Is democracy the only way? - Rory Stewart at TEDxhousesofparliament

Is democracy the only way? British politician Rory Stewart addressed the nature of democracy by telling the story of his experience in state-building in post-war Iraq.

Rory argues that democracy matters not because of the other things it brings but because it reflects the idea of equality, liberty and dignity. He also urges the politicians to be honest.

Thank you all very much for coming

and I was gonna start with a small story.

So little Billy goes to school.

He sits down and the teacher says:

"What does your father do?"

And little Billy says:

"My father plays the piano
in an opium den."

So the teacher rings up
the parents and says:

"Very shocking story
from little Billy today.

Just heard that he claimed that

you play the piano in an opium den."

And the father says:
"I am very sorry.

Yes, it's true, I lied,

but how can I tell
an eight-year-old boy

that his father is a politician."

(Laughter)

Now as a politician myself,

standing in front of you indeed,

meeting any stranger
anywhere in the world,

when I eventually reveal
the nature of my profession,

they look at me as though

I am somewhere between a snake,

a monkey and an iguana.

And through all of this, I feel strongly,

that something is going wrong.

Four hundred years
of maturing democracy,

colleagues in Parliament
who seem to me, as individuals,

reasonably impressive,

an increasingly educated
energetic informed population,

and yet, a deep, deep sense
of disappointment.

My colleagues in Parliament
include my new intake,

family doctors,
business people, professors,

distinguished economists,
historians, writers,

army officers ranging
from colonels

down to regimental sergeants majors,

all of them however, including myself,

as we walk underneath

the strange stone gargoyles
just down the road;

feel that we become less
than the sum of our parts;

feel as though we have become
profoundly diminished.

and this isn't just
a problem in Britain.

It is a problem across
the developing world

and middle income countries too.

In Jamaica for example,

look at Jamaican members of Parliament,

you meet them,

and they are often people
who are great scholars,

who studied at Harvard or Princeton,

and yet, you go down
to downtown Kingston,

and you are looking at
one of the most depressing sites

that you can see in any middle income
country in the world:

a dismal, depressing landscape

of burnt and half abandoned buildings.

And this has been true for thirty years

and the handover in 1979, 1980,

between one Jamaican leader

who was the son of a Rhodes scholar

and a QC to another,

who'd done an economics doctorate
at Harvard,

over 800 people
were killed in the streets

in drug-related violence.

Ten years ago however,
the promise of democracy,

seemed to be extraordinary.

George W. Bush stood up

in his State of the Union address in 2003

and said that democracy was the force

that would beat
most of the odds in the world.

He said because democratic governments

respect their own people

and respect their neighbors,

freedom will bring peace.

Distinguished academics
at the same time argued that

democracies had this incredible range
of side benefits,

they would bring prosperity, security,

overcome sectarian violence,

insure that states would
never again harbor terrorists.

Since then, what's happened?

Well, what we've seen is the creation,

in places like Iraq and Afghanistan,

of democratic systems of government

which haven't had
any of those side benefits.

In Afghanistan for example,

we haven't had just
one election or two elections,

we've gone through three elections,

presidential and parliamentary

and what do we find?

Do we find a flourishing civil society,

a vigorous rule of law and good security?

No!

What we find in Afghanistan
is a judiciary,

that is weak and corrupt,

a very limited civil society

which is largely ineffective,

a media which is beginning
to get onto its feet

but a government
that's deeply unpopular,

perceived as being deeply corrupt,

and security that is shocking.

Security that's terrible.

In Pakistan, in lots
of sub-saharan Africa,

again you can see,

democracy and elections
are compatible with corrupt

governments with states
that are unstable and dangerous.

When I have conversations with people,

I remember having a conversation

for example, in Iraq,

with a community that asked me,

whether the riot we were seeing
in front of us

-- this was a huge mob

ransacking a provincial council building --

was a sign of the new democracy.

The same, I felt, was true

in almost every single one

of the middle and
developing countries I went to,

and to some extent,
the same is true

-- that's where we should be putting

the spotlight back
on British politicians --

is true of us.

What is the answer to this?

Is the answer to just give up
on the idea of democracy?

Well, obviously not!

It would be absurd
if we were to engage again

in a kind of operations
we were engaged in

in Iraq and Afghanistan,

if we would suddenly
find ourselves in a situation

in which we were imposing anything

other than a democratic system.

Anything else would run
contrary to our values,

it would run contrary to the wishes
of people on the ground,

it would run contrary to our interests.

I remember,

in Iraq for example,

that we went through
a period of feeling that

we should delay democracy.

We went through a period of feeling

that the lesson learnt from Bosnia was

that elections held too early

enshrine sectarian violence,
enshrined extremist parties.

So in Iraq in 2003,

decision was made,

let's not have elections for two years.

Let's invest in voter education,

let's invest in democratization.

The result was, that I found,

stuck outside my office,
a huge crowd of people,

-- that's actually a photograph
taken in Libya,

but I saw the same scene in Iraq --

of people standing outside

screaming for the elections.

And when I went out and said,

"What is wrong with
the interim provincial council?

What is wrong with
the people that we have chosen?

There is Sunnite cheikh,
there is a Shiah cheikh,

there's the seven leaders
of the seven major tribes,

there is a Christian,
there is a Serbian,

there are female representatives,

there is every political party
in this council,

what's wrong with
the people that we chose?"

The answer came,

"The problem isn't
the people that you chose,

the problem is that you chose them."

I have not met, in Afghanistan,

in even the most remote community

anybody who does not want
a say in who governs them.

Most remote community,

I've never met a villager
who does not want a vote.

So, we need to acknowledge

that despite the dubious statistics,

despite the fact that
84% of people in Britain

feel politics is broken,

despite the fact that
when I was in Iraq,

we did an opinion poll in 2003

and asked people what
political systems they prefered

and the answer came back that

7% wanted United States,
5% wanted France,

3% wanted Britain,

and nearly 40% wanted Dubai

which is after all
not a democratic state at all,

but relatively prosperous minor monarchy.

Democracy is a thing, a value,

for which we should be fighting.

But in order to do so,

we need to get away
from instrumental arguments,

we need to get away from
saying democracy matters

because of the other things it brings.

We need to get away from feeling

in the same way human rights matters

because the other things it brings

Or women's rights matters
for the other things it brings.

Why should we get away
from these arguments?

Because they are very dangerous.

If we set about saying for example,

torture is wrong

because it doesn't extract
good information,

or we say, you need women's rights

because it stimulates economic growth

by doubling the size of the workforce,

you leave yourself open to the position

where the government of North Korea

can turn around and say,

"Well actually we are having
a lot of success

extracting good information
without torture at the moment."

Or the government
in Saudi Arabia to say,

"Our economic growth is ok,

thank you very much,
considerably better than yours."

So maybe we don't need

to go ahead with this programme
on women's rights

The point about democracy

is not instrumental.

It is not about
the things that it brings,

the point about democracy
is not that it delivers

legitimate, effective,
prosperous rule of law,

it's not that it guarantees

peace for itself
or for its neighbors,

the point about democracy is intrinsic.

Democracy matters because

it reflects an idea of equality

and an idea of liberty.

It reflects an idea of dignity,

the dignity of individual.

The idea that each individual

should have an equal vote,
an equal say,

in the formation of their government.

But if we're really to make
democracy vigorous again,

for really to revivify it,

we need to get involved
in a new project

of the citizens and the politicians.

Democracy is not simply
a question of structures:

it is a state of mind,

it is an activity.

And part of that activity is honesty.

After I speak to you today,

I'm going on a radio programme
called Any questions.

And the thing you would
have noticed about politicians

on this kind of radio programmes

is they never ever say that

they don't know
the answer to a question,

doesn't matter what it is.

They ask about child, tax, credits,

the future of the penguins
in the South Antarctic,

or hold forth whether or not

the development in Chongqing contribute

to sustainable development
in carbon capture

and we will have an answer for you.

We need to stop that.

to stop pretending
to be omniscient beings.

Politicians also need to learn
occasionally to say that

certain things that voters want,

certain things that voters
have been promised,

may be things that we cannot deliver

or perhaps that we feel
we should not deliver.

And the second thing we should do

is understand the genius of our societies.

Our societies have never been so educated,

have never been so energized,

have never been so healthy,

have never known so much,

cared so much or wanted to do so much,

and it is a genius of the local

One of the reasons why

we're moving away from banqueting halls

such as the one in which we stand,

banqueting halls with
extraordinary images on the ceiling,

of kings enthroned,

the entire drama played out
here on this space,

where the King of England
had his head lopped off,

why we've moved from spaces like this,

thrones like that,

towards the town hall,

is we're moving more and more
towards the energies of our people.

And we need to tap that.

That can mean different things
in different countries.

In Britain ,it could mean
looking to the French

learning from the French,

getting directly elected mayors in place,

in a French commune system.

In Afghanistan, it could have meant,

instead of concentrating on the big
presidential and parliamentary elections,

we should have done
what was in the Afghan constitution

from the very beginning,

which is to get
direct local elections going

at a district level,
and elect people's provincial governors.

But for any of these things to work,

the honesty in language,
the local democracy,

it's not just the question
of what politicians do,

it's a question of what the citizens do.

For politicians to be honest,

the public needs
to allow them to be honest.

And the media, which mediates

between the politicians and the public,

needs to allow
those politicians to be honest.

If local democracy is to flourish,

it is about the active
and informed engagement

of every citizen.

In other words,
if democracy is to be rebuilt,

is to become again
vigorous and vibrant,

it is necessary not just for the public
to learn to trust their politicians

but for the politicians
to learn to trust the public.

Thank you very much indeed.

(Applause)