otherwise. She said

Facebook works with governments, international organizations, and civil society to

understand cultural dynamics and the impacts of how people are using their tool.

Although they are getting better at this, she stated that there are places where they

have been too late in terms of understanding the impact their tools were having on

existing difficulties. They are trying to work more collaboratively in thinking about

these challenges, but when people are using the platform maliciously, she warned,


it can be hard to predict how that is going to play out. Emphasizing that Facebook is

all about innovation and ideas, she said the company is keen to work with anyone

who has good input as they would love to help solve this. She stated that technology

has changed our behaviour, viewing this change as an internet thing, rather than a

Facebook thing.

Thinking about the fourth industrial revolution and technology, Mr. Carpio shared his

view that hearing voices we never heard before is a beautiful thing, and we should

celebrate the fact that social media has facilitated this. He emphasized the risk in

dismissing opposing views. This, he warned, is when democracy is going to fail. He

said that for many people, Brexit, Trump, or Duterte was the first time they won

because for generations they had lost, and this shows us that democracy is more

alive than ever. He cautioned against focusing on the glitz and glamour of tech

and digital and algorithms and all these buzzwords, as Facebook and Google are

ultimately companies with a profit motive. Admiring the beauty and possibility of what

they have created, while also building an inclusive capitalism for the fourth industrial

revolution, means we also have to ensure that they are democratically accountable.

Ms. Chinchilla stated that values and principles are needed to orient the rest of

the world about the way to approach the regulation of social media, and this has

to be achieved through international cooperation. Ms. Patterson described the

community standards Facebook has published so that people know the ‘rules of

the road’, emphasizing that they do not want it to be an ‘anything goes’ place where

people feel unsafe. Ultimately, however, she does not consider policing speech as

Facebook’s role, particularly if it is about different viewpoints or opinions that may not

be as popular, as those are allowed to be said.


PANEL RESPONSE AND DEMOCRACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE

Margrethe Vestager, European Commissioner for Competition, European Commission

Ms. Vestager began by stating that she does not share the view that democracy, as

such, is threatened. For her, conflict is not a threat to democracy; in fact, democracy

is conflict. Reiterating the point made by Mr. Carpio in the previous panel discussion,

she stated that democratic institutions have to be, to some degree, echo chambers,

and we have the chance now to reach out for a democracy where everyone truly has

a voice. She told the audience that in her language, Danish, the word for vote and

voice are the same, and that is on purpose because when you have a vote, you have

a voice; you participate. And without that voice, obviously there is no democratic

state, she added.

Ms. Vestager explained that, now we have new opportunities for making our voices

heard. In the days before social media, one of the most important jobs as citizens

was to go and vote. But most people would also have a democratic life between

elections, she noted, describing sitting over a coffee or over a beer and discussing

how government did not work. We would engage, she said, and these discussions very

often stayed private. Now, digitization and social media have truly changed this. Using

the example of the debates on Twitter and Facebook, she said these are truly different

because they are networked. They are, in their way, part of the political debate and,

as a matter of principle, anyone can take part. In this respect, she believes that our

democracy is strengthened and enriched. She feels it is better when more people

can participate, because otherwise, she asked, what kind of democracy do we have?

Ms. Vestager also mentioned the participation opportunities for groups who were

once marginalized, and those who felt isolated, forgotten, or not respected.

Highlighting the journalism of Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey for The New York

Times who provided the spark that launched #MeToo, she emphasized that it was

social media that transformed these stories into a movement; social media made it a

powerful agent for change. On the flipside, she stated that while social media allows

for new oxygen in our bloodstream, it also allows poison that has entered to spread

throughout the whole system. She reinforced this as a key challenge, because with

open debates, any voice, in principle, can be heard.


Ms. Vestager affirmed her belief that our societies need to change. They need to

be gender balanced, more equal and more open, she declared. As global citizens,

she urged, we have a lot of things to do in terms of fighting climate change and

establishing some level of control over technology so that it serves us. She stated

that democracy is the most important tool in confronting these challenges. She does

not perceive social media or technology as the enemy of democracy. The focus, she

said, must be directed at how we can make the best use of technology to enhance

democracy to be able to deal with burgeoning challenges.

It is not a new thing that women are half the population, she said. Nor is it a new

thing that our planet is threatened and the weather will get wilder and wilder, and

that technology changes our societies, she declared. She affirmed her belief that the

good thing is we are here – and everywhere else – to discuss, at long last, how to

deal with the things in our societies that we should have dealt with a long time ago.


TALK ON LIVABLE CITIES AND INCLUSION

Sangeeth Ram, Senior Partner, McKinsey & Company

Mr. Ram explained that in 1950, 750 million people called cities their home globally.

By 2018, this had become 4.2 billion, and by 2050, an additional 2.5 billion people

will be added to the existing urban population. He described the 21st century as the

‘century of cities,’ stating that how we urbanize in a thoughtful way will be the defining

part of our journey. He described the three challenges we need to solve along the

way. On climate, he stated that with just 2% of the land mass, cities contribute

70% of our energy and emissions. With respect to inclusion, cities are incredible

productivity engines, but they also have a tendency to stratify, highlighting economic

enclaves, land use enclaves and access to nature. Outling the third major challenge

in terms of health, he advised that many argue that global noncommunicable disease

– everything from diabetes to hypertension – is actually an urban design crisis. He

described this as the essence of livability, warning that the clock is ticking.

Mr. Ram invited the audience to explore the future through two lenses. The first:

What happens, when today does not look like tomorrow? Throughout history, he

stated, the way we have built societies and the way we have urbanized has all been

predicated on a simple assumption: that today does look like tomorrow. He said that,

during the entire pleistocene period, the climate had not stabilized and humans were

nomads, until something changed 10,000 years ago. The climate stabilized, and

that single act, he explained, was the genesis of every human decision – to create

societies, to build cities, to invest in stock – based on the predictability of the future.

However, he warned, we have left the safe operating zone after 300 million years or

so. CO2 levels have gone above 450 parts per million, and life as we know it is no

longer the same as of May this year. And now, just about everything is at risk.

Preparing for a near-term change is unavoidable, he warned, as our historic emissions

have already locked in the temperature rises for the next 10 years. He said the thing

that is most in our control over the next 10 years is adaptation, outlining five things

we can we do: disaster monitoring, the relocation of people, insurance, resilience

measures and physical hardening. But the key consideration, he affirmed, is doing

this in a just and equitable way. Mitigation is not a whole lot different, he said. The


carbon math is simple. He explained that we have a budget of about 500 to 600

gigatons, and our consumption every year is 40 gigatons and rising, so that does not

leave much time. How we think about cities, and their urban fabric and footprint,

needs to adapt, he emphasized.

Following on from this, Mr. Ram invited us to consider the second question or lens:

What if today could look like yesterday? He explained that, for 10,000 years, our

cities forced a simple order on us, known as complex density. He described it as

a way of life predicated upon the assumption that people live an active lifestyle

through optimal consumption of resources, and where personal mobility and social

interactions underpinned our way of life. Something changed at one single inflection

point with the increased use of automobiles, he stated, and as a result, the unit

of planning of our cities changed gear, and the development footprint of our cities

changed dramatically. He explained that we either went to super blocks with a lot of

density but very little complexity; or we went to slums which had a lot of complexity

and undesirable density; or we went to sprawl, where there is no density and no

complexity.

Mr. Ram framed the current challenge in terms of establishing how the next three

billion will be urbanized, and what playbook we are going to adapt in integrating the

next generation of people who will come on board in our cities. There is a lot to learn

from in terms of what has worked, and what has not worked, he said.


THE COLLAPSE OF THE TRADITIONAL PARTY

George A. Papandreou, Former Prime Minister, Hellenic Republic

Prof. Angie Hobbs, Professor of the Public Understanding of Philosophy, University

of Sheffield

Jay Weatherill, Former Premier, South Australia, and Industry Professor, University

of South Australia

Moderated by Serge Schmemann, Program Director, Athens Democracy Forum and

Member of the Editorial Board, The New York Times

Sharing his direct, personal experience of the financial crisis, Mr. Papandreou stated

that in a globalized society, national politics alone does not always have the capacity

to make decisions for a nation. He highlighted that the concentration of wealth and

power in certain corporations – whether it is digital, finance, petroleum, pharma,

agrobusiness, or whatever – has further undermined democracy. He explained that

when this wealth buys up media and corporations and lobbies politicians, democracy

gets corrupted. You do not need a party anymore, he said. You need good finance

and good media to be elected, with the result that parties have been undermined. He

made a further point in terms of the replacement of the party as a form of collective

social organization, with the individual expression of interests through social media,

which he described as very splintered and cocooned and, arguably, manipulated

by stronger forces. He warned that this does not assist in creating consensus in a

collective, especially if we want to protect not just our parties, but democracy itself.

We need to create parties which are much more open and participatory, away from

party bureaucracy, he explained, giving citizens a democratic platform to empower

them and make them feel that they have a say. False empowerment through social

media may be part of the problem, he ventured.

Professor Hobbs insisted that party politics in a representative liberal democracy

can work pretty well with some caveats, providing it can do certain useful functions,

namely, keep the executive in some kind of check, provide a means to a block

compromise position allowing legislation to move through parliaments, and offer

at least a measure of accountability. She added that it also provides a vehicle for

citizens to get involved in an ongoing democratic conversation which goes over and


above electing their representatives. She then highlighted a number of instances

where party politics does not work so well, in terms of elected representatives

putting their own personal ambitions ahead of their party resulting in infighting, and

parties putting their own party livelihoods against the national interest, or even global

interests. She said that problems also arise when parties fail to grasp, and react

quickly to, huge changes. Taking the example of her own country, the UK, all of these

problems are currently playing out with the two largest political parties. As a result,

traditional party politics is not working well. But she does see hope – even in the

UK – in terms of people getting energized, not just to go off into various one-party or

cluster-group issues such as Extinction Rebellion, but also about the resurgence of

parties, particularly in the center.

Mr. Weatherill confirmed his belief that there is widespread disillusionment with

politics and politicians, in line with the powerful causes mentioned by Mr. Papandreou.

His view about this decline in mainstream politics is simple: If you cannot deliver for

people, they will stop supporting you. In order to respond to that, he suggests that

we need to deconstruct the way in which governments make decisions. When we get

stuck on those big public policy decisions, he acknowledged, the shouty, polarized

crises we have in parliaments are unhelpful. Regarding the more deliberative

forms of democracy his government explored in South Australia, he stated that the

common sense of judgement of ordinary everyday citizens is the greatest resource

we have, but we need to create adequate space to allow deliberative dialogue

instead of shouting. He expressed his view that Trump and Brexit are a product of

the massive consensus that existed among most of the mainstream parties about

how wonderful globalization was. He stated that the victims of globalization had to

look for a voice somewhere, and in both of these cases somebody stood up and said,

‘I'm on your team,’ so the election and referendum outcomes were hardly a surprise.

Mr. Papandreou reiterated this, stating that Trump and Brexit were a reaction by the

marginalized.



CLOSING DEBATE: GLOBAL VS. NATIONAL

Bernard-Henri Lévy, Philosopher, Filmmaker and Activist

vs.

Stephen Bannon, Former White House Chief Strategist, United States

Moderated by Roger Cohen, Athens Democracy Forum Host and Op-Ed Columnist,

The New York Times

Mr. Bannon opened by stating that globalism is the last of the great failed ideologies

of the 20th century. He proposed that a match was lit in the Oval Office on September

18, 2008 - three days after Lehman Brothers went bankrupt - when President Bush

was asked for a $1 trillion cash injection to save the global financial system to avoid

global anarchy and chaos. He claimed that the global central banks bailed out the

oligarchs – created by globalism and what he calls ‘the party at Davos’ – and was

paid for by working-class taxpayers around the world. This, he claims, resulted in

the match that was lit exploding in 2016 with Brexit and the election of Donald

Trump. Mr. Lévy responded, stating that, by renouncing globalism, America will lose

credibility. Mr. Bannon reinforced that America is a revolutionary power and an ally,

not an empire. It is an ally of NATO and individual countries within NATO, he said,

adding that ‘America First’ does not mean America isolationist.

Mr. Bannon suggested that the entire globalist system is built around slave labor

in China, highlighting the importance of President Trump’s efforts to confront the

Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and decouple this economic model from the

‘party at Davos.’ Mr. Lévy stated his view that the situation in China represents an

economic, as well as an ideological confrontation, on which Mr. Bannon agreed.

Mr. Lévy outlined his conviction that diplomatic relations involve alliances and

friendships, which mean something. He asked Mr. Bannon where the former, friendly

America was for the victims of the world, including the great diplomats who led a

wise war against Communism, expressing his concerns over the Turkish invasion of

Syria against the very forces which helped to defeat ISIS.

Mr. Bannon confirmed that America is not abandoning the rest of the world, insisting

that troops are on ships in the South China Sea, and patrolling the Hindu Kush and


the 38th parallel. They are still there, he said, but only in an alliance of the West, and

with our other partners and allies. Mr. Lévy emphasized that the Japanese today are

shivering with fear after the diplomatic display by President Trump and Kim Jong-un.

Mr. Bannon claimed that no president of the United States has ever engaged in the

Pacific Northwest and elsewhere like President Trump. Trump did not create these

problems, he said. The great geniuses of globalization created them. He added that

because of Trump, the US government is going from being a collaborator to the rise

of the CCP and its totalitarian, mercantilist system, to engaging it, and starting to

deconstruct it. Trump’s deal deconstructs the entire Chinese economy and merges it

into a world economy, and this is what he is fighting for, he emphasized.

Describing the Westphalian system and the primacy of the nation state, Mr. Bannon

claimed that nationalist populism was the way forward. Mr. Lévy accused the current

US administration of doing a dirty job in Europe by helping the movements which

are weakening Europe, as well as its values and interests. Mr. Bannon confirmed

America’s commitment to a Europe of individual nations – governed by their own

people in democracy – but not some centralized bureaucracy in Brussels that tells

people what to do. Mr. Lévy explained that a little village cannot resist the forces of

a Turkey going back to the Ottoman dream of empire, a Putin who has a dream and

a will of empire, a huge China, and an Iran going back to a Persian imperial dream.

We know from history that there is a tipping point when a great civilization fails, he

lamented.

Mr. Bannon expressed his view that current concerns about democracy only emerged

when the liberals started losing elections. He declared that there was no ‘so-called

‘crisis of democracy’ during the Obama years, until Brexit, Trump, Salvini, Le Pen and

Farage happened. All of a sudden there is a global problem with democracy because

you are losing, he said.


SUMMARY AND CLOSING REMARKS

Roger Cohen, Athens Democracy Forum Host and Op-Ed Columnist, The New York

Times

Mr. Cohen brought the proceedings of the 2019 Athens Democracy Forum to

a close, summarizing the crucial, compelling and memorable discussions that

had taken place over the course of the three-day event. We must safeguard free

speech with tenacity, he urged, because when it dies – as when truth dies – the

worst becomes possible, and probably inevitable. Recalling the powerful words of

Magdalena Adamowicz, he reminded us that we must do better in the regulation of

hate speech, because freedom of expression also protects the ideas we hate. This

is the price of freedom, he said, which must be relearned every day. I will hear Ms.

Adamowicz’s appeal – education, education, education – echoing in my mind for a

long time, he added.

Stating that the digitalized democracy of the 21st century cannot be the same

democracy of the 20th century, Mr. Cohen affirmed the shared understanding that

the ground has shifted beneath our feet. We have a solemn obligation to defend

the values that provided the framework of the 20th century’s international order, he

continued, including freedom, human rights, justice, democracy, self-determination,

openness, the rule of law, peace and security. He does not believe this undertaking

can be achieved by nationalism and walls, myth-making and drum rolls, incitement

and xenophobia, or manipulation and mob mobilization. Been there, done that, and

suffered, he said, emphasizing that the end point of nationalism is war.

Mr. Cohen outlined inequality, impunity, invisibility, immigration, inversion and the

internet – or the six ‘i’s, as he calls them – as the areas we need to focus on to

protect democracy. Our struggles are not as new or as different as we imagine, he

insisted, suggesting that perhaps what is new, above all, is the means. If only we

could use them right, he pleaded, to build a connected world of dignity and decency.

Recalling what he referred to as ‘the American century,’ that movie has ended, he

declared. History is not an argument leading to a logical conclusion, any more than

human nature is composed of black and white, he observed. History is flux, he


said, and in the mist, the spectres of nationalism, nativism, and xenophopia have

stirred, and are now visible to everyone. It is incumbent upon all of us, he urged, to

remember that the quest for homogeneous societies led to the greatest horrors of

the 20th century. Civilization is fragile, and democracy is fragile, he declared. Today,

it is impossible – and dangerous –to ignore the spread of the hateful, he said.

In summary, he said, each of us has a story. Describing the threads of his own story

– a Jew of South African descent raised in Britain and shaped by France, now an

American hosting the Athens Democracy Forum in the birthplace of democracy – he

emphasized that as a result of his background, he is a ‘bridge’ and not a ‘wall’ person.

In keeping with this theme, Mr. Cohen ended with an extract from “Le Pont Mirabeau”

by Guillaume Apollinaire:

Under the Mirabeau bridge flows the Seine

And our loves

Does the river have to remind me

Joy always came after pain.

How slow life is

And how violent hope is.

Sous le pont Mirabeau coule la Seine

Et nos amours

Faut-il qu’il m’en souvienne

La joie venait toujours après la peine.

Comme la vie est lente

Et comme l’espérance est violente.

Some things just sound better in French, he said. And some things, for the salvation

of us all, must never be forgotten.

Documents

2019 SUMMARY REPORT · elections, exploring tools to enhance civic engagement that foster inclusion beyond the political class, and taking young people very seriously. In a call to