The idea is very
simple, to see if
also the global
system can be
formed by
some of the
values and
procedures of
democracy, as we
know it within
countries.
And therefore, is
democracy
something which
applies only
within the
states,
or can also
be applied to the
international
sphere, starting
from
international
organizations?
Daniele Archibugi
works at the
Italian National
Research Council.
He teaches at the
University of London
London
Birkbeck College.
30 years ago, he
was among those
who suggested the
political project
of cosmopolitan
democracy.
I feel very lucky
to have recorded
this episode with
him, and you will
understand why
immediately.
My master's thesis,
on which I have
worked during
months and months
and months and
months, I'm
sure many
students can
relate to that,
was entitled "A
comparison
between
Daniele Archibugi's
and
Thomas Pogge's
political
cosmopolitanisms".
So yeah, quite an
honor for me, and
I hope that you
will understand
with this
talk why
Daniele's ideas
caught my
attention
so much.
So the idea would
be to say that
right now we have
democracy at the
national level.
We don't have
that at the
international
level, and you
would like to
make
democracy happen
at the
international
level.
Yes, indeed, for
a variety of
reasons.
First of all,
because
democracy, even
within nations,
is highly an
uncompleted
journey.
We still need to
progress in order
to allow citizens
to participate to
the
political sphere,
to have more
rights, and also
more duties.
But if you look
at the
international
sphere, of
course, you don't
see anything like
democracy.
Still, the only
representatives
international
seen are
governments, even
within
international
organizations.
And this was also
a major hampering
factor of
democracy within
countries,
because when
many countries
cannot decide
what they're
going to do
because of
external
forces, such
as interest
rates, capital
flows,
international
trade, and so on,
we can say,
"What is the
democracy
inside?"
And therefore,
the basic idea is
that in order to
reinforce
democracy within
states, we need
also to expand it
at the
international
level.
Okay, so the idea
is the more we
manage to have
democracy at the
external
level, the
more it will also
promote democracy
internally at the
national level.
Hopefully, for a
variety of
reasons, first of
all, because it
means that
people within
states will have
a see of what's
happening at the
international
level.
I mean, many
issues of the
contemporary
society, climate
change, financial
flows, and so on,
do not respect
borders.
And therefore,
governments
pretend to be in
charge, but in
fact,
they are not.
So a national
government can do
a lot of good
policies in order
to fight
climate change.
But if it plans
to do it alone,
it's very
unlikely that it
will succeed,
especially
if it's a
government of a
small state.
And that reason
why more
coordination is
needed, that
reason why quite
a lot of
things are
already happening
through
international
organizations.
But within
international
organizations,
the sole
representatives
are
governments, not
citizens.
And that, I
think, is an
important
hampering factor
to introduce
sound policies.
So you say that
more cooperation
is needed at the
international
level.
To what
extent do you go?
Does it mean a
world government?
World government
is a bit too much
because we have
got a lot of
local
problems which
are well
organized at the
local level.
And the
communities are
different.
Each of these
communities has
its own values.
So and even the
idea of world
government goes
together with the
idea of
coercive power.
And a centralized
coercive power is
always dangerous.
And therefore, if
we speak about
coercive power, I
think it's wiser
to keep it
decentralized
at
different levels.
So you say that
it would be
dangerous to have
something too
centralized.
Do you mean
because it would
become
authoritarian?
Is that what you
have in mind?
That's the risk.
If you
concentrate all
the force within
one individual
place, it's a bit
dangerous that
it might turn
into a world
dictatorship.
And therefore,
somehow it's good
that there is a
decentralized
power.
But I repeat, in
order to get
something done,
we need more
cooperation.
Okay.
So we need more
cooperation,
which means a bit
more
centralization,
but not too much
because it would
be dangerous.
So where would
you situate the
right
equilibrium?
That's a good
question.
I think a very
good example is the
European Union.
The European
Union has managed
to, I think,
something
extraordinary,
despite all the
criticism
that we can put,
because the
European Union
has quite a lot
of common
policies.
It has even a
common currency.
But again, this
common currency,
the euro is not
compulsory.
And therefore,
some countries
which do not feel
to join the euro
might opt out.
And that, I
think, is wise.
And the European
Union has not a
centralized army.
But still, it has
a lot of policies
and true
incentives and
soft power.
It manages to
foster even
rights and
democracy within
member states, we
see, with
Hungary.
If Hungary is
moving towards an
authoritarian
situation, the
European Union
might say, you
know, you
better stop.
Otherwise, the
other countries
will not be
willing to be in
association
with you.
And the incentive
to be part of the
union are so
strong that I
think is
something which
is a balance.
And it worked.
For example, it
doesn't work yet
in Hungary, but
it works quite
well in Poland.
Okay.
So that would be
your wish.
This is the
cosmopolitan
democracy that
you're
describing,
right?
That's correct.
And since when
did you start to
have these ideas?
Well, I mean, I
started with the
ideas in 1990.
And for a very
specific
historical
condition, after
the Cold War, the
Soviet Empire
collapsed
thanks to the
bravery of
Mikhail
Gorbachev.
And we had hopes
that the liberal
democracies,
which won the
battle without
fighting, without
the war, could
indeed expand the
best of its
values also to
the east.
And that somehow
has succeeded
because many
European
countries move to
be democracies.
And also, you
know, the
continent, for
example, in Latin
America, many
countries
move to be
democratic in
Latin America.
And before that,
they were run by
dictatorships.
So there was not
only these two
continents, also,
you know, the
continents.
So there was very
much a hope that
a new wave of
internal
democracy might
also have
an impact
on
international scene.
Unfortunately,
Western
democracies were
not good enough
to appreciate the
change and to
make something
important.
For example,
rather than also
opening to
Russia, they
started to oppose
to Russia.
And that was a
disaster.
It was a disaster
because the
Auto-Italian
forces, which in
Russia has always
been very
strong, went back
to power and took
over the
government and
the
consequences is what
we now see.
So in a way, you
would say, I
mean, it means
that as
Europeans, we
have also our
responsibility
in what's
happening now in
the opposition
between Russia
and Western
countries.
Yes, indeed.
And that's not
only we
Europeans, we
Westerns, because
also the United
States had
a crucial
role in
this policy.
And I think, you
know, the idea of
Gorbachev was
where one single
Europe
from the Urals
to the Atlantic
was a very
fruitful idea.
And of course,
perhaps Russia
was too large to
be integrated
into the
European Union.
But still, we
could have a more
peaceful
relationship.
And therefore,
you know, that
has not happened.
And that has
created something
very difficult.
I mean, there's
no justification
for the invasion
of Ukraine.
That's an
invasion against
the
sovereign states.
And therefore,
there's no
justification.
But again, I
think this could
have been
prevented by
opening up to a
collaborative
agreement
with Russia.
And indeed,
within the West,
Europe had more
interests to do
that, because we
are close
to Russia,
because we have
larger
interaction
with Russia.
And therefore, we
should have been
able to have more
cooperation with
Russia, as well
as with North
America.
OK, so for you,
the root of the
problem comes
from lack of
cooperation and
openness from
the start.
Now that we are
having this kind
of opposition, I
mean, how to get
out of this?
Do you still
believe that
cooperation is
possible or do
you think now
it's out of...
It should be
possible.
Now, I think
there is an
important
condition which
needs to be to
pay attention.
And that's what
an international
relations is
called the rally
around the
flag effect.
What does
it mean?
Whenever there is
a conflict, the
population within
one country
starts to
centralize around
the wrong
government.
And when a
government is in
trouble, the easy
way to get
support
internally
is by waging
a war.
And that's
precisely what
Putin has done.
But not only
Putin, that
precisely the
reason why George
W. Bush started
the war in Iraq
in 2003 against
the massive
mobilization of
the public
opinion.
They were weak.
They wanted to
increase the
support.
How could they do
that by
waging a war?
And that is
terrible.
So that's the
reason why we
need more
democracy across
borders.
Because the
Russian citizens
should
understand, and
also the
Ukrainian
citizens should
understand
that the two
countries do not
have to fight.
It's not in their
interest.
Neither Russia
nor Ukraine to
fight is in
interest of the
authoritarian
Russian
government,
but not of
the others.
And countries can
easily integrate
among themselves.
Boundaries can
become
irrelevant, as it
is the case, for
example, the
boundary between
France and
Germany.
Can you imagine?
Now you move from
one country to
another, and you
don't even
realize
when you pass
the frontier.
Because the two
countries are
strongly
integrated.
And therefore
something similar
could have been
possible also
among Russia and
Ukraine.
So when you say
that they
launched an
attack, because
also it's
gathered support
internally,
do you think that
it was done
intentionally, or
do you think it
was just
as a result?
I think it was
very much
intentional.
I think in the
case of the
Russian
leadership, it
was very much
intentional.
But again, I
think that that
was criminal.
And I am very
happy that Putin
has to face a
criminal-inquired
international
criminal
court.
But I don't think
that Putin is the sole
responsible.
I think that the
European Union
should have
managed the
crisis better by
respecting the
Minsk agreements,
by finding a
solution among
two countries
which have a
common history,
a common
heritage, and no
reason and no
interest to
which it was.
I mean, if I can
go on, you know,
now I don't know
what will happen.
But can really
Russian people
think that move
the frontier of
100 kilometers
will increase
the
security of Russia?
I mean, what's
the meaning of
this territorial
gains in a
situation in
which there
are strong
interconnections,
in which there
are missiles
which are much
faster, much
faster than any
of these
sorts of things?
And so the
Russian citizens
are playing a
high price
because the young
men are dying,
often without
even knowing why
they're dying.
They're spending
a lot of
resources in a
country which
still has a lot
of poverty for
the war.
They have been
internationally
discredited.
And therefore,
you know, Russia
is losing the war
and they are
starting
to lose the
war from the very
first day in
which they
started the war.
And it's a super
serious topic.
And at the same
time, it made me
laugh when you
did this, like a
real
Italian showing
how passionate
you are
about the topic.
I mean, I can see
it's very
something that is
really taking you
at heart, right?
Yes, of course,
because we have
got friends in
Russia and we
have got friends
in Ukraine.
A lot of
Ukrainians are
living here and
these people are
suffering
for what?
For 100
kilometers border
in a situation in
which many of
them travel
abroad and so on.
It's terrible.
And I mean, it's
not only
criminal, I mean,
certainly it's
criminal, but
it's stupid.
And that's the
basic problem.
It is a
stupid war.
Yeah, because I
mean, also what I
understand from
what you say is
that it's, I
mean, of
course,
Ukrainians are
losing with that
for sure.
Europeans too,
United States
too, maybe the
world because
there is a war,
but also Russians
are losing and
also Russia, even
Putin is losing
at the end.
It's not even in
his interest.
Well, I mean, I
don't know.
I wonder if Putin
would still be in
charge without
the war.
Perhaps he
wouldn't.
I don't know.
But I mean, it's
definitely, I
mean, you cannot.
That's one of the
problems
of Russia.
It is not a
genuine
democracy.
I'm not denying
that Putin
unfortunately has
a strong internal
support
because he has
a support,
internal support.
And that's the
reason why he
needs to keep
fighting to
preserve the
support.
While, and then I
go back to my
idea of cosmopolitan
democracy, while
if there would
have been
a stronger
integration among
the citizens of
Ukraine and
Russia, of
Eastern
Europe and
Western Europe,
the people could
have understood.
But why do
we fight?
I mean, there are
an enormous
amount of mixed
families which
speak Russian or
Ukrainian.
And they do not
perceive
the reason.
They are
suffering because
even the family
ties are often
broken
without reason.
When you see this
war happening in
Russia and
actually maybe
other
conflicts in the
world, and maybe
even we can see
that democracy
are actually
being less and
less influential
in the world or
just like there
are less and less
democracies in
the world.
I believe
I'm not sure.
Do you get
discouraged about
the project of
cosmopolitan
democracy?
Very discouraged.
I mean, if you
look at the
latest report of
international
democracy and
electoral
assistance
and organization
in Stockholm, you
will see that the
political
democracy is
deteriorating.
And it is
deteriorating
because in
international
conflicts, you
don't have the
resources to
develop
democracy.
And we are seeing
that in many
democratic
countries, the
political
democracy is
deteriorating
very much.
And that's very,
very bad.
So I repeat, we
have lost a
unique historical
location at the
beginning
of the 90s.
We should have
managed to expand
the cooperation.
And
unfortunately, we
got more and more
under the control
of a few very
arrogant and
authoritarian
leaders often
supported by
wealthy people.
And that I think
is another
condition.
The idea of
democracy is that
all citizens
count equal
regardless of the
rich, the poor,
or whatever it is.
Now you really
see that not only
in Russia where
you really see
that oligarchs
are controlling
the country,
oligarchs
exploiting
natural
resources, but
also in other
democratic
countries
such as the
United States,
such as
Argentina, money
can really decide
the political
process.
And that, of
course, is not
democracy.
Because we
are moving.
I mean, the idea
of democracy is
that you count
people, you don't
count money.
But if a certain
point within the
electoral
campaigns, rich
people can lead
influence
or can even
buy votes.
In that case, you
see it's
democracy in
serious danger.
And so you see
this as a
problem, the role
of money inside
democracy when
there are already
democracies also
with countries
that are not
democratic yet?
In both.
I think that the
problem, I mean,
we always had an
equal access to
the political
process.
And in very
consolidated
democracy, I
mean, back in the
1960s, 1950s, the
owners of a
newspaper had
more power
compared to those
which didn't have
access to
information
means.
Likewise, when
private
television
started to be the
four, we are
seeing how
they could
shape the
political
process.
In Italy, for
example, it's
well-known, that
Silvio Berlusconi
was influential
for so long
for many reasons,
but also because
he controlled
half of the TV
networks.
Now the situation
is even more
important because
we know with
social
networks, we have
social networks
entering into our
life and might
shape the way in
which we think
and which
we act much more
than newspapers
or televisions.
And if people
know how to use
the social
networks, of
course, they have
a strong
political impact.
And that I think
should be taken
into account.
So we are very
much in a
situation in
which democracy
has been eroded.
So let me try to
unify a bit
everything
we are saying.
So first, there
is this idea of
cosmopolitan
democracy, this
dream, this
ideal, let's say,
and trying to
have democracy
everywhere
at all levels.
And then you have
the problem that
in 1990, when
there was the
possibility, it's
actually,
we actually made
mistakes.
And this created
more opposition
instead of more
cooperation.
And since, I
mean, now you're
saying also that
it's very hard to
change
the current
situation and
you're getting a
bit discouraged
at the situation,
which is actually
worsening
in respect to
cosmopolitan
democracy.
And there would
be three, I mean,
you mentioned at
least three ways
where we could
actually
make a change,
which is first
one, you say that
people maybe
should realize
what has
been happening
and realize that
there is no
reason for it to
be a war between
Russia and
Ukraine.
And so if people
could get aware
of that, that
would make me
change something.
So, first, the
influence of
economy, of
wealth in the
political process
of both
democratic
and
non-democracy.
And third,
another kind of
power, another
kind of influence
with social
media, with
information.
Is it a good
summary?
I think it's a
good summary.
I mean, that's
some of the
problems we are
facing, you know,
but I mean, my
hope is that,
where is the
solution?
The solution is
in the fact that
we ask citizens
to participate
more in the
political sphere.
And that's
difficult because
if we can go back
to your
compatriote,
Benjamin Constant,
Benjamin Constant
made all these
famous papers
about the freedom
of the
Ancients and the
freedom of the
Moderns, which he
said, for
Ancients, the
freedom was to
participate.
For the modern,
the freedom was
to delegate and
be free in the
private sphere.
I think that's a
major problem and
the major problem
that we need to
go back to
the freedom
of the ancients,
namely to
participate more.
And to
participate more
is time
consuming.
People are not
willing
to do that.
The majority of
young people are
less willing to
participate.
For example, they
are less likely
to go to
elections because
they are much,
much happier
to exercise the
freedom within
the
private sphere.
And they feel
that political
participation
within social
media is enough,
for example.
And that I think
is a serious
problem.
So, but I think
that on the
contrary, if you
will manage to
squeeze more
citizen
participation,
that can be a
counterbalance at
all levels,
within nations at
the global
level, to the
abuses of power
that we are
experiencing
today.
Okay.
So you're saying
there are abuses
of power, for
instance, with
people who
control too
much wealth and
people who
control too much
the information.
And the way to
counterbalance it
is to have more
citizens getting
engaged in the
democratic
system.
And it's indeed
then very
discouraging
because, I mean,
also the
statistics show
that new
generations are
even less
approving of
democracy than
the previous
generation.
Well, yes, I've
seen this data
and I am not sure
how to
interpret them.
One of the
reasons that
perhaps in some
countries,
younger
generations, have
not experienced
the
dictatorships,
such as in Italy,
Germany, and
therefore they
don't
really know what
the dictatorship
can be, you know.
But certainly
there is a very,
very dangerous
outcome.
And we know that
young people are
voting less than
old people, for
example.
So they don't
bother to go to
vote because they
are discouraged.
And so we need to
get more forms of
participation
which are also
associated to the
delivery
because young
people often are,
for example, very
keen to
participate in
social movements.
Think about the
environment,
think about even
human rights, and
therefore they
are less
likely to vote
but more likely
to take
direct action.
And that's
good news.
Okay, yeah.
To go in your
sense from what
you were saying
at the very
beginning,
it's true.
I mean, in the
study that I've
seen about
younger
generations which
are less
approving
of democracy,
they were saying
that when there
was a populist
leader elected,
such as Donald
Trump in the US,
or at the time it
was Bolsonaro in
Brazil, people
were actually a
lot more
supportive of
democracy
afterwards.
But I also don't
know how to
interpret it if
it's because they
were satisfied
with this
new powerful
leaders, and this
is what made them
like more their
current
regime, or if
it's because they
thought on the
opposite, "Oh, we
had this, so
actually we
absolutely
need more
democracy."
I don't know in
which sense to
interpret that.
Well, I mean, I
think both
interpretation
and legitimate,
we need to have,
and possibly
both of
them are there.
So I think that
indeed every time
there is an
authoritarian
change, people
get scared.
Again, the
elections in the
United States are
worrying because
the American
public knew
very well who
Donald Trump is
and what Donald
Trump has done as
former
president of the
United States.
And therefore,
this is a sign
that
unfortunately we
cannot
unconditionally
rely on the
wiseness
of the
population.
And that also
tells us that
more effort is
needed in order
to involve people
in the
decision-making
process.
Yeah, it's very
difficult and
paradoxical
because I mean,
on the one hand,
we want to
have people
participate even
more, and then
maybe you are
disappointed with
the result,
with what they
choose in the
democracy.
Yes, I agree.
But still, I
mean, we
shouldn't forget
that the large
number of the
voters do not go
to vote.
Yeah, yeah.
And now it's a
problem within
the United
States, it's a
problem in a
country
with a higher
turnout, such as
the United
Kingdom.
It starts to be a
problem, also in
countries such as
Italy or
such as Spain.
Those countries
experience the
dictatorships and
we had perhaps
also as a
consequence,
very high
electoral
turnout.
And that should
be the beginning
to count.
So again, to
repeat, there is
a basic problem
that people are
less inclined to
participate
in the political
process.
They are
discouraged
about that.
Yeah, I think
this is a bit the
situation where
people don't have
the taste anymore
for democracy.
And I mean, this
is one theory I
mentioned in one
previous episode
for the
people who
actually saw the
previous ones.
I was thinking
that maybe, I
mean, it's what
you said, maybe
younger people,
including
me, we have never
experienced
dictatorship, so
we don't know
really what
it's like.
And maybe we are
just bored of
democracy, which
is very sad
because it has
huge
consequences.
But just because
we are bored,
maybe we thrive
for something
else, for
something
different.
Yeah, yeah,
that's the
problem.
That's the
problem.
But again, I
repeat, we see
that there is a
willingness to
participate.
And therefore,
you know, also
the political
process should
sometimes be able
to include
and ask citizens
to participate in
something which
is visible.
And again,
democracy is not
only about
rights, it is
also
about duties.
And if we speak
about duties, it
means that more
people need to
participate in
the political
process.
Yeah, so it
should not be
only considered
as a right or so
like a duty,
something that
people feel they
have to do.
Obligations, that
I think are very
important.
I think the point
you make about
the fact that
many people would
actually be
very happy
to get, I mean,
to get more
involved
actively.
There are many
people,
you're right.
I mean, in
France, it's
quite very
visible how
people want to
strike and, you
know, the
gilets jaunes or
this kind of
phenomena where
people actually
really go in the
street and
really have a
politically
committed,
you know.
So it's very also
paradoxical and
maybe it could be
a key, what we've
just said before,
that maybe people
are bored with
democracy, with
the political
regime, but at
the same
time they have so
much political
energy and the
willingness to
get committed
politically.
So maybe the
problem, I'm
trying something,
maybe the problem
is that we
haven't found
yet a way to make
democracy or the
political life
more interesting
and
stimulating in the
way that
satisfies the
people, you know,
that stimulates
them and really
makes them more
fulfilled.
Yes, and that's
something.
I mean, I think
that, for
example, if
people will be
asked to
participate more,
they will
understand also
better what the
relationship
between the
delivery of
public
goods and the
movement, you
know, and there
is a lot of very
limited
information.
I mean, I can
provide plenty of
examples.
For example, in
the majority of
public transport
is provided by
the government,
you know, local
government.
Citizens do not
really know what
are the costs
associated to it.
They don't have
an idea of how
much is paid by
the ticket and
how much is paid
by general
taxation.
If they will know
something more
about the costs,
perhaps they will
also, you know,
understand
better the
choices.
And, by the way,
this will be a
very strong
incentive to
increase
efficiency
in the public
sector and also
to reduce
corruption.
To go in your
sense, I mean, I
have a personal
anecdote
about that.
I went in for I
had to buy a
medicine.
I think it was
given for free or
like very minimal
amount of
five euros.
And I've learned
later that what I
had bought was
actually worth
100 euros.
And I didn't even
feel it, you
know, like, I
mean, it had been
one year I
was taking
this medicine
without actually
understanding it.
And I was just
paying 100 euros
per month.
But actually, no,
I was paying zero
euro and not
realizing how
much it's worth.
That again is
something that
the government
should inform
about that.
Yeah.
Wouldn't be
difficult to say,
you know,
according to our
general estimate,
you go to
the bus,
you pay 1.50€
the ticket
But the ride
costs 6€.
And you pay
because I mean,
of course, it's
always the
citizens who
ultimately pay.
But the citizens
pay the other
4.50€
through general
taxation
or through
local taxes or
whatever.
And that way, I
think, is
something which
will help
citizens to
understand
better.
We are very much
in a situation in
which we do not
have an idea.
And that creates
often some
non-realistic
expectations of
what can be done
in terms
of the delivery
of public
services, in
terms of of
paying insurance,
in terms
of all these
sort of things.
Yeah.
And so you would
say it's I mean,
if I generalize
it a bit, it's
about bringing
more
responsibility
to people, making
them more
autonomous and
responsible and
face the
consequences
of their
what they're
living with.
And you're I can
also see a link
with what we've
said before about
the fact
that we are
bored with
democracy.
And like we have
this, for
instance, welfare
state, which is
amazing.
And it's very
comfortable
in Europe.
And we don't
realize how much
effort is that
and how much
people had to
fight for this.
And maybe this is
a if we were more
responsible and
autonomous, maybe
we would
realize better.
Yes.
How important.
Yes, indeed.
For example, we
have got a GP
general doctor,
you know,
we are free.
And that's one
great achievement
of the Italian
welfare state.
That one of the
reasons why we
are got a very
high life
expectancy and
people
get used to
it.
But do we really
know how much the
government pays
for that?
And which part of
our general
taxation
goes to that?
For example, in
the United
Kingdom, they
have started to
release some
documents
in which
every time you
pay the income
tax, they give
you a very
aggregate
breakdown
of the spend
issues of the
government.
It's just a piece
of paper.
But that's, I
think, the sort
of things which
will help to get
more
participation
of the
citizens.
Yeah.
Another topic in
this, because I
mean, you're a
professor, you've
been working at
universities,
we are, it's
heavily funded.
I mean, I
remember seeing
that one student
was costing so
much money for
the state, at
least in some
countries,
depending on the
country, of
course, but
forefront.
Like it's a huge
amount that I
want you to
actually, I was
not
suspecting at all.
That's a
good point.
Perhaps if you
would have known
earlier, you
would have been
more demanding
towards your
professors and
even towards
infrastructure,
you know.
To you.
Yes, of course.
Because so much
you expect that
professors
respond to
students' emails,
or you expect
that they go in
class on time,
they then speak
on the mobile
when they're
lecturing
and they
update into the
field, you know,
those
other things.
Okay, so this is
a way, I mean,
here we're
speaking mostly
for democratic
countries,
right?
For non-democratic
countries, do you
think that there
should be, I
mean, do you wish
that
non-democratic
countries become
democratic?
I think yes,
because you would
like to
keep that.
Of course,
of course.
But that's, I
mean, again, to
go back to the
current point on
democracy
model, that's,
I think, it's
very important to
understand.
I think that all
countries can
improve the
democratic
process.
Of course, it's
not the same
thing if you are
in Sweden or if
you are in China.
But that doesn't
mean that the
Swedish model is
the best and that
should fit all
the countries
of the
world, you know.
And I think that
all countries
will benefit to
develop some ways
of democracy.
But this should
be done
internally
through
their forces.
I mean, it's not
for me or anybody
else to tell to
the Chinese what
they should do or
to the Russians.
Yeah.
We can also, the
only thing we can
do is to provide
good examples.
And if we do,
perhaps it would
be easier to
convince the
Chinese or the
Russians that
they have an
advantage to
develop
democracy.
Which makes the
decrease of
support, the
internal decrease
of support in
democracy
even more
important because
we have less of a
model for
the others.
Yes.
But even if this
is the case, when
we go to
non-democratic
countries, we
really see the
difference,
you know.
And that, I
think, is
important in
terms of welfare,
in terms
of wages.
I mean, there is
a lot to gain
with democracy.
That's what I
call the
democratic
dividend,
you know.
And the
democratic
dividend is
important because
in democracy,
salary is higher,
human rights
are more
respected, so
there are a lot
of advantages.
And I mean, you
say that it needs
to come
spontaneously
from them and not
from external
pressure.
I'm thinking
still, I mean, I
spent one year in
China and there I
could not
really speak
about it or
whatever.
But speaking with
many Chinese
people, I don't
know what is also
100%
honest or not,
but I think that
many of them are
actually very
happy with their
regime and
don't think
that it should be
moved, that
they think.
Mostly what I was
hearing is that,
okay, democracy
maybe is good,
but not for such
a big country.
When it's such a
big country, we
need to have a
dictatorship.
China is a unique
case by many
aspects.
For example, it's
very deep.
I'm not aware of
any historical
case in which a
country has grown
10% a year.
GDP has grown 10%
a year for two
decades.
In a country
which had large,
large parts of
poverty, you
know, and
therefore I
understand
very well that
why the Chinese
government has a
strong support
because it's a
government
which has managed
to deliver an
enormous amount
of benefits to
its population.
Still, I do not
necessarily say,
and it's a
government which
when they decide
to do something,
they do it.
If they decide to
create an
underground in
the city of 15
million people in
10 years,
at the end of the
10th year, the
underground
is there.
And this cannot
be said in many
of the countries
of the world.
Still, I think
that China will
also benefit from
democracy.
For example, at
the moment,
China, the
average paid
holiday per year
are 5 days.
In Italy, there
are 25 days.
The Chinese
people understand
the difference,
you know, and
they also
understand that
sometimes
some of their
rights can be
destroyed.
And therefore,
you know, it's
important to show
to the Chinese
that they can do
something
better.
And on the other
hand, I think
that also we can
learn something
from the
Chinese, for
example, in terms
of delivering
what is decided.
Let me also say
that China is a
peculiar country
because it has
one party system,
of course,
but often the
decision making
process is very
complex at the
local level
within the party,
within the
community.
And therefore,
they consult
each other.
And once they
consult each
other, they
study, and then
they decide, and
then the
situation
is to apply the
decision.
So I would say
that there are
some studies
about the
political process
in China,
especially
15 years ago, in
which we've shown
that there was a
consultation
process.
Well, maybe you
are drifting us a
bit further too
far from our
original purpose.
There is also, I
think in this
case, interesting
comparison is
with India
because same
population,
but it's
democratic.
Again, India is
another very
interesting case.
It's a democratic
country, but
still there is
local poverty and
a totally
different system
of
infrastructures.
In China, you
really see that
there are
airports, trains,
schools, roads,
and in
China, it's
more likely that
people are
searching for
their own
personal
advantages.
Yeah.
So that brings us
also back to what
you were saying
at the beginning,
from what
you say,
that the progress
you made and how
much you are able
to deliver, you
say, public goods
for the people,
that counts a lot
for the people
supporting
democracy.
So there is a
huge work
also there.
Definitely.
If you want to
defend the idea
of democracy,
democracy needs
to work not well
in an excellent
form because they
should be much
better than
alternative forms
of government.
We cannot be
idealistic and to
think that we
just pull
democracy because
it provides
human rights.
That is
important, but
it's not the only
condition.
Okay.
I have one last
question and then
I will ask you
the last word if
you want.
My last question
is, we've spoken
a lot at the
societal level,
at the
community level,
let's say, and do
you think that
there's anything
that one person
can do at the
individual level
for a
cosmopolitan
democracy?
Well, yes,
of course.
I mean, there are
a lot of things
that can be done.
The first thing
is to participate
to citizens'
networks in
specific domains,
which might
be human rights
campaigns,
ecological
campaigns, or any
form of social
activism,
trying to
link with others.
Getting people
connected and
committed in the
politics as we
were
discussing before.
Yes, and that's
of course, with
the current
information and
communication
technologies,
it's much easier
than it used to
be in my
own time.
It's very easy to
create a network,
which I would say
should also be
associated
to deliver
something.
You know, a
campaign specific
on some
ecological human
rights goals and
so on that
you target
decision making,
decision makers,
as well as
decision making,
and you try
to involve
more players into
the decision
making process.
And that often is
very effective.
Why do you add
the precision
that it should be
specific to one
goal and deliver
one time?
Well, I mean, if
we are thinking
about focus
groups, sometimes
they start in
that way,
but sometimes
they can also
participate in
more campaigns,
you know.
And if, for
example, if you
start with one
goal, it's more
likely that you
will manage
to bridge and to
include citizens
which belong to
different states.
And therefore,
for example, if
you think about
human rights and
women
rights, you can
perhaps involve
also people in
Arab countries in
which these sort
of things are
forbidden.
So that's
interesting.
I had not
realized, but so
you have this
global scope in
mind when you
were getting
committed.
Why not also
doing it as a
group with
different
countries, like
some
international?
Indeed.
But I repeat,
democracy, if
they want to be a
good model and a
larger
geographic scope,
they cannot do it
with war.
They should do it
with true
persuasion.
They should do it
by convincing
people of all the
countries that it
is in the
interest
to become a
democratic.
Well, many thanks
for this
conversation.
Thank you
very much.
If you want to
have a last word
or a summary or
one thing.
I think we have
covered it.
We covered it.
Okay.
Thank you
very much.
Thank you very much.
See you for the
next episode.
Thank you.
Thank you for
having listened
to this episode.
This is the kind
of episode which
will, without any
doubt, trigger a
lot of comments.
So I'm looking
forward to have
this conversation
on the
social media.
And the next
episode will be
published on the
1st of February.