ISWI 2019 | Keynote | Prof. Gáspár Miklós Tamás (Thu.)

ISWI 2019 | Keynote | Prof. Gáspár Miklós Tamás (Thu.)



be quite nice to give the full attention to Professor Thomas who is with us today to talk about this important aspect and another thing may be a technical one there will be like a lecture of about 20 to 30 minutes and afterwards a lot of time for discussion and this is what we want we want to discuss with you we want to give you the opportunity to talk and yeah that's the thing we would like and yeah we hope to have a nice day until 6 o'clock ok then maybe for the presentation I just give you some insight of the work of Professor Thomas and afterwards he we present some thoughts of our topic so professor Thomas graduated from babish Valley University in 1972 he ultimately has studied philosophy and classics after stint as an assistant of or assistant editor of literally weekly in his native Transylvania so that's in Romania he got into political difficulties with our authorities of the time and emigrated then to Hungary where he taught at the University of Budapest sect for political reasons again he became known as a dissident intellectual and published only in the underground or abroad and then he was elected as a liberal member of the Hungarian Parliament in 1989 he quit professional politics in 1994 and was then the head of the Institute of philosophy at the Hungary Hungarian Academy and has taught in Columbia Oxford Chicago Georgetown Yale and other universities and was a visiting research fellow and Vienna Washington DC and Berlin he was recently granted or he was granted the Life Achievement Award of the Soros Foundation and angry and published books on public political philosophy and social theory and has his works been translated in more than twelve languages and now he's here for us to talk about the rise of populism and that this is the point where I would hand it over to him and yep wish all of us a nice pleasant afternoon and good discussion about this really important topic and maybe one note if you have like technically understanding problems so there's a word you don't know or like another like a concept you don't know about just give us a sign that we can maybe explain it a little bit more because we think it's very important too that everybody is on the same page and or the same site what we are talking about and yeah with this I would hand over okay well thank you for having me and I have decided that today I will try to be as clear and simple as I can and because the topics that are in discussion today are too important to be played with them if you think about politics it's obviously two major ways in which you can conceive of a politics that serves the interest of possibly everybody and that is capable of conjuring up a good Society about which more later two methods one is that you will ask the interested people you ask the citizens what kind of a society they would like to live in what would be the kind of government they would be willing to obey at least temporarily what kind of laws will they approve of and by consulting public opinion by consulting the citizens by trying to find a compromise between them with various methods among which the best known is elections you'll ask them and those who will subscribe in a greater number to an opinion will win their point of view will win the most numerous current of opinion will be dominant in society that's one method that's one method by comparing competing opinions about the good society about the good state about good laws about liberty and such important things in our lives but then of course we know and many people have known before us that this method is highly imperfect even if there is no fraud there is no cheating even then in the best of circumstances opinions can be erroneous even majorities can be wrong and not to speak of irresponsible and selfish groups within the ruling class that will try to induce people into error to convince them to believe in opinions that are in fact advantageous not to themselves but the ruling groups in a given society but even if you disregard possibility of cheating as I said error is always possible because our knowledge is always imperfect okay so therefore we can in politics are with the best of intention because of the limitations of our knowledge and because of imperfection of our morality and our intellectual capacities and our psychology that's easy to understand so the other method would be then not to consult people who are just simple citizens and don't have a specialized knowledge in law in jurisprudence in politics in public administration in urban planning in environment etc etc but you will consult the experts you consult the people in the know this is what Plato called the domination of the philosopher Kings in a good society he said and many others after him the people who know the truth who have a deep who have a profound knowledge of the relevant matters should govern not the ignorance not the people are easy to mislead because of their intellectual and psychological and social and cultural limitations so let's turn turn to the best and follow them how will you know who are the best you know how will you select how will a community how will a community decide who to trust how will it establish what the correct method of knowledge is according to which a good society should be governed the various ways in which you can argue for this for example you can establish a kind of science that is always correct it has been believed for a long time that a science based the precision on the exactitude on the noncontradictory character of mathematics would be correct we could control with mathematical methods and logical methods whether the doctrines proposed to citizens according to which they will be governed are erroneous or not we can use scientific methods by comparing the doctrines to empirical reality to outside reality that you are experiencing and also you can logically control these doctrines whether they're correct not self contradictory they are not making logical mistakes and are not foolish or biased or whatever very well there has been and there have been such governances most especially in systems which were governed by theologians the political rule of the churches was one model of this kind of governance in which there was even another proof of the truth that would direct the steps of the governance namely the truth was divinely inspired was guaranteed by the Godhead was guaranteed by supranatural knowledge that was superior to purely human knowledge there was a supernatural guarantee so the church divinely inspired was supposed to be able to exercise or at least to inspire correct kind just kind of government governance all these models to put it very shortly all these models the one you can call Democratic Democratic Malo in the dome arriving in the Greeks and the ancient Greek sense of the word not in a contemporary sense of what the Democratic method by including citizens in their own government self-government in a way and I'll tell you a few words about that why our contemporary liberal democracies are not democratic and the other method and the other method was of course systems of intellectual governance of governance based on truth rather than on agreement as a great difference both have resulted in terrible tyrannies both have resulted in total disaster repeatedly in history we know that all the guarantees that have been offered first by inclusion by participation by this is collective decision-making the Democratic way all the theological or philosophical or scientific way of governance have uniformly failed that's was something that already you know two thousand four hundred years ago has been formulated that uniformly every system of governments in the end fails because of its specific weaknesses now let me refine this very childish childish and simplistic image of the tragedy of politics first if you are talking about democracy democracy as a great French thinker jacques ranciere has described it it's basically not a real political system because democracy aims at something that we never seem to have in any state namely absence of power let me explain what did the Greeks in the Greek city-states do when they recognized a social and political system as democratic first the conditions were extremely demanding and hard in order for a system to be recognized as democratic a all those who decided had to be full citizens who are full citizens full citizens are those who don't depend of anybody who are totally free in taking decisions nobody who works for someone else can be such a person anybody who has to work is not a citizen all communists will agree with this the abolition of work is a precondition of freedom if you work you are technologically and personally and economically subordinated to somebody whom you work for your interests are either in conflict or are subservient to the interest of your employer anyway depend in a hostile or positive manner of them this was called in Greek Bona Lucia that was a condition whereby people had to earn their bread themselves they couldn't do what they wanted they had to work for a living such people are not free so they can't decide secondly these people will have to be so filled with a sense of duty they should prepare to send their whole life in deciding the affairs of the community both by participating in the assembly talking about public affairs because no democracy will have fixed laws democracy will always express the will of the community the in tensions of people and any written law will reduce their liberty in the name of people who lived before any rule of law any fresh start as the Germans say is the rule of the dead and democracy is the rule of the living of those who live in the moment who lived now who decide now every democratic community has to be always present and living and decide again and again and again at every moment otherwise our freedom is reduced otherwise it would be somebody else who have decided in our stead writing the laws and so on so forth and these people should be people in the assembly also the people who will fight for the Republic who will be soldiers they won't hire others to fight for them that will be democratic people who take the responsibility to rule will have to take the responsibility to fight for the rule and fight for their for what they believe to be true and just and good again no leaders can be elected for a long time no leaders can be named for a given time without the right of the community to call them back no official elected can be paid for what he is doing because then of course he will have an interest a selfish interest in ruling and the only interest that those Republic's recognized as legitimate for ruling was whose glory in other words the esteem of your compatriots if you wanted any permanence in ruling you were not a Democrat well I could go on what happened judged by this standard the contemporary electoral parliamentary democracies are no democracies at all the in a way the opposite of democracy the democratic ideal which means the con distant debate and the constant competition between opinions the constant common and mutual research or what is just and what is fair what is good and what is true has to lack one thing which is permanence which is permanence permanence democracies in other words is no state no state can be democratic any state of any kind that has some permanence laws you know officials public servants etc etc cannot be democratic also that means of course that democracies had to be aristocratic and had to be limited to small city-states no great territorial state which were logistical and logical and and and and practical reasons have to elect officials because the people are too numerous to gather and to decide things together of course that means if you have great territorial states you won't have democracy you can have democracy only small communities any society beyond the small local committee is not democratic hence if no personal relationships if no real contest between personalities will decide the correct way then you have to connect the citizens in some way how will you connect them you will connect them through uniform procedures uniform procedures say elections say laws say habits say customs the cultural prejudices etc all those great regulative systems that bind people together who are not personally acquainted with one another hence every state today aiming at sort of decent governance has to combine decadent decaying second-rate elements of the two great models of the way in which we can conceive at just governance a contest of opinions instead of research of truth as the basis of political decision-making well look at any electoral contest today what will these idiotic parties of today tell you usually they won't tell you that what we are proposing to you is truth unassailable result of a precise and and and how to call it and notice that you can trust okay in other words they want to make a claim that what they're saying is true they will tell you that if you follow them your life will be more pleasant more acceptable less dangerous etc etc then the proposals of others they will try in other words to appeal to your interests but what are our interests how are they defined who defines them are we really certain that what we regard as our own interests are really our own interests we know perfectly well for our private lives that can be perfectly easily deceived about what is our best interest are we not sometimes selecting worst kind of friends aren't we making mistakes in various decisions very frequently how would could be sure could we be sure that we are selecting or politically formulable interests with proper care and proper reasonableness and so on there's no certainty about this so the element of the impermanence and relativity of opinions remains this uncertainty remains but the sovereignty of the subject who decides it this way doesn't that's absurd that's an absurd system that is absolutely sure to be unjust and unfair if interests are not defined in any clear and honest way that's impossible conceptually and intellectually to discover what the true interests are we can deceive ourselves and we will most certainly will so our choices will be totally arbitrary hence unfree new decision that is not based on proper knowledge can be called free Caprice whim is not freedom okay so and then you know then then the contemporary states the best of them even you know then will tell you that it is the rule of law that binds us together and is the outside framework within which a less more or less decent life at least secure life can be lived where you will be arbitrarily attacked and deported and beheaded and tortured and whatever rule will reign supreme and save you from the worst okay okay but how can this be reconcilable with a circle democratic character and liberal character of these societies who are the guardians of law there are unelected officials called judges that again is the old problem you know Constitutional Court and Supreme Court's will tell your elected representatives whether they can make this law or not hence there is an authority there is a force above the elected officials so there is a deep contradiction within the state so it is book and again I could go on and on and on about the internal contradictions of any state you are acquainted with that many more of course and but I hope I have shown to you that when our community is addressing the dangers that are threatening our societies it is not on a solid ground we may say that we will support our democratic societies etc etc in the face of the fascist danger I don't like the term populist let's simplify let's call them fascists okay it's a clearer term although it's exaggerated to a certain extent because of course the fascists of today are not as awful as the fascist of yesterday because they don't need to but that's ok that's that's a different topic ok so it's easier with us than it has been before you know what's the difference difference is that in 1933 there was a strong socialist movement there were huge socialist mass parties that in principle could have resisted they didn't in the end for various reasons with a few exceptions in Spain and Austria but but but but the fascists off of of the twentieth century had to address strong enemies such strong enemies don't exist at the moment ok but that's that's in brackets what is important so we defend allegedly we defend our liberal democratic societies and rule of law states and such and such in spite of the populist or whatever extreme nationalist or this and that danger and we are not standing on a solid ground as I said but the enemies of these societies the enemies of sight is that want to make them definitely worse than they are now and that explained why do I think that they know perfectly well too that we are not standing on a soil ground so they have a point and that's the greatest danger when the enemies who want to destroy what is really worth some respecting could never sorry have a valid point against us if us means everybody from moderate conservatives to Marxist say this is us against them ok but of course again this us and them is very shaky and not really true but ok let's for a moment suppose that is itself what are the points the extreme right is raising legitimately and intelligently sometimes against the present order of things a that the present order of things doesn't really represent the people's will what is of course true it won't be a problem if our mixed system wouldn't refer to the people as well as if it was expressing the people's will which of course it isn't nor could it it is impossible by this indirect true system the people's will cannot be formulated in any reasonable way so as to be expressed politically the people's will is an invention it is an abstraction that doesn't exist we can imagine the peoples were directly expressed but that of course in the present order of things is impossible nobody has seen the people's will nobody knows what the people's will would be if we were really free if we weren't bound by laws by violence by question by state by taxes by prejudice by compulsion to work etc etc what will then be the people's will we don't know nobody knows hence anybody who says that they know for some intuitive intuitive mean meaning based on feeling some intuitive way they know what the people's will is they have a point because the people is not represented the fact that it cannot be represented in a modern capitalist society and in so-called liberal democracy that's another thing but we are of course missing this because we all of us we know perfectly well that the world is not so as we in our heart would desire there is this is called alienation we are strangers to the order we are putting up with we must live in this way because the outside world is too strong and any single person is too weak to resist on his or her own but we will feel the things even if they are acceptable sometimes most certainly cannot be satisfactory for everybody that is won't express the people's will because the people's will could be expressed only after a deep transformation of present-day society that will make it possible to be expressed and before being expressed to be conceived ok so when the Earth Day and similar parties in the ball scenarios and the narendra modi's and they do turties and they're all these young or bands of this world will tell you that I know better than all those dusty cold documents and constitutions will tell you what you need namely to be yourself and to kick everybody else and that's the basic idea they are a point they have a point their point because we are missing something which they fraudulently and falsely but to draw our attention to that we are dissatisfied and it is the system that stands between us and the authentic expression of ourselves that's true how they want to solve this of course is a lie but that doesn't mean that what they say doesn't resonate the lots of our compatriots and not for not necessarily for the worst of reasons so so what are these new forces winning everywhere telling the members of our societies something that has been said before it is basically if you listen very carefully to these people it is very much akin to what ruling classes have been always saying which is the following you may think that the lower classes have interests visibly distinct from the interests of the upper classes you think that the halves have different interest from the have-nots you think that the citizens of poor countries have the same interests as the citizens of rich countries you think that exploiters and exploited insiders and outsiders oppressors and oppressed strong and weak ill and well etc etc will have the same interests how do you prove this because that's of course if that would be the case if you ever get a common interest and that common interest only has to be administered by the powers that be everything will be hunky-dory everything will be ok how do they prove this very simply the aspects that non-political and non-economic in which we are all alike and all the same and this is race and this is race or some synonym of race ethnicity nationhood identity culture name it as you wish it comes back to the same idea that there is a dimension in the members of society in which they are all alike more than like in which that one and in which they united against others be those others defined as you wish that varies and that community between people of different interests different class belonging different identities regional etc etc etc different political positions you know where people have no political power whatsoever and for various reasons may mean some societies even legally they are robbed of as a size of the political power and other societies are not nevertheless there very few people who really do exercise political power and we are told that we are all the same and we are opposed to the foreigner again the foreigner in this political propaganda comes in many guises it can be the foreigner as the citizen of a foreign country but even more insidiously it can come from people in your midst who in some ways are serving some foreign interest some supranational interests some international interest or some selfish interest for small elite influential group of a minority that has a hidden agenda against the majority okay that's a very oh that's a very old that's very old to talk and it's now repeated in a slightly different manner what is the difference what is new these people are representing the most powerful elements in any given society and they are denying their power it is people like Trump say a millionaire probably the citizen in the world that has the greatest political power in his own hands will say that he is opposed by the elite what is the elite the elite in his normal definition is the chosen is the most excellent elements in a society recognized as such so the strongest and the most famous percé in the world will talk about people are much weaker much less famous and much less rich as himself as though they were his powerful and successful enemies in what sense in the sense he says and these people all say there is an elite of people like myself you know leftist intellectuals and so on who are in a way trying and sometimes succeeding to define what I would call the moral consciousness of the age that for example demands and ideas such as an interdiction of discrimination against ethnic groups against classes against genders against races against colours against religious creeds etc this is a false idea represented by people like leftist intellectuals who have a hidden agenda what is their hidden agenda to take away the leading role from the healthy traditional leading element in any given society and those are of course the white Christian rich secularized Western men of the upper classes that have been exercising indeed they have been exercising the rule for millennia and they say to us that the testimony of history is that the traditional leading element in society represented by the traditional ruling classes by the state by jurisprudence by the church's are traditionally cooled by destiny or by divinity to rule and they prove their superiority for years is something called tradition okay and people such as myself and others will try to undermine tradition and under the pretext of equality and of liberation and the freedom from discrimination to create a rule all of their own that is the rule of doctrinal intellectual bureaucrats that will determine for you if you don't if you are not very careful how to live well how to live morally how to live honestly how to decide difficult conflicts in a way that is subordinate only to universal moral and philosophical criteria so therefore the most powerful men on earth are pretending that are leading a rebellion leading a rebellion which has always been the birthright of the week we have been always weak we have been always few we have always been beaten down but at least we staged some nice revolts every now and then so now even this privilege of starting revolutions is confiscated by the leading element and they are telling us that they are defending privilege and the difference and tradition and experience against doctrines of equality and of justice and of liberation and against mysterious strong forces in the world that are preaching Liberty to people who need firm leading hands okay and the basis for such doctrines that are now being preached by this new reactionary forces has always been based always been based on race and gender thousands of years before how was for example the old nobility defined have you heard of the doctrine of the blue blood blue blood of the aristocrats meant that they were racially different superior to the rest this is how costs in India have been defined that they were biologically by birthright from different origins etc etc the darker hue the darkest skin was always defined as a mark as a badge of servitude by white societies of God and and so on and so forth because why for various historical reasons but there's one thing – because it appeared this difference you know appeared as natural not as historical not a social not as moral what are the trumps etc etc of this world telling us we are just recognizing what is natural we represent nature but that has always been the difference between left and right the right always said that is representing nature and the left has always said it was representing history okay that was always the case and it's still the case and it will always be the case for the very simple reason not because that is conceptually necessary but very simple reason that privilege and prejudice and inequality cannot be argued for in other terms in terms of natural determination with nobody can pretend that it's morally attractive or acceptable if you look at the social problem from a logical and rational way we know that human beings are about the same kind we know that I know such huge natural differences between different categories of people as to warrant different orders of rights of excellence of pleasure of freedom between them everybody knows that every day everybody has seen children growing everywhere see little babies who couldn't talk and we all repent babies who didn't talk and now we can talk indeed and we do we know that natural differences are gradual and relative therefore there cannot be any rational order that at least cannot be criticized on the basis of the primordial simulator of human beings so therefore the right is not telling us that this is moral acceptable they will say we are on the side of experience tradition and we don't pretend that rule and governing can be offered to anybody the fear of the outsider that might gain power is one of the most effective weapons of the ruling classes of ever right so what we are facing is nothing very new is nothing very new we are being offered ideologies of natural superiority and of various myths of mysterious forces being willing to change the world in the sense of more Liberty and more equality this has been exercised for millennia the difference now is that we are living in a world that Road uhland Lee and mendacious Lee is pretending that is actually based on the principles of freedom and equality while it isn't hence the critics are right when they are accusing the present order of hypocrisy yes it is hypocritical it is not free it is not equal it is not democratic it is not able to ensure the expression of the true desires of people of course not and that's also a very old thing to emphasize the hypocrisy of a mixed of a very very very fully bull and weak and decadent odor to promise a firestorm of violence and terror and question and injustice and heroism and war cleansing storm that will get rid of hypocrisy that will get of duplicity but also it will get rid of the safety of everybody of you as private persons because any rule based on race and the masculine superiority is an order in which the number of dangers is increasing so for us the problem which I'm asking you to decide we will have having a discussion if you are still have forced to do it should we in the face of a very vulgar and malevolent and dangerous attack should we defend and all that is hypocritical that is mendacious and that is unjust that is unfair that that it does nothing of all the things it pretends to be doing so shall we defend a shallow self-contradictory weak lie only because we are afraid of something much worse because this is how the conflict is presented in a few days we'll have the European elections the powers of the insiders at the moment of the main governments of Germany and other European countries too we say that yes let's defend the present mild form of injustice to prevent an aggressive and open and ugly version of injustice is that a choice that is decisive enough that is inspiring enough that will satisfy the moral discontent that we are feeling I very much doubt it but I will be very curious to find out what you think about it and let me thank you for your patience thank you [Applause] I'm yep so thank you very much for this inspiring talk I think we yeah will be like having some questions from the audience I see there's the microphones preparing maybe maybe some one thing one question from my site beforehand you know explained what is the problem a little bit in your opinion is there anything like you say you see where some outcome where yeah it will get better is there any like utopia that as if it was presented well of course you know with a little imagination and a little will for creating texts and proposals and so on so forth you can always think of a solution in the abstract sense yes I can imagine very easily and one of those that quite numerous actually who can put together a system of preferences about a situation in which the moral exigencies and their ideas about what could be better for the fellow human beings could be comprised yes that's not so that's not so complicated comedian but what I would be more interested in is that can we at least and and in this I'm hesitant this is why I'm not pretending if I had a clear political platform to propose to you I wouldn't have hidden it I would have been of course courses because the university are not a political meeting but I could have expressed it indirectly and more clearly than I did because I'm hesitant because you see as I said in a very simplistic manner at the beginning same but important things were those how would we discover the true reasons for change because simple dissatisfaction is just an opinion like any other it can be very bad for you you know and this amount of dissatisfaction alienation and indeed political unhappiness that we experiencing we can see that it harms people obviously yes so you know that the general mood is awful and in in many very different countries but but this however however widespread and however much I feel very well motivated it's still an opinion we all might be wrong and in fact things maybe are perfectly well and we don't know where we are not grateful enough or whatever but so it would be important to have a solid ground then we do have at the moment how do we discover them there are theoretical and social scientific and philosophical methods that promise some more successfully than others how do you discover these things but that is open that way economic social cultural analysis is open to a number of professionals only because those people who should decide in fact are busy are busy earning their life are busy doing whatever is needed to stay alive in such a society again that's an eternal problem again nothing new but so how so that would for example sure why was some of our socialist forebears right when they erased the organization problem as the most important one because they wanted to create at least the social framework in which at least a number of dissatisfied and rebellious people at least those could decide in a rational manner what to do if we don't have a rationally well grounded and morally motivated community that is willing to talk and to listen then erasing problems itself is irrational it's just talk it's just – I'm I have nothing against talking I'm a teacher and I'm a writer so my job of course is talking but when I say just talk then I hope that what I'm doing is not just talk it's talk but not just talk what's the difference that I am as by necessity lonely thinker I am in the business also of looking for a community for looking for a community of the future this future might come tomorrow that might be able to search for truth search for justice and do something for this to be the basis of its own praxis in which the words about politics about the common good have their weight you know and that's so this is why I can't give a direct answer yes my utopia would be it would be a good community of people who try to work out necessary concepts that will make it possible in a better society than ours to press our wishes without cheating and without deceiving ourselves sorry for the long answer but that's the true answer with this I would open like with questions but you can also make statements so it would be really also quite cool to get your ideas also on the talk maybe also on the whole topic of rising populism that you may be also experienced like also can give us examples we have like one hour of time and yeah so I would give to Mike Frueh at that place yeah and I actually studied in Budapest in Eltham but I'm from Ukraine and I lived in Budapest for a year right now I think and what I have noticed there are a lot of controversial policies that Viktor Orban is doing right now in regards to see you and actually to migrants and with the new elections coming up I think his party was kicked out of the European Parliament but I think they're going to run again and what do you think what are they chances because I think they're also problem with populism in each other right now do you think they have a big chances of you actually get into the European Parliament politics are like into the into the you how do you think they can be influential in the coming years thank you very briefly they haven't been kicked out from European Parliament only from their own conservative group in the in the European Parliament well that's that's a detail I've seen the latest polls this morning mr. bobbins party will win hugely in the European elections it'll send 13 MEP s to Brussels while the Socialist Party will sent to and yes you'll win in a big way so well so we'll see you know salvini and so will be a number of other questionable characters yes and you know Viktor Orban of course in example I know best being goes Hungarian course I know him very well personally too but that's that's a side issue and so that will illustrate to you what a system that is called populist is like because populist system is at least supposed to be at least in some respects useful to the populace no to the to the lower who are the populist everybody – the aristocracy and this is a country in which indeed you have lost all major modern freedoms especially the freedom of the media freedom of press freedom of Education and others but also it's a country in which you have a flat tax of 15 that advantages the rich in which you don't have a real company tax in which you don't have a fortune tax in which you don't have a house tax property tax landed property and so on it is one of the most unequal societies in Europe while maintaining that is fighting against the elites especially the foreign elites a state in which the German car companies don't pay taxes but they get actually government subsidies from the poor Hungarian state gives the rich German car companies actually in this very nationalist country who are the ones who are really commanding there was a jerk in a newspaper saying that they were you know three words in which Europe responds to Viktor Orban tongue in politics BMV Mercedes and Audi with other the other three was and so you know it's it's a system that is extremely unfair extremely unjust extremely unfree even compared to the common run of european countries but that pretends to liberate itself and everybody from the yoke of themselves actually and and but because of the pervasive racism and chauvinism that are widespread but of course not voluntarily and automatically originated elements are very strong and hungry you know the non-existent threat of the refugees because no refugees hungry is paramount as a propaganda element but you see how these things are poisoning everything the government's propaganda against immigrants and refugees from the Middle East and from Africa and from Central Asia are countered by some opposition parties making propaganda against Ukrainian guest workers so yes political situations as bad as you can just describe it not violent because there's no resistance you mentioned like the economy are like the difference in income is this something like a prerequisite for like having a populist system or something that advances the possibilities of it you know the in Western Europe in the last 30 years the average salaries haven't increased the last time when when when decrees in in income inequality happen resemble the welfare state and that is in the distant past nobody nobody is really promising I mean nobody with chances of success is promising any egalitarian redistribution that is the redistribution of income and various assets towards the poor to enrich the poor and make the rich a little poorer and the poor a little richer so in this in this direction there are no policies the populist are not proposing anything like that in some places yes but bhavas very rare and so what we have here is a movement of the extreme right calling it populist has only one conceivable political aim to dissolve propagandistic alee the difference between left and right that's what the term is serving they talk about left populism and what right populism while the two have nothing in common and the term is an abuse itself but that's a word people are using so I'm not protesting too much but so that's why so if you call say Bernie Sanders populist we call Jeremy Corbyn populist because these are very traditional social democratic leaders have absolutely nothing populist in them not a populist bone in their body they're very traditional Social Democrats who would like you know to raise taxes for the rich and to get more employment opportunities to the working-class and you know correct the usual thing that social democratic governments are correcting health education public transport etc etc and no populist leaders are not doing anything of the kind populist leaders are doing exactly what Trump is doing forbidding immigration conducting commercial Wars against foreign countries thereby increasing the danger of war and by giving anti-black hints to his audience that has rehabilitated and died black racism in the United States will always existed but the political governing classes have frowned upon it for a long time and now again is permissible again it's accepted again you can talk about blacks and other ethnic minorities in a way in which early in my childhood it was it was customary to be talking about that sir but but no these movements are strongly and Italian in all respects but at the same time as I said they are trying to emphasize that they are opposed to the intellectuals to the University and the media people who in their view are preaching impossible utopias and self-serving agendas of the leftist kind but that of course is not the ruling class and egalitarianism that is directed against a few university teachers and a few columnist in the newspapers that seems to me as an egalitarian thrust pretty ridiculous okay then next questions we have first go there yeah thank you very much my name is ibrahim al danville from The Gambia Africa I think the discussion is kind of more centered of South Africa but I will want to give my opinion in terms of populism and its relation to Africa I think I am scared if problems had been raised in Africa because in Africa right now especially in countries around with Africa we have of nationalism liberalism manufacture analogy I want to believe that if we anyway want to introduce all kind of kind of brings about the concept of popular ISM in the clinic in our countries will be kind of introducing or enforcing the concepts of tribalism because nowadays in Africa elections is just a typical travel centers whereby a group of people will pretend like they have the interest of the people at heart but at the end of the day convert themselves with the majority people who ever travel or ethnic groups in order to earn votes and this is working very well for them and as a young politician in my country I'll also want to act in what we do you think Africa and Africans can move from any kind of electing people based on a specific line which is travel which is religious or which is anything that is related to them so electing people who have the skills who have the abilities who have the experience who have the interest of the continent or the particular country at heart in order to move token of our continent thank you very much well thank you very much even if I may say a personal word I grew up as a member of a minority group I'm a Hungarian from Romania basically I grew up in Romania I lived there for 30 years before I was forced to leave first to hungry and then to the west and so forth so I can see very well I've seen many nationalist Romanian leaders who saying worrying things first in the radio and then making scary measures against the ethnic group I belonged to which is not to mean that the Hungarians when they were in a majority in the eighth century weren't behaving very badly against what was then the Romanian minority things keep being repeated by various groups as you know very well better than I do the only thing you can do of course it will be slow may be slower than it should be is to found political organizations strictly non ethnic in character based on your democratic principles and in which members and activists voluntarily will give up the old habit of trying to advance the cause only of their tribe of the ethnic group etc etc so you have to begin very humbly at the at the beginning at the bottom with people who have which is not easy which is not easy I have discarded their own ethnic prejudices and there have been such political parties in the past and they failed unfortunately the most famous case of course is what happened in this country in August 1914 when the internationalist Socialist Party from one day to another had become well of course they'd be presidents and they were but seemingly from one day to another have been transformed to an internationalist party into a nationalist party from a party of peace in the party of war so this is one of them is difficult this is one of the most difficult tasks in human endeavor in modern societies to base political organization and even more political success in voluntarily relinquish in death make and gender prejudice but you must try there's no other hope you may not succeed but I cannot see any other hope at all so luck to you okay then I would give for this phone yeah you a decides well so hi I'm Rena from the Philippines I think this topic is really relevant to my country right now – just like the rest of the world but when you're talking about the rise of populism in the West and most countries it's always based on race and ethnicity but I think one thing that differs in my country is that it's a struggle within class so the war of drugs or war against drugs of the terror has been targeting the poor in our country and I want to get your insight like how does this rise of populism in my country managed to get to this extent that bulk of our population actually supports it because it's based on his actions doing the right thing to help the citizens and I think most Filipinos believe that so I just want to get their insight on this thank you so the Philippines do you know Sara Raimundo Sara I'm under do you know time well that's a very very interesting political activists and social think in the Philippines as a university professor anyway so I know of course very little of what I should know about such a great country it's an important and large country should interest us all but in a one respect still exemplifies the general general characteristics of this new right wing breakthrough I tried to characterize namely that is insincere regarding the basic social fact of class it presents itself as already Hitler did didn't Hitler call his party Socialist Workers Party of course he did you know it's not new so forces purporting to represent the lower classes and the victims of injustice unnecessary in the present position where the traditional ruling classes are not any longer trusted so they will be replaced by people like the 30 and people like joke away and people go you know many people of its kind and not unique to Philippines or to Indonesia or to Brasilia it's the same everywhere you know and in order to mobilize the poor against their own best interests well that's the great trick how do you get the people to be against itself that's the great trick and they are succeeding again and again and again and we are sitting here in the Technische universität from alumina and and keep it singing about it it's talking about it and we're still not doing anything against it at least not anything effective for the very simple reason that we have been making compromises for far too long you know even I am NOT innocent if you would ask me should you go to vote election for these imperfect miserable parties of the so-called Left I'll say well yeah maybe go please because otherwise all these monsters will come in although I know but it doesn't help but we are too much used to a bourgeois style compromises and we cannot look in the face the situation in which we actually do know that these so-called moderate forces learnt help because they can't help not because they're demons Devils just what they want is ineffective because it is based on untruth so yeah people are indeed being deceived and being misled and the rest of us are not doing our duty thank you so much ba ba da ba from The Gambia I fully comprehend your concept about democracy in relation to the topic of discussion and that prompt me to ask this correction a country that have been ruled by a dictator for almost two decades and the system of governance is dictatorship by that I mean where rule of law is not respected why are people's rights not respected arbitrary arrests now one system of governance are you going to recommend for a country that I've been ruled for two decades by a dictator thank you well you know it's it's always again as you will know better than I do but I suspect and I know from historical examples that this situation always entails a paradox because you see if you can't get rid of dictate of a dictator only by violent means because basically that's the situation it won't go away on its own even if those violent means are not extremely violent means but violent means that also means that you are introducing some super revolutionary government I'm not in principle opposed to a revolutionary government that is a government that is not elected etc etc but is brought into power by a great movement on the streets and in the jungle or wherever it is and but the question is the dangers again we know from history revolutionary governments tend to represent very passionately a truth like you do people's rights etc with a great passion and great determination a relational government is usually unwilling to relinquish power because it has good reasons to suspect but the enemy is still there that is dangerous that you should protect your people against those people who want to introduce dictatorship again so the full revolution government can deteriorate too and in a number of African countries dictate dictatorial government has come from genuine true revolutions that's the tragedy they weren't just fascist just frauds some of those relations where genuine revolutions most of them and some of the true revolutionary leaders think of Mugabe you can't deny that he was a true revolutionary at the beginning he was it was always a pretty scary figure about that not that's something different and so there's always a danger in making revolution because thereby you may perpetuate a violent order of things also there are situations where there's no other solution well you have to try because it is intolerable because you can't because it's morally intolerable to put up with such a thing again for a long time so there are no in other words there are no permanent solutions to this you must trust yourself to a certain extent you must you know to use a Christian to examine your conscience am I still that innocent revolutionary that wants to liberate is his or her fellow citizens or am I just a bitter man bent on revenge it's not easy always to tell because the two things are closed to one another because of course revolutions are angry this is why they are revolutionaries and they have good reasons very often to be angry it but it is dangerous but again he's not tolerating dictatorship even more dangerous is not indulging these electoral games for decades dangerous because it all rots the heart of society well maybe not violent ways but in very very harmful psychologically and pathologically very harmful ways so there is no one true answer it depends and it depends it depends mostly on on on morality that's where you have to examine yourself and your friends and your allies more strictly than you examine your enemies sorry to sound so preachy and sounding like a stupid you know pastor and the Sunday in a Lutheran Church but you know that's my sincere opinion yeah maybe following on this because maybe also the question beforehand was a little bit in this case okay then he thank you very much professor I've been the student of philosophy for a while now and I really enjoyed your lecture sir from from what you have said I think the rise of populism is the first precipitation of the moral foundations of our societies I mean this by the idea that the best candidates should get the best position so that the earth skills can be utilized by her I think the populace are especially unhappy with the process of deciding who is the best candidate and the the populism populism is a symptom of the present political system if that is the case this is my question if that is the case is there a system better than a current political system that can both bit Maura and at the same time just if there is how can we achieve this right this is very very I have a very short answer I have a longer one but there's no time for that so you have to be content with my short answer no I cannot see any fair and just society around us and but that would be that would be flippant that would be superficial to say that's true but superficial because of course there have been better societies than this and especially there have been better political organizations and better political forces and better political then than they are today so you know although I have many reservations visa vie the welfare states of the 60s in the 70s and also I have great doubts about a few revolutionary governments that came into being in the 20th century and I know that even if the good side would have one in Spain during the civil war it would not have been conducive to total happiness yeah I'm barely aware of this nevertheless these graduations these degrees are very important to be present in our minds there are freer and less free societies and the present you are perfectly right in what you said about about the reasons of of this rise of the extreme right there are reasons for that there are the real dissatisfaction and one of the real dissatisfaction is a very vague feeling of many people but not only their concrete problems of various kinds but the societies are also basically profoundly unjust and this is why people weren't really support everything that smacks of hypocrisy when your conservative liberal Prime Minister Chancellor whatever tells you that okay we are doing what we can and things are on the hole quite decent and people will turn their backs this kind of talk which offends their moral sense that doesn't take into account the situation in which there is no real progress to his greater decency greatest freedom greatest authenticity higher level of moral talk a more higher culture and so forth so therefore they will turn to all sorts of quack medicine all sorts of false solutions but at least appear sincere that is so important that was also a factor in the rise of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s it seemed to people that brutal talk was at the same time sincere well we have if we have learned anything from fascists is that brutality and seeming sincerity and dispensing with good manners is not a true sign of truth okay but that's a very small result sir but but this is exactly how mr. Trump wins why does he seem authentic because he talks like the next idiot on the corner he appears to be a man of the people not mannered like you television anchorman not pretentious like you philosophy professor etc etc you know and he seems authentic but he isn't he's acting this is a part he's acting of course he's a television production you know and so of course has lots of genuine and well recently satisfaction and when people are instead of solving their problems are trying to escape them when flying towards fraudulent idiotic malevolent and mean kinds of movements but at least seem to mean what they say well oh really but but still there are differences and this period we are living this age is one of the worst I was to tell you the truth I was a very isolated dissident in an HTTP ayah T in the 1980s we were a group group of say 200 people in a country of 10 million but you know I fell then of course and I was not completely right but I fell then but at least I've joined the right cause even if we lose even if we will be in prison thank God I wasn't at least we tried to be ok to be just to be fair I was more at peace with myself than I am now although it wasn't such a happy condition to be in but I don't want to complain I escaped I'm here sir and sir sir but this is worse this is worse because this time I am NOT faced with a dictatorship of the few but I'm faced with masses of my fellow human beings who are poisoned and who are thinking awful things not seemingly forced by anybody to think like that so you know I'm not now the danger to me when I'm in a bus in Budapest it's not a policeman but other passengers thank you then you know up to your choice thank you so much for the lecture I was actually very excited for this lecture my name is Petrine from Indonesia I was very excited for this lecture because just two nights ago we witnessed a riot happen in Jakarta because jokowi won the election coming to this I found that your present what you what you shared joyce was very interesting because it seems that you're suggesting that the democracy that we have right now is just a huge hypocritical lie some what please correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I got okay so this is very thought-provoking for me and and it is very interesting actually but also very to me it's sort of a very radical thought because I'm studying international relations right now and all I've known is that democracy is what we need and what what basically what we're having right now in Indonesia but seeing what happened just two nights ago I was thinking that just like you say populism is not something new actually it has happened over and over and over again it's sort of a cycle so I was wondering is there any actual middle path between the right and the left because Indonesian scholars and academics in my campus are trying to propose the idea of moderate politics moderate Islamic politics I'm studying in an Islamic University so do for me I think this moderate politics is even more hypocritical but I'd like to know what you think of this thank you well let's be fair in itself mean moderate is not a crime the question is what is the middle road between which extremes you know in Indonesia which had this tragic tragic recently stood up in modern history especially since 65 as we know it has been indeed a country in which people were preventing each other and preventing themselves from expressing what they really felt and thought so you know terror went together with people's inclination or propensity to bury the dead and forget all those awful things that happened which of course had illegitimate the left in in Asia to an extent that maybe nowhere has been so so so the legitimacy you're declaring Indonesia that you're a communist for example you know it's unthinkable I know that's a that's a well-known fact I've read my Benedict Anderson and all that stuff here as well and the thing is that how do you get from A to B in a situation in which your language even political language is severely limited severely curtailed and this is partly imposed partly voluntary so it seems to be enormously difficult and now again the forces of order Indonesia have a field day because they can show but too much democracy is bad for you because it leads to riots to violence to conflict etc etc so you know what you can do especially as somebody who is an academic yourself is the Socratic method you must push the limits and ask questions and ask questions in this respect for example that how is it possible in a country with such fantastic resources human and natural and political historical and cultural etc etc quite a place ok how is it possible that it was unable to build up an acceptable political Commonwealth what the hell is going on why not why not even at the level of comparable Asian countries that are imperfect but still have a lively political life I mean I would be the last person to praise India especially after this catastrophic electoral result but but still still it is lively and people don't seem to be afraid of themselves and so you know they're in your Islamic University in your moderate Islamic versity asked the moderates that what are the terms if they forget the fear of the communists of the Islamic extremists of the foreigners of the Dutch of a Maidana room then what would they prefer and how do you liberate them from this fear that it seems to be very intensive in your culture and if you manage to get some answers and if you can lead people to some reasonable answers then you have done your job that's all I can propose Lee and maybe I come into this how to overcome this fear because this seems to me like a core point of this populism thinking well you know again I'm trying to be fair some of these fears the populist are invoking have real causes for example I am with many of you in this room quite active in various actions to help our brothers and sisters who are refugees but this is not to say but the influx massive influx of numerous foreign populations is without its dangers hopefully obviously there are such dangers it we total lie to say that they are not so so fear can be legitimate we are all afraid of the unknown of the new of the unusual etc set up perfectly well we have always been children in the dark and we know what what it means to be afraid it is human question is what do you do with it what you do with it so you know and I know for example you that you you you would also somebody active for the refugees who would never say that this doesn't create real problems so does any major social change I'm advocating it may end badly the question is do you want forever to be at peace with the status quo of the present situation as it is because you are afraid that it might end even worse or that you are taking a risk in the name of ideals you believe in you know and that is a question not of truth but the question of judgment there is a thing I don't like very much Hana herand who I don't don't like very much I mean I admire her as a great writer but I but I very rarely agree with her but she was right in many important but many important points and when she wrote about politics of being a matter of judgment that is with intuitive weighing of various possibilities and risks and so on and this is why she considered one of the greatest sources of good political thinking comes critique of judgment because it all ties craft and I learned that from her and she was right that's a great book of judging political problems of the great guide to judging political problems and there has no recipes it's not a question of launched revolution found a party start a reform gather signatures or turn your back spend a few years passively because there's no hope at all reasonable action all these decisions are dependent on an intuitive experiential intelligence that cannot be learned early by doing you know like how do you how do you learn to play the violin yeah it's not not by reading a book but not I played the violence and uh you know you have to do it you have to do it and and there are lots of tricks of playing the violin well which I never could learn are indeed practical tricks you have to learn by observation of those people who are doing it so not every although I'm a theorist myself not everything can be answered by theory so when to disregard your legitimate fear and when you listen to it that is a question of conscience of moral judgment of intelligence and of luck and a flock simply oh good old luck and this is what I use here no I am things are looked first for the for the talk I'm sorry for being maybe a bit simply second really out of the topic but when I think about populism and even more in my country which is in Latin America and lot of countries in Latin America there's two things that come to my mind capitalism's and fix news in nowadays so how would you relate that because at least the situation what I see may be impressing in my country but maybe not that extreme or not that international and in Venezuela of course is part of these two things so I don't know if you can you have a mind I I hope I understand what you're getting at well about fake news again when in the Middle Ages it was said that the Jews are poisoning the wells the water wells and they are putting the blood of Christian children into their cakes that wasn't very different actually and normals not even cruder them very much than what you what you hear today and you know when when you hear for example boertie Naru about the indigenous people or about gays total absolute lies total impossibilities every night that are then disseminated by the media organisations that is not new there is a difference though when such rumors have been launched in the Middle Ages nobody was pretending but that was a pluralistic and free society so these fake news of today are more dangerous because they appear to be emanating not for a powerful biased political group but from a general Milley of self generating content and which is partly true partly untrue and partly is differently true namely that people are by producing fake news and all these poisonous propaganda are reproducing their own political pathologies of which they are not any longer responsible they have been induced by a long line of development of late capitalist development to be like that to be looking for explanations for their own happiness eleven pathologies and their own sadistic impulses in the usual create creation of enemy images and so forth it is not their fault always some of it is artificially created but it wouldn't be ever successful if it wasn't disseminate it continued and amplified by willing innocent mislead people and that shows again in what a predicament we are in a society of great technical sophistication of huge economic resources of enormous intellectual possibilities and potentialities and Sciences and arts and all that and societies that still suffer that cannot do anything with this fantastic given richness and if there's not a crisis then I cannot recognize the crisis if I see it so because we are not for the moment we are not victims of a world war of a climactic catastrophe yet and still we live as though we were so the the the next catastrophe the next disaster that would be probably ecological is presented to us in advance by our bad faith and our alienation and our inability and unwillingness to recognize and to defend truth and so I cannot console you the situation is really terrible and indeed the traditional defenses don't hold because you see and that was already the case the twenties and thirties I've read a great deal of literature around the creation and the victory of the Italian and German fascism and what is very interesting that what did optimistic people say then listen they said it is not possible there's such a crude and pagan movement will not be resisted by the church's Catholicism won't allow Mussolini and Hitler to win so let's everybody back get the Catholic Church of a conservative was still a great popular force and it will be against this then people said that the traditional bourgeoisie wouldn't stand for something as crude and vulgar as National Socialism other who said well what you what I'm talking about social democracy and the Communist Party still have the greatest force in our society the working-class they won't let these people to win because they know perfectly well that they will be put to prison if these other people Winsor they will defend at least ourselves themselves none of this has come into being not for a moment not for a second so I won't repeat therefore this style of of consolation that this won't go on because people sooner or later will discover that is intolerable and it's immoral and it's wrong and it's evil no no we have to realize the seriousness of the threat and we'll have to organize against it political action can be defeated only by political action it is it is not enough to write bitter articles okay I do write bitter articles because I can't do anything else because I know that this is not a moment at least where I live to organize anybody for anything because people are resisting that because that disappointed well disenchanted people lost their illusions how to tell them to start again after all those terrible disappointments they went through it is psychologically immensely trying and difficult all East European countries including East Germans we are after one of the greatest disappointments in history – disappointment after 89 that was after for many people a hope of a democratic and decent and moderate a society nothing came of it we're all being defeated and I was one of the leaders of the 89 movements can I tell you that I was right and that we won and everything is okay no we have not won and we haven't been rights to begin with and this whole thing is a miserable defeat so of course you are after all these disillusionment and disenchantment and it's very difficult to convince ourselves and others but political action should be taken although it should be taken okay then who's the next man okay then then we choose the last five okay can we start there hi thank you I wanted to raise another issue that we didn't talk about today as you mentioned and at least in my opinion populist tend to rise in time of uncertainty once the people feel fear and especially execs exist and show fear it was in the 20s and also now and maybe one of the three years at least in my point of view is the impact of globalization on the part of the society who lost their jobs or their opportunities that they had and they see globalization as one of the reason for it and they don't feel the positive side of globalization but- soil and this feed populist with people's who could be their group there is another change that is coming within next 20-30 years maybe and that is the field of artificial intelligence and automation a lot of people would lose their jobs because of this and there would be bigger concerts and concerns with companies with a lot of wells and many people with less wells you mentioned incoming quality that happens right now in Europe and many other places so my question is this is an uncertainty uncertainty a problem that we see is coming and they still have maybe 10 20 years for it how can we prevent that next wave of populism that might happen so I have to keep my reply short because The Times limited one of the most important and most interesting things at the moment is actually the neoliberal type of globalization is defeated we live already in an age of protectionism of increased state power of statism and of chauvinism there is this line in the development of capitalism that there are periods of free markets international trade globalization if you wish and then retrenchment withdrawal behind the national boundaries and Trump again is a very good example of that look at his commercial war against China which is against all the precepts of globalization so globalization is already defeated it's already defeated well not maybe in the you know the radical way of olden times were people all of a sudden millions of people were forced to use passports I don't know whether you knew but before 1914 there are no passports it didn't exist every travel where they wanted early the Russians had passports now they they had to ask for permission to leave Russia but that was one country in the whole world and there were some restrictions in Japan but these were exceptions usually let me just travel where they wanted you know my grandfather was a tailor in a small town in Transylvania and traveled Germany and to Holland to learn the trade and I asked him you know because of you know being being born in 1948 so and you got all your visas and passports even though these are the new passports nobody asked him to do they asked him to sit down and you know cut a shirt and so you know okay that wouldn't be that wouldn't be the case that things will be changed like they changed after the first world war when indeed the first real nation-states in our sense were really born and but most certainly that globalization era is finished and I can't even begin to address your interesting question about artificial intelligence and robotics and so on one thing is certain that actually machine ization that is saving production costs is a permanent feature of capitalism since it exists nothing new about it capitalism always wanted to reduce the number of the working people because that means reducing production costs it is not because capitalists are evil because that's the logic of capitalist valuation this is how you create value but we're seeing costs and increasing sales that of course is a self-defeating thing because if you decrease the working force then of course they will be nobody to buy your wares this is why capitalism is always full of crises but these precision elementary Marxist lessons number one and number two you all know that of course it's just the same think radicalized Ridiculist and you know when the first spinning Jenny's were introduced in the English textile industries in the 1820s the same procedure that we have with artificial intelligence is replacing human brain and human brawn with machines of one kind or another in our case terribly intelligent machines and that you know is ending capitalism in a very significant way because those acting beings being exploited won't be human when we human that's the last point so that shows that capitalism and the world that goes with it cannot survive we know that we've always known that capitalism is a dynamic system that runs towards its fulfillment its realization is fantastic triumph and its end it's a historical creator its historical in character it has begun and it will end and unlike old agrarian societies but seem to serve some eternal needs okay this will end and the question is will this end as the socialist sages have predicted in olden times with a more humane and fairer and justice society or we'll just end in a disaster and we are at the moment running towards a disaster that's clear yes no doubt about that but automation and a I will destroy the capitalist economy of course that's obvious of course it will yes certainly because of course the economy consists also of the workers and the consumers and if the consumers and the workers are losing the usefulness what kind of capitalist economy is that no kind of economy let alone a capitalist economy of course and so therefore you know what has always been the solution in such overproduction crises as they were called once upon a time war war ladies and gentlemen that's what has always been offered and we might see it again but without a hope that can't and Marx had that it can be overcome by an international society of free individuals who believes in that nobody who wants that everybody so that's the hats what what is very strange in our situation see I will turn it to two more questions because they have to prepare for the movie night afterwards and I would give it to one there yep yep yes okay thank you my name is Daniel Gannon I'm sorry I'm from Cameroon I have a question because I first of all I wanted to really appreciate your your insights about the populism and politics however I want to find out from you your personal opinion what are the factors that you put in place to be able to characterize a politician has been authentic or not authentic and could it be that the only way to evaluate a politician is about what the say and what the promises the keep because we live in a world today where by every politician says something and does something else so how do you characterize a politician who says I will do this like Duterte says I'll kill the drug dealers he killed them he said he will do this he did them and what about the politician who doesn't say he would do these things and he does them so how do you characterize these things not easy because of course but I'll give you an example oh you you will have guessed by now whom I will now cut of course it's Gandhi and why do I consider him to be to have been an authentic politician he was not totally innocent he was no saint he was a good man obviously and he meant what he said and he did worship Him he meant what he said and and he did then what what what he was saying but of course how did how was he successful because Saints are not successful and he was he was a good politician and a no fatigue poverty politician because he could feel very deeply this is what I to talk about judgment he could feel very deeply the needs and the feelings of his Indian people especially he felt something that professional politicians have neglected namely that this was not only a people that had problems it was all also a people that was humiliated and hurt in its pride and he has shown this through his own humility but there is something in us that even the strongest power cannot hurt and by this he's shown the Indians but actually they were not humiliated but being defeated doesn't mean that you are inferior justice the most wonderful thing and also he changed morally his generation and also he created a free state well something I would say that is something and so such things can happen you know with the coincidence of extraordinary talent of great character a great soul and a great deal of luck so it can happen but I wouldn't trust my point is this this one sentence I wouldn't trust authentic politician I would trust societies that are continuously producing authentic politicians one last questions that I would like to give to a female person because we had like hello my name is veronica from moldova and I was wondering to ask you how can we fight with fake populism when populism is actually dividing the country in two and when they are fighting for something that we are when when they actually are politically and they are paid and they're fighting for the fake reasons because we have such a problem in my country and it's pretty serious and I'm now abroad but I really want to help and I don't know how and also is there something that can show us this fake thing before the elections because all the politicians are all has this election company and all of them looks very nice and all of them are trying to fight for their country but actually they have this hidin hidden reasons and sorry for my English yeah so how can we fight against this fake rising of populism right I'm sorry probably all populism is fake because that's its that's its its essence and this calling to present things in a light that is false and you are indeed in in Moldova in a really terrible fix because we are blessed with yes you say – the fake politicians whose motives are not shown openly and you know one is before rush of others for Romania and not even that is sincere I know I know and you know what can you do yes what can you do is found an extremely good television station but will present news objectively and there is not paid either by Moscow by Bucharest or anybody else how I don't know second you found a large mass party that shows the Moldovans that all these mania cow fixations with Romania and with Moscow and all that which is preventing them from creating a proper democratic society and again what I said to our friend from from Gabon that you must start with a non ethnic political organization that starts to get rid of all these old fixations with Russia and non Russia etc etc because you can't live like that it's poisons everything ok and yeah so you need ideas and force and money and luck and determination and allies that's all you need otherwise it's easy okay I would think it was like perfect last statement so nothing more to say and thank you so much and if anybody wants to ask me further questions that weren't voiced I will be around here so we can talk thank you thank you thank you once again for you being here for also you being here we have prepared a small present that SANCCOB brings on stage yes thank you everybody for being here as guest parse it you would be here also for further discussions we maybe can just take a room or something and yeah stay critical stay open and found your political inventions [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *