Shut off cell phones, that's a good reminder.
Please, at least on silent,
unless your cell phone is tuned to a
particularly good music station.
One minute, we have one minute, everybody.
Twenty seconds.  
Can I have everybody's at least feigned
attention?
Seven.
Hello, I'm Mike Oreskes from the Associated
Press and welcome to this AP Davos debate.
Are the democratic institutions of the 20th
century up to the challenge 
of the 21st century?  
It's a big question and we've assembled a
panel from all around the world, 
from democracies old and new, brand new in
fact.  
Let me introduce them to you.  
Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, the Minister of
External Relations from Brazil.  
Hina Rabbani Khar, the Foreign Minister of
Pakistan.  
Rached Ghannoushi, the Chairman of Ennahdha,
the winning party 
in the first free election in Tunisia's
history.  
Congressman David Dreier, Republican of
California 
and also the Chair of the House Democracy
Program.  
And finally, Ken Roth, Executive Director of
Human Rights Watch.
Thank you all for being here.  
We have a lot of ground to cover.  
Let me begin.  
From the streets of Cairo to Occupy Wall
Street, 
the defining image of the past year
was the protester demanding democracy.  
In some places, those demands were realized,
sometimes partially, sometimes quite
remarkably, as in Tunisia.  
But in other places, the answer was brutal
repression, 
or in the West, gridlock and frustration.  
Many of the Western countries seemed unable to
provide the shining example 
that they used to provide.  
So I want to start with you, Congressman
Dreier.  
You're the senior elected official on this
panel.  
Has democracy run out of steam?  
Is it ready for the 21st century?
Well, I'm not only the senior elected
official, 
I'm the only elected official who's actually
here.
Well, I guess Minister Khar has been a member.
Minister Khar has been elected, and I'll defer
to her at any time, of course.  
Let me say that if you look at the two
centuries, 
I think it's very interesting, Mike,
to note that the demands are the same.  
But if there is a lesson that emerged 
from the latter part of the 20th century
coming into the 21st century, it's something
that I like to point out, 
and that is, one election a democracy does not
make.  
The real work takes place between elections.  
The issue of institution building is a very
high priority.  
It's something that needs to be done.  
In 1982, when Ronald Reagan called for the
establishment 
of the National Endowment for Democracy, he
talked about the hard work 
of developing the infrastructure of democracy.
So these new and re-emerging democracies
around the world need to work hard.  
And there are many people who want to
participate 
and not involve themselves where they're not
wanted, but share their experience.  
And that's what the House Democracy
Partnership is all about.
Chairman Ghannoushi, how is the transition to
democracy going?
I have to be an optimist.  
We haven't another choice, only to let this
experience of democratizing our country 
and our Arab world succeed.  
Since the 19th century, the Muslim world has
had a dream.  
That dream is how we can co-exist, reconcile
democracy and Islam, or modernity with Islam.  
This dream has not succeeded because outside
pressure, colonization, 
has crushed this dream.  
I think the Arab Spring now gives the
opportunity for this dream to emerge.  
And for the first time in our history in
Tunisia, we had free and honest elections. 
Now we have a real assembly, we have an
elected government, 
we have an elected president.  
So we are now on the way to achieving the
second goal of our revolution.  
The first one is to implement a democratic
system.  
Now the second goal is to develop our country,
to implement real development in the country.
I think we are well on the way to achieving
our goals.
We will return to the subject of Islam and
democracy, 
but I first want to get everybody in on the
big picture.  
Minister Khar, your country certainly faces 
a number of very complicated 21st century
challenges.  
Is democracy up to the challenge of the 21st
century?
First of all, I think it is important to
highlight 
that there is no one single utopian model of
anything in the world, 
and that goes for democracy also.  
However, I think what is equally important to
highlight or to give importance to
is the topic itself, about the institutions
that go to support democracy.  
And for that, the answer to whatever is not
working 
is clearly more, rather than less, democracy. 
But let me emphasize the fact that democracy
has to be able to develop 
into a maturer form, as we speak, with time.
You need time to be able to evolve into a
stronger democratic set-up, 
to be able to deliver better.  
That is the aspiration of the people, 
is the eventual goal of any system, democratic
or otherwise.  
So in all of this, I think what we have to
keep in mind is first, 
that one-solution-fits-all sort of mindset
should obviously be avoided in the case of
many, many countries.  
But in the case of Pakistan, for instance,
because the democratic institutions, 
be it the political parties, be it the
Parliament, be it any of these institutions, 
never really got a time which was long enough
for them to develop 
and to mature into a proper system.  
Therefore, of course, we will continue to be a
young democracy.  
So today, we are a democracy which is only
four years old, 
despite the fact that we have had stints of
democracy in the past also, 
anywhere ranging between two years to two-and-
a-half years.  
But until the time that you can consistently
go and develop those institutions 
and have a model which is there to stay, 
then democracy will continue to be challenged
in the way of delivery.
Mr. Patriota?
Well, if democracy is about rule by the
majority, 
and in the developing world the majority is
poor, 
then democracy has to be about social 
inclusion.  
And this is precisely the experience we've
been having in Brazil and in South America 
where democracy certainly has not run out of
steam.  
I think we are very proud of the achievements
of the past years and decades 
and very eager to consolidate these gains.
These are processes that have allowed for
segments 
that have been excluded from the political
process 
to assume leadership and high positions 
from the indigenous in Bolivia, to a union
leader in Brazil, 
and now the first female president in Brazil,
to other similar processes.  
So the point I'd like to stress at the outset
is that in the developing world, inclusion is
a key word.
Ken Roth?
Well, I would agree with Congressman Dreier
that democracy is more than simply periodic
elections.  
He stressed the need to build institutions
between elections, and that's certainly true.
I'd like to stress something else, which is
that it's not enough 
just to allow someone to vote every four or
five years.  
You need to allow them to speak out and to
organize 
around matters of public concern in between.
That's why the press is so important, that's
why blogs are so important, NGOs.  
You also need to hold the government to the
law.  
The point of democracy is not just to rule the
People, it's also to rule the government.  
And we see all of these critical elements of
democracy under attack 
as governments recognize that they need to
allow elections for legitimacy, 
but they want to manage the process.  
So you see, for example, Putin in Russia
trying to limit candidates who will run.  
In Iran, they've just arrested ten bloggers
and journalists this month 
to try to prevent a free press in advance of
their parliamentary elections in March.  
Egypt right now is cracking down on NGOs
because they've been one of the critical
sources of pressure on the military.  
And time and time again, you see governments
who say, 
well, we're certainly happy to apply the law
to other people, 
but please don't hold us accountable for our
human rights abuses.  
Don't prosecute us for torture or for shooting
at demonstrators.  
If we're going to talk about full democracy,
we need to include all of these elements, not
just periodic elections.
Well, thank you all very much for setting the
stage.  
So let me try to run down some of the key
challenges 
and get the different perspectives from the
different parts of the world.  
As you enter Davos, immediately right at the
threshold of the town, 
there's an encampment of the Occupy movement,
Occupy Davos.  
And one of the protesters has a sign, and I
want to read it exactly.  
If voting could change anything, it would be
illegal.  
Well, that's pretty cynical, I have to say,
and I'm a journalist so I know from cynicism.
But it's clearly not an isolated view among
citizens of democracies around the world.  
The Edelman Trust Barometer, which was
released here at Davos, 
reports that trust in governments, governments
all around the world, 
has basically collapsed among democratic
governments.  
And we solicited for this panel questions on
Facebook 
and a number of them were just dripping with
doubt about the effectiveness of government.
I'll just read you one.  
How is it that with all the highly respected,
well-paid technocrats managing the world
economy, everything is still going wrong?
Well, that's pretty dispiriting when a lot of
people have those kind of ideas.  
And I guess the question I want to ask,
starting with you, Minister Patriota, 
is can democracy survive such a profound loss
of faith?
Well, cynicism is certainly a very dangerous
and risky attitude to have 
when you're looking for political progress.
But I'd like to disagree slightly with the two
comments 
which seemed to minimize the importance of
elections.  
It's true that elections alone do not build a
democratic system.  
But the first step, and a very essential step,
is the electoral process.  
And especially for those who have not had the
right to elect their officials, 
this is a most valued attribute.  
I'm sure that if you ask a post-Apartheid
South African what is the role of elections,
they will say it's a very fundamental role 
in bringing justice and democracy to any given
country.  
So if you look at Haiti, if you look at other
places, 
let's not underestimate the importance of
elections.  
Of course, otherwise institutions are
fundamental 
and cynicism comes out of, well, government's
not delivering what the people are asking for.  
This is why I stress, once again, 
that in the case of societies marked by great
concentration of wealth, inequality, poverty,
social progress is fundamental for the
population, the electorate, 
not to lose hope in changing and modifying and
advancing their societies.
Minister Khar?
I think if you missed the whole question or 
he whole change 
which has happened all over the world,
especially in the developing world or the less
developed world, 
because of the access that they have 
through the media today and through various 
types of technology, 
to what is happening all around the world 
and how that has raised the expectation 
out of any government, democratic or otherwise
by those people, 
we will be somewhat not looking at the entire
picture.  
I think that is an extremely important part of
why the expectation levels are changing 
and why democracies all over the world are
seeming to be performing or delivering less.  
It also has to do with the economic structures
all over the world.  
So I think this question to me is somewhat
less of democracy 
and more of what has happened in the economic
management realm of how things have developed.
Therefore, to me, frankly speaking, the answer
is a country which has suffered, 
if there's one single ill, flaw, reason I can
find 
for Pakistan not living up to its full
potential, 
and we are beginning to live up to our full
potential, 
it is because of the fact that we haven't had
a consistent democratic process in Pakistan.
If that were to be the case, I think many ills
that you see in Pakistan today, 
many ills that we continue to fight, 
for instance the leader of the party that I
represent, Benazir Bhutto lost her life for,
would not be there today.  
So it is really the consistency of a
democratic process.  
It is about that process and the institutions
which go to support it being given the time,
the energy, the resources to be able to
develop and start delivering.  
So the answer really is yes, a different structure, 
more democracy, more democratic ways.  
And I completely agree with my colleague over
here, 
the electoral process is an extremely
important one 
and I think anyone doubting the importance of
it or the legitimacy of it 
or the need to improve wherever need be the
electoral process and everything else, 
but I think the answer to lack of satisfaction
with democracy 
is maybe looking for more democratic ways of
building those institutions.
We're definitely going to want to talk more
about this link 
between expectations and trust and effective
democracy.  
But immediately, the question of economics
comes up.  
How is your ability to deliver economically to
the people of Tunisia coming so far?
It's true that guaranteeing the process of
free elections 
is not enough to achieve democracy.  
Democracy needs civil society, very rich civil
society.  
It needs also to respond to the main necessity
of the people 
because democracy without social justice can
be transformed into a mafia.  
The government can be transformed into a sort
of mafia 
so we have guaranteed needs of people, social
justice, 
and people can achieve these needs when we
open up the system, 
when we have a free economy, when we fight
against corruption 
because the governments, not in the Arab world
but in many, many countries, 
is transformed into a mafia.  
So we have to fight against corruption, 
we have to open up the system to attract 
investment from inside and from outside, 
and to guarantee social justice.
Congressman Dreier?
Well, Mike, I think that there is a
correlation between what Minister Patriota,
Minister Khar, and Chairman Ghannoushi are
talking about 
and I really put this into expectations.  
It goes back to the sign that you pointed to
that's here in the outskirts at the Occupy 
Davos camp.  
You'll probably be very offended, Mike, 
if I mention this, 
but your great book, The Genius of America,
sorry I mentioned it, 
it's interesting that you're juxtaposing the
20th to the 21st century.  
But I like to go back and look at the 18th
century.  
If you look at the 18th century and the 20th
century and the 21st century, 
it's important to note, as you have in your
book, 
that between 1776 and the spring of 1789,
there was 13 years between independence and
the establishment of a government.  
The summer of 1787 is when we had our
Constitutional Convention.  
It took two years from the Constitutional
Convention to have that happen.  
Now, rush forward to the 21st century and
today, what is it that we have?  
Anyone can take a video camera 
and film police brutality taking place on the 
streets and that can go viral.  
Millions of people can be exposed to that.  
And that's a tremendous difference and a
challenge that we all have to deal with.  
And it seems to me that as we look at these
expectations, 
we can't say to people, be patient, because
that obviously is not an answer.  
We need to figure out how to address this.  
Just yesterday in Tahrir Square, marking the
first anniversary of the Egyptians 
who, as we know, followed the Tunisian lead,
we saw protests not celebrating what happened
a year ago 
but complaining about the lack of action
within this one-year period of time.  
So that's why I think it's incumbent upon
those of us 
who have enjoyed participatory democracy,
representative democracy, 
to continue to band together.  
And that's one of the reasons that seven years
ago, 
we established this House Democracy
Partnership.  
And we're working to develop, I mentioned at
the outset, institutions.  
The idea of saying that legislative bodies
which are actually closest to the people, 
you know that, Mr. Chairman, 
the legislative bodies are closest to the
people.  
They need to have oversight of the executive
branch.  
They need to be able to put into place
policies that encourage economic growth,
because we know this frustration stems from a
lack of economic growth.  
So my message, Mike, is that it's important
for those of us 
who were lovers of self-determination, the
rule of law, human rights, 
recognizing that again it's not just about
elections.  
A democracy does include human rights and
minority rights, 
as you point out in your book.  
Those are the kinds of things that we need to
work together on.  
So what I'd like to do right now is 
just this week we've introduced, as I told
you, Mr. Chairman, 
a resolution in the United States House of
Representatives.  
It's bi-partisan, a Democrat lead, I'm a
Republican, 
and I'd just like to present you, Mr.
Ghannoushi, 
a copy of the resolution that praises the
Tunisian people 
for the lead that they have taken in sending
this ripple effect throughout the Arab world,
and we know that it's going to impact other
parts of the world as well.  
So I'd like to present this to you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, thank you.  And thanks for the mention 
of the book.
When I visited the United States last month, 
I was surprised 
that I found many enthusiasts vis-ֳ -vis the 
Tunisian revolution in the United States.  
I'm very pleased by that.  Thank you.
Well, you know you have that, Mr. Chairman.
Let me turn back to Minister Patriota and 
Minister Khar.  
Say a few words about the ripple effect of the
Arab Spring of Tunisia and Egypt 
on your countries and on your regions.
Well, in my region I think we've been
struggling with the same objectives 
that the Arab world is now seeking, freedom of
expression, better opportunity, 
more equal opportunity across society,
improved governance, 
growth with distribution of wealth.  
But I also think that we found certain
formulas that work.  
So perhaps we're at a slightly different stage
in the process 
and to the extent that our experience can be
of interest, 
we are reaching out to the Arab world to
exchange views, 
to share perceptions and see in what ways the
experiments that we've been carrying out 
can be of use to them.  
But I'd also like to make another point
because there was a mention of utopia here. 
Maybe if you compare the 21st century with the
20th century, 
some of the 20th century utopias have run out
of steam and when we look at the future, 
and this is a topic that will be center stage
for you in Davos, 
I think we need to try to reconcile economic,
social, and environmental objectives, 
which is what the Rio+20 Conference that we
will be hosting this year is all about.  
If we also gain awareness about our common
humanity, 
the fact that we are threatened by
environmental circumstances, 
this can also have a transformational effect
on societies 
and improve the communication between
different models, 
and ultimately, I think, lead to better
government.
Minister Khar?
You know, it's interesting.  
I think the ripple effect, or the effect, in
Pakistan would have been very, very different.  
I'm almost encouraged, thinking of using the
word transformationally different, 
had it been maybe five years back or six years
back 
when you had a non-representative government
in place in Pakistan.  
Then the effect would have been pretty much,
maybe we would have seen the Arab Spring find
its way somewhere in South Asia 
and you could have said that it has sort of
crossed some oceans to reach it.  
But in Pakistan at the time that this was
happening, 
we had, after years, a truly representative
government 
and we had a government which was certainly
struggling 
with all of the challenges that Pakistan has,
and continues to struggle with.  
But I tell you, it is interesting, and I think 
this can be corroborated, 
in many of the countries which have seen some
of the freedom of expression late in the day,
the freedom that the media enjoys in Pakistan,
for instance, is maybe unparalleled.  
I would almost say that it is more than what
is enjoyed 
in some of the developed democracies of the
world 
where the media is still very aware of the
national narrative, 
what should or not should be said to promote
or support it.  
Whereas in Pakistan's case, they have the
ability, the space, 
the freedom to be able to go beyond the
national narrative, so to speak.  
In the same way, judiciary, already in the 
last years of the Musharraf government, 
there was a judicial movement in Pakistan 
and the independence of the judiciary as it
was enshrined in the constitution of Pakistan
came to fruition because of work and labor and
protests 
that almost all political parties collectively
in Pakistan had done, 
which included the masses, the people, the
lawyers, almost everybody, rural or urban.
Now, because some of these things were already
under way, 
the thing that Pakistan requires now is a
different set of issues.  
It's not that of representation, it is not
that of freedom of expression, 
it is not that of every institution
constitutionally 
not finding its place and playing its role. 
So quite frankly speaking, the effect of the
Arab Spring, therefore, was different.  
However, what is Pakistan's biggest issue, 
or South Asia's at large, 
is that of ensuring that we are able to feed
our poor 
and able to give them some sort of a social
system 
in which they are able to have access and to 
have opportunity.  
And for that, we have some programs, for
instance the Benazir Income Support Program 
which is, for the first time in Pakistan's
history, 
where if you are known to be in the poorest 
strata of the society, 
you will be given enough to feed your 
children.  
So I think because of those things, 
because of the fact that you had a new 
democracy taking root in Pakistan, 
the effect wasn't what it would have otherwise 
been.  
I'm sure of that.
-Interesting.
I want to go on to Ken Roth but before I do, 
I just want to ask one follow-up question.  
You stressed the independence of the 
judiciary, 
obviously a central part of any democracy.  
Has the independent judiciary gone too far now 
in Pakistan?
I think in Pakistan an interesting thing is 
happening.  
I really would like maybe to take a minute on 
that, okay?  
I think it's a good thing for Pakistan.  
What is happening in Pakistan may look chaotic 
to the outside eye.  
But it is a new kid on the block called 
Parliament, 
which hasn't been there for a long time in 
Pakistan's history, 
which has almost not been there consistently 
for more than two years at any given point in 
time.  
So every institution has to find its place.  
So there's a bit of an elbowing act maybe 
happening in Pakistan 
where every institution is trying to find what 
is rightfully, constitutionally its place.  
It's not a bad thing for Pakistan because out
of this will emerge everybody 
falling quietly, hopefully, into the space 
that is constitutionally provided to them.  
And as you see, this is the longest era of 
democracy in Pakistan.
So that is, in itself, first something which 
gives you hope for the future.
Mike, let me just say that Pakistan is one of 
the partner countries 
for the House Democracy Partnership and I and 
a delegation from the Congress will be there.  
And I know there is a female speaker of your 
Parliament 
and we've worked very closely with her and we 
look forward to continuing this.  
And that's why I believe that all of these 
countries, Human Rights Watch, 
other entities who believe in this promotion 
of democracy, 
we all need to work together on this.  
Pakistan, and you're absolutely right, Madam 
Minister, 
there is not a one-size-fits-all plan for 
anyone.  
And Indonesia is a perfect example of what the 
Chairman talked about, 
the convergence of modernity, Islam, and 
democracy, 
where in a 12, 13-year period of time, they've 
had a phenomenal success there.  
I know there are differences between Southeast 
Asia and the Arab world, 
but there are similarities that I think can be 
shared.
If I could step in here?  
First of all, with respect to Pakistan, 
I take a much less sanguine view than 
Congressman Dreier.  
You've got a supreme court that in essence is 
pressuring the civilian government 
to relinquish its right to fire the chiefs of 
the military and the intelligence service.  
That completely reverses the presumptions of 
democracy, 
which is that civilian government should rule.  
So we have real problems there.  
But Mike, I'd like to come back to your 
original question 
which is really, what does the world owe to 
the Arab Spring?  
Imagine yourself a pro-democracy protester 
sitting in Homs or Hama, 
facing President Assad's military who's 
shooting at you.  
What do you need?  
You need somebody to put pressure on Assad to 
stop shooting.  
And this is where a number of the world's 
leading democracies, 
including some represented here, have really 
let the Arab Spring down.  
For example, when Brazil was sitting on the 
Security Council, 
a resolution came up to try to put pressure on 
Assad.  
Brazil abstained.  
It wouldn't even vote for it and that allowed 
Russia and China then to veto the resolution, 
something that would have been much more
difficult 
if Brazil had said, we stand for this 
resolution.  
This is not about military intervention.
It's about putting pressure on Assad not to 
shoot the demonstrators.  
Pakistan has been even worse.  
At the UN Human Rights Council, Pakistan never 
votes for resolutions 
trying to criticize this kind of oppression,
unless of course, it's Israel.  
But they've actually voted against resolutions 
on Sudan, Iran and Syria.  
Even on North Korea they abstained, the most 
repressive government in the world, 
they couldn't get themselves to criticize it.  
So there's something wrong here when 
governments that are democracies at home 
fail to stand up for the brave pro-democracy 
activists in these repressive countries 
around the world.  
Mr. Patriota?
I think there's something profoundly wrong 
when those who should be actually giving an 
example 
in terms of democracy, good governance, etc., 
seem to establish almost an automatic link 
between military intervention and promoting 
democracy.
It's not about military intervention.
So it's very problematic for places 
that are struggling to gain improved political 
participation 
by excluded groups in their processes when 
there is this constant threat of sanctions, 
military intervention, 
where attempts have been made to impose 
democracy from the outside with, I think, 
very negative, if not catastrophic, results in 
places like Iraq.  
So abstention here is not abstaining from 
condemning violence against unarmed civilians, 
abstaining from siding with those who seek 
greater participation in political process.  
On the contrary, abstention here is ensuring 
policy space for diplomacy, for negotiation, 
for dialog, and for progress that doesn't 
breed violence.  
Because very often these extreme positions, 
and I think both the Western and the permanent 
members who vetoed the resolution 
were failing to reach a consensus and this did 
not help the manifestants on the streets.  
So this is where three large, multi-ethnic, 
emerging democracies 
from the developing world, India, Brazil, 
South Africa, 
decided to side together to speak to the
Syrians, to abstain, 
because in any event, this vote would have 
been useless.  
The resolution would not have gone ahead.  
I think it's very important to make the record 
clear here.
Let me just let Minister Khar respond as well.
I think I would tend to agree with the 
Minister over here.  
Really, I think a lesson that should be 
learned is that one should allow 
every country to be able to reach its own 
mature stage in many areas.  
For instance, one can use the example of child 
labor.  
Now, child labor, while it was allowed in 
Europe for many, many centuries, 
has a completely different dynamic when it 
comes to maybe some countries in South Asia.  
So pressure and open humiliation of countries 
is sometimes not the best tactic 
that we feel to be able to let them come 
around.  
Now an excellent example in that case is that 
of Tunisia and Egypt.  
There was no pressure coming in from an 
outside force.  
There was no nudging being done as such.  
There was no military support that was given.  
It was people who demanded their right in a 
certain way, who got their right in that way.  
And once the people of that particular country 
have decided 
and have stood up for their rights and have 
demanded, 
then it is really the job of the whole world 
to really be a support system, 
to provide a support system to them.  
But to enforce what are considered to be ideal 
Values, 
which may be prevalent in one country or in
another, has always been counterproductive. 
Before I come back to Ken Roth, I want to ask 
Chairman Ghannoushi, 
do you feel that the democratic world has let 
down the Arab Spring?
I think that the Arab Spring is very important 
for all the world 
because the Arab world is very important as a 
base of main wealth, 
petrol, a strategic place.  
I think if democracy can succeed in this part 
of the world, 
I think it will be in favor of the whole 
world.  
I think some orientalists argue many times 
that Islam is an obstacle 
in the face of democracy.  
The Arab Spring proved that Islam is an 
element to democratize this part of the world 
and the mainstream of the Islamic movement 
like Ikhwan al-Muslimun in Egypt, 
Nahda in Tunisia, Justice and Liberty in 
Morocco, 
in Turkey the mainstream Islamic movement is a 
moderate one.  
They believe that democracy and Islam, 
modernity and Islam, are compatible.  
So the world has benefited from what happened 
in the Arab world through the Arab Spring.
Mike, could we specifically ask Chairman 
Ghannoushi about Syria as a part of this, 
which is what Ken is raising?  
Because I think that there obviously is a 
question here 
as to whether or not the Western world has, in 
fact, 
been supportive of the expansion of the Arab 
Spring, including into Syria.  
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 
wave of democracy spread in the world, 
except the Arab world.  
I think the obstacle was not Islam but outside 
pressure 
which doesn't help democracy in the Arab 
world.  
I think now this wave of democracy will spread 
through all Arab countries, among them Syria.  
I don't have any doubt that the Syrian 
revolution 
will succeed as all the other revolutions. 
 
It just occurred to me that what we're talking 
about is interesting 
and becomes even more interesting by the fact 
that some of the most mature democracies all 
over the world, 
some of the most established democracies all 
over the world, 
so not just one part of the world, all over 
the world, 
have been much more supportive of non-civilian 
dictatorships in Pakistan, 
an excellent case in point, 
than they have ever been of civilian 
democratic dispensations in Pakistan.  
And that can be seen in some ways in the Arab 
world also.  
So what I was referring to before is pretty 
much in the same light, 
that we cannot have a change of heart 
overnight 
when our interests can be met in a different 
way 
and cannot propagate our own interests 
and therefore propagate very, very 
undemocratic regimes 
in many, many parts of the world for very many 
long, long, long years.  
So why I wanted to use the case of Pakistan in 
specific 
was that both in the regime of General Zia and 
in the regime of General Musharraf, 
it was really the support that came from 
outside 
which made them elongate their years into ten, 
12 years 
rather than the support that should have come 
from within.
Fascinating.
There's no question that the Western 
governments 
have supported military dictatorships in many 
parts of the world 
and they've been widely criticized for that, 
and I think quite legitimately.  
But the question is, if a pro-democracy 
movement 
is facing severe repression, facing violence, 
should the world just sit by and wait for a 
natural evolution 
to see if the numbers killed get so high that 
finally the military is overthrown?  
Or should they try to help by trying to 
curtail the killing?  
Now in the case of Egypt, pressure was 
actually put on the military 
to oust Mubarak and to stop the killing.  
It played a very important role.  
The revolution was by far and away an Egyptian 
revolution 
but external intervention, not military 
intervention but just pressure, 
helped stop the killing.  
In Syria today, the question is, are we going 
to just sit there 
and wait for it to naturally evolve as 
Minister Khar seems to be suggesting, 
or are we going to try to put pressure on 
Assad through seizing assets, 
through travel bans, through referring the 
country to the International Criminal Court, 
not through military intervention which is a 
red herring that is just not on the table.  
But are those more limited forms of pressure 
going to be used?  
Or should we just sit back and fold our hands?  
I think folding our hands is the wrong thing 
to do.  
I think we have a duty to stand up and help 
the people 
who are risking their lives day in and day out 
to try to have the same democracy at home 
as they would have enjoyed if they happened to 
live in Pakistan or Tunisia or Brazil.
I think Ken makes a very important point here, 
Mike, 
and that is that if you look at what has 
transpired 
beginning a year ago last December in Tunisia, 
spreading to Egypt, 
obviously look at Libya that has taken place, 
and as this spreads, is it all of a sudden 
going to stop?  
That's the thing, I think, that is of concern.  
And again, it's the utilization of this 21st 
century technology 
that has allowed the world to witness this 
and that's why I think Ken correctly points to 
the fact 
that the idea of having some kind of 
solidarity here is important.  
And I understand the impact of the Syrian 
economy on countries like Lebanon and others.  
I understand that, but the fact is that when
it comes to the recognition of human rights, 
the thing that has been so successful, 
a year and a half ago, if one had contemplated 
the idea 
of Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak being where they 
are today, you would have said you were crazy.  
So look at what has happened.  
So that's why I think Ken's point is 
appropriate.  
When we've got this movement going, we should 
be doing everything we possibly can 
to encourage more self-determination and the 
development of these democratic institutions 
and the rule of law and the recognition of 
human rights.
Let me pick up on Congressman Dreier's 
reference to 21st century technology 
and come over to you, Minister Patriota.  
So social media has obviously been a major 
force over this past year, 
and yet it's also obviously a force that hits 
limits, hasn't moved the government in Syria.  
It also raises the question of, even when it 
does help drive a revolution, then what?  
Is social media actually a force that will 
help us govern?
Or is it just an electronic way to channel the 
mob?
I think there are very many different aspects 
to this question.  
Obviously, social media can have a very 
galvanizing effect in mobilizing people 
who would otherwise not be in touch with each 
other 
under very noble and worthy objectives such as 
improving governance, 
outlawing corruption, and so on.  
But there are types of media also that fuel 
polarization.  
And we know that in any political system, and 
of course I am entirely pro-democracy, 
you need to build consensus to some degree, or 
at least to ensure governability 
through discussions that will bring societies 
together.  
And to the extent that the social media breeds 
hatred, polarization, 
also takes advantage of unresolved 
international issues, 
and I must say that the beauty of the Arab 
Spring 
was that it was entirely self-promoted from 
the start.  
It wasn't against anyone.  
But I have my doubts that if the Israel-
Palestine issue 
remains too long without a solution, that this 
is not going to poison the atmosphere 
and instigate violence rather than consensus.
Well, the Arab Spring was clearly against 
those dictators 
of Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali and others.
But it was home-grown.  
That's the point I was trying to make
Right, right, right.  
Absolutely, as is the case in Syria.
Chairman Ghannoushi, if you had to rank, 
though, the importance of social media 
in the Arab Spring versus the importance of 
Al-Jazeera, what would you say?
The Arab Spring was made in part by the media 
but not the traditional media, 
by the new media, by Facebook and Twitter.  
I convey my salaam to the people of Facebook 
and Twitter 
because they shared, they participated very 
strongly in these revolutions.  
So it's true that some channels like Jazeera 
shared in this revolution, 
but I think the new media, Internet, Facebook, 
Twitter, are the leaders of this revolution.
First of all, I think once the revolution got 
going in many of these countries, 
Al-Jazeera was by far and away the most 
important external force 
because it was able to beam pictures of the 
repression into homes 
far beyond those who happened to be wired up 
to the Internet.  
So I think if you speak to people who were 
involved in the various revolutions, 
they say Al-Jazeera is Weapon Number One.  
Where social media was critical was in the 
early days 
because if you are facing a situation 
where if you go out and stand in the street 
and demonstrate, 
you'll get beaten up and arrested, you're not 
very likely to go out.  
And the role that social media played is, it 
allowed people 
to sort of stand up and be counted without 
literally standing up.  
It allowed them to just join a Facebook page 
and suddenly, 
when there were so many people, so many fans 
of that page, 
people began to gain confidence that even if 
only a percentage of those people 
actually show up in Tahrir Square, I may be 
safe because there'll be so many of them.  
In that initial organizing role, Facebook was 
essential.  
Twitter than played a key role in essentially 
broadcasting the repression 
to the rest of the world because people could 
quickly share links 
with photos or videos of the repression, which 
in itself had a galvanizing effect.  
Longer term, I think, by the way, this social 
media is a very important way 
for the public to make itself heard in between 
elections.  
We saw that in the United States just this 
last week.  
But it is such a quick way of allowing people 
who may not have access 
to the traditional media nonetheless to have 
themselves heard 
and to quickly organize large numbers of 
people, 
and governments simply have to pay attention 
to that mobilization.
We do get back, Mike, to the challenge, going 
back again to the 18th century 
and the 13 years between independence and our 
establishment of a government, 
and the fact that yesterday's anniversary of 
the uprising in Tahrir Square 
saw complaint rather than celebration.  
This is also about economics.  
Minister Patriota began his remarks by saying 
that if we deal with majority rule, 
what we need to do is recognize how great 
poverty is.  
Since February 11th of last year, Egypt has 
lost two million jobs.  
One of the things that is necessary is greater 
foreign direct investment 
and that's a message that I believe is 
important for the Davos community.  
I think it's important for people around the 
world to know 
that recognizing that holding elections, and 
again, the development of institutions, 
that's really what it comes down to, I 
believe.  
We have this instantaneous communication that 
Ken is talking about 
that everyone agrees exists.  
We need to turn that kind of tool into 
something 
that can come back to institution building 
so that we can put into place the tools that 
are necessary to develop economic growth, 
which is what all of our peoples are looking 
for.  
I obviously come from the wealthiest nation 
here 
and we have obviously a poverty rate that is 
not as great as it is in other countries.  
But my God, if you look at the United States 
economy, 
you know we have an unacceptably high 
unemployment rate, 
great concern among the people whom I 
represent from California 
and around the United States.  
But that still is much better than the 
situation in other parts of the world.  
So we need to have these institutions to 
encourage and develop economic growth.  
I believe this is what it comes back to.  
And the level of frustration is so high 
because they're not seeing the kind of 
instantaneous response that they would like.
I want to turn back to Minister Khar and 
Chairman Ghannoushi 
to probe a little further on a point that was 
touched on, 
which is the role of Islam in democracy.  
It will come as no surprise to either of you 
that in the West, there are a number of people
who are very edgy about the Brotherhood in Egypt, 
about your own Islamist party in Tunisia.  
But George Soros was here the other day 
and he basically compared your party to the
Christian Democrats here in Europe.  
Is that a reasonable analogy?
Yes, it's reasonable because cutting off 
politics from values, from the spirit, 
means we'll end by transforming the state and 
the economy into a mafia, as I said.  
So we have to let morals play a role in the 
economy, in the game of democracy 
instead of pushing things toward a world 
without any restrictions, without any values.  
So I think what Mr. Soros said is true.  
There is much in common between the Christian 
Democrats and the Islamic movement democrat.
Minister Khar, is the line clear to you 
between religion and politics?
Certainly, and I think first of all, 
I would like to take this opportunity to say 
that in my mind, 
Islam is clearly the most misunderstood 
and also the most misrepresented religion in 
the world 
because most of the issues that we ascribe to 
Islam, 
Islam has a completely different perspective 
on that.  
To give you an example which will ring home, 
it is the whole question of the rights of 
women in Islam.  
Islam was the one which gave women their 
rights.  
Islam was the one which recognized respect for 
women and enforced it almost on all believers.  
So there is the real Islam which is there in 
the holy Koran 
and there is the Islam that the West portrays.  
We ourselves must take the responsibility for 
that misrepresentation 
because we have let Islam be interpreted and 
we have let Islam be taken to other people 
by the most illiterate people in most of our 
societies.  
I cannot speak for everyone but certainly it 
is in most societies.  
So the question of whether Islam will come in 
the way of democratic dispensations, 
Islam actually goes for more democratic ways 
of governance than anybody else.  
And secondly, the whole question of the social 
structure of delivering to the people, 
and that is really at the heart of the debate 
that we're having.  
Expectations come from the expectations not 
being met.  
So clearly the delivery to the people as per 
their expectations 
is not happening in many, many forums, whether 
it's in the economic forum, 
whether it's in the social realm, whether it 
is in the political realm, 
or maybe one is happening more in one country, 
the other not so much.  
But if you look into the caliphate, for 
instance, 
in what Prophet Muhammad brought to Arabia, 
it was really a completely not only democratic 
but a social system of delivery 
which would embarrass all of us if we were to 
dig deeper into it.  
So I don't see these to be contradictory 
forces.  
I see this to be supportive forces, to be 
exceptionally supportive forces.  
And the best example for that, I hope Pakistan 
will be a very good example in ten years, 
but the best example for that today is Turkey.  
You know, the level of satisfaction, 
expectations being met of the people of Turkey 
are probably higher than many other countries.  
There has been a political party which was 
considered to be far too Islamic 
and has delivered more to the people of Turkey 
than the ones which were not.  
So I think we should really look at things 
with a newer lens.
Chairman Ghannoushi, why do you think Islam is 
so misunderstood?
In Islam, there isn't any sort of church so 
there is no spokesman for the Koran.  
Any Muslim can learn the Koran and understand.  
So within Islam, usually in history, there is
pluralism which means free interpretations.  
Free interpretations means plurality.  
There is no spokesman of God on Earth.  
The Umma, the nation, the whole Muslim nation 
is the spokesman of God.  
But no state, no church, no Islamic party can 
pretend that he is the spokesman of God.  
So democracy can work in a friendly way with 
Islam 
because in Islam, we need democracy to make 
decisions 
because there are many interpretations of 
Islam.  
Which one can we decide is good and implement 
it?  
The majority of Umma, the ijma, consensus of 
Muslims 
can decide which Islam we'll chose to 
implement but after that, 
all Muslims can deal with the Koran, with the 
Sunna, without any restrictions.
Ken Roth and then Minister Patriota, please?
I completely agree with Minister Ghannoushi 
that there are many Islams, 
just as there are many Christianities or many 
Judaisms.  
You have on the one hand the liberal Islam of 
Mr. Ghannoushi.  
On the other hand, you've got the Taliban.  
And the real question is, which Islam prevails 
in any given country?  
In a place like Turkey, the AKP under Prime 
Minister Erdogan 
has been quite tolerant with respect to 
religion, 
although increasingly repressive with respect 
to free expression and ethnic issues.  
I think the real question in a place like 
Egypt is, 
which way will the Muslim Brotherhood come 
out?  
They've got the salafists pulling them in a 
more illiberal direction 
and they have actually elements of their own 
party 
pulling them in a fairly liberal direction.  
I was just in Cairo this weekend 
and the argument I was making to them is that 
they're very fearful about their own future.  
Everybody remembers what happened to the 
Islamic movement in Algeria in the 1990s 
and they're fearful that there could be 
another crackdown 
and that they may well need their rights as 
well.  
So my message to them was, you can't pick and 
choose among rights.  
You can't try to preserve political freedoms 
but repress women's rights or repress 
religious freedom, 
and think that you're not going to somehow 
undermine 
or you'll somehow salvage the edifice of 
human rights.  
If you want to rely on certain kinds of 
rights, 
you've got to preserve the full foundation.  
I'm hopeful that as they put together their 
program, 
they will have one that includes vigorous 
protection of women's rights 
and vigorous respect for pluralism in the 
realm of religious freedom.
Mr. Patriota?
Well, I come from a very secular country 
where religion plays a very limited role in 
politics.  
But this discussion to me raises a few issues.  
First of all, it brings to mind the thinking 
of the Indian philosopher and economist 
Amartya Sen 
and his very thought-provoking book about 
identity and violence.  
The idea here is, why should groups have a 
single identity 
or be forced into a single identity?  
This sometimes is something that is indirectly 
encouraged by others 
rather than the Islamists themselves.  
I think here, non-Islamic countries, including 
my own and Western countries, others, 
have a high responsibility also 
through the way that they treat migrants from 
the Islamic world.  
Until very recently, you would read comments 
about how the Islamic world is not fit for 
democracy or for social progress.  
Well, fortunately the Arab Spring has laid 
that to rest.  
It became very obvious that yes, 
there are aspirations for improved governance 
and democracy just as anywhere else.  
So there have been stigmas and simplifications 
associated with Islam 
that I think we all have a common 
responsibility in combating.  
That is one thought.  
The other thought is that democracy in the 
Arab world 
has also been set back through attitudes such 
as, 
we're very much in favor of democracy and 
elections 
as long as such-and-such a group is not 
elected.  
This was very present, for example, in what 
happened in Palestine when Hamas got elected, 
or even in Algeria, which led to the years of 
violence.  
I think a lot of wisdom is required in this 
case 
and the less one interferes in the outcome of 
elections, 
the more one respects the specificities, 
cultural, historic, and others, 
of each process.  
I think the important thing here is to look at 
the movement, 
look at the film and not the photograph.  
If a movement ensures some progress, not 
sufficient maybe, 
well then we should support that 
and look at how it can improve the local 
situation 
and to some extent start answering to the 
aspirations of the majority.
Believe it or now, we're almost out of time.
So I do want to move us to a last question, 
but if you can be brief?
Just very quickly, September 11th is the 
reason that Islam is misunderstood 
and everything that relates to that.  
Taking that action in the name of Allah is 
what played a tremendous role 
in sending this horribly negative message 
about Islam throughout the world.
Chairman Ghannoushi?
Terrorism is against Islam 
and the Muslim Umma paid a very, very negative 
price from this terrorism.  
I think linking Islam with terrorism is very 
bad.  
It's given terrorism justification 
because there's nothing in common between what 
happened on the 11th of September, 
in Britain, in Tunisia, and everywhere.  
I think it's very negative and gives 
justification for terrorism.  
There's nothing in common between Islam, 
between the notion of jihad in Islam 
and what the terrorists have done.  
It's a misunderstanding in and of itself.  
During the '70s, there were some factions who 
used violence, 
from the Left and from the Right.  
But how Europe can contain its extremists is 
through democracy.
Minister Khar, you said that you and others 
had to take some responsibility for changing 
the image?  
What do you propose to do?  
And I'm afraid we only have a minute left, so 
briefly.
First of all, I think, as I said, 
we have to take Islam out of the hands of the 
leftovers of society, almost.  
We have let Islam be taken over by almost 
illiterates 
who interpret it in a mosque every day and 
tell people versions of Islam 
which are then spread all over the world.  
I would want to therefore, 
every country has to take more responsibility 
in how that is managed 
because Islam does not have a clergy system 
so the way it has to be managed has to be in a 
better way.  
But I would like to take this opportunity to 
say something I have not said before.  
It is also the responsibility of the Western 
countries to send a message of positivity 
to the Islamic world.  
So the whole question of identity, violence 
and these things, 
if you separate the people out of the common 
mankind almost 
and separate them as a cause of all ills and 
cause of all problems 
and then continue to show examples of 
festering issues, 
and I would like to end on that, the issue of 
Palestine and Israel, 
and show extreme bias in the way we deal with 
that, 
the issue of Kashmir, for instance, in South 
Asia,
so we all have to do our bit in order to make 
sure that Islam and people who follow Islam 
are not seen to be an ostracized community 
within humankind.
On that note, we've finished our AP Davos 
debate.  
But clearly this conversation is only 
beginning around the world.  
And we do want to take one last final step in 
the spirit of democracy 
and ask you here in the studio audience to 
vote on the question 
that was before this panel.  
As you recall, the question was, are the 
democratic institutions of the 20th century 
fit for the challenges of the 21st century?  
All those who think the institutions are fit 
as they now stand, please raise your hands.  
No secret ballot, Mike?
Not bad.  
No, we don't do secret ballot here in the 
debate.  
All those who think the institutions of 
democracy need change for the 21st century?  
Wow, a close election.  
Not as close as Florida, but close.  
We want to thank you all very much, and 
especially I want to thank our panelists.  
This has been the AP Davos debate.  
I'm Mike Oreskes. Thank you.
