Populistocracy? Price Elasticity of Democratic Principles

Christopher Walker

So, I think we can get started. It’s my great pleasure to welcome everyone to a session that I think is incredibly timely. It no doubt will be a challenging topic as well, but I’m so delighted to have great panelists to get into what is described as populistocracy.

And if I had to encapsulate that, I think this is a reflection of the last period of our politics globally. globally, this is not limited or constrained to any one geography or any one country where local populations have felt increasingly frustrated for one reason or another, either because they feel their governors are not adequately responding to their needs, their identity has been challenged in some way, questions about the integrity of borders, and many other factors that have fed into the current political state we find ourselves in. And I would just note from a historical point of view, recent history, Larry Diamond, who’s on our panel, noted that the democratic recession that we’re in now actually started more than two decades ago.

And so this is a part of a larger story of democratic erosion that we’re all contending with. And so I’m really delighted we have an opportunity to pull together some wonderful speakers to get into this. I won’t go into their bios.

I think you know who they are. I’ll just say to my immediate left is Iveta Radichova, who’s the former Slovak Prime Minister. To her left is Larry Diamond, who is arguably the world’s foremost scholar of democracy and democratic development based at Stanford University.

And Martin Kupka, who is the chair of the Civic Democratic Party and a member of the Czech Chamber of Deputies. So we’ll start with Iveta. The first set of responses will be oriented towards what are the one or two factors or features of this populist surge that you think warrant the most focus?

So maybe we can start with you, Iveta.

Iveta Radičová

Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be once more at the Forum 2000. as each year for a long, long time.

So I would structure the introductory comments in the way I would stress two major factors of deep change we are involved. The first I can call the problem crisis around security issues. In the white meaning, it means security in the sphere of energy, security in the sphere of food, security in the water supply, security concerning climate change and the war.

So, big issue, security, and transition of economic and politics because of the changes in security sector. And second factor of changes is transition of identity issues, connected with transitions in politics, legal state and human rights. So briefly, what I have in my mind, security dimension.

First step, economic insecurity together with structural inequalities. We are facing new kind of economic and social inequalities widespread globally and also on national level. Concentration of the wealth in the small part of societies, I can say, in the hands of 10 men, the owners of the biggest technological firms in the world.

So challenge is to redefine the basis of economic model. We will discuss this also these days at the forum. Concerning security globally, I would maybe use, as I am the member of Club de Madrid, the report on global security prepared by Club de Madrid, and to stress that the world is at an historical inflection point defined by a shift in the geoeconomic center of gravity from the Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific part of the world.

B, a lesser capacity by the United States to project power across the globe to maintain the rule-based international order that it redefined after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. C. Heightened geopolitical tensions pitting great powers, notably the United States, Russia and China, against one another within what Russia and China perceived to be their spheres of influence. D, weakening of national governance in a highly connected word, together with E, social tensions, social conflicts and social discrepancies, F, the rise of nationalist populism, and system of Y stresses on environment due to the impacts of growing, rapidly urbanizing human population in the Earth’s system.

This is connected with one of the deepest, wide-ranging technological revolution about AI and influence we have spoken at each session during Forum 2000. According to the Cypriot Yearbook, which is International Measurement of Wars and Conflicts, Today, we are facing really increase of military spending during the last 10 years enormously. Together, we are facing ecological disruption, which continued, and we, in 2023, faced the hottest year for at least 174 years.

international stability is under the pressure intensifying confrontation between the great powers and as a result the entire six decade long nuclear arms control enterprise is at risk of ending cyber threats according to Total Assure report over 2,000 cyber attacks occurring each day in 2025. It means 39-second interval between incidents across the world. Unbelievable.

Each moment also, I am speaking now, at least three cyber attacks. This reflects around 300 million incidents in 2025. What can the state and governments do facing these challenges?

So, in conditions of increasing geopolitical competition, Managing the spread of offensive cyberspace capabilities is really essential to contain escalation of cybercrisis to enable strategic stability. So the challenge is to preserve stability and normative compliance and I understand it as an essential task. Case of EU, if you do not mind, only in really three theses.

EU was based on three pillars. First, expansion of world trade. Second, competitiveness industry supported by cheap energy.

And third, stable on rules-based international order. This model doesn’t exist anymore. Because of China’s, because of the prices and energy crisis, there is a war concerning energy sources.

And in the world today, there are more than 2,500 different regulations against the free trade. What does it mean, and the last comment, for the transition and shift of the paradigm in the politics? and there is a real shift and real change of paradigm.

We are facing the crisis of the truth. Really, crisis of the truth. When in the last century, the truth was understood and defined as verified facts.

Today, there is another paradigm truth is construction. You can construct the truth and immediately when you need it, you can deconstruct the truth. So there is real shift from politics based on Habermas’ ideal rationality model to the politics based on Kaspel’s network and net society.

From rational politics to semantic politics. And semantic politics working with emotions. So that’s why I call it that there is a shift from liberal democracy to populistocracy.

in these days. Then I can say more, what does it mean in different spheres in politics, but the major message is that there are three new types of political parties and movements from which the support of populistocracy is here and new politics, negative politics of anger, First, extremist left and right political parties, no difference at all, doesn’t matter. Second, populist political parties using truth as a construct.

And last but not least, the political parties which are now outside the parliament because they have nothing to lose. Nothing. Either they will receive some percentage and popularity or not.

So they are fighting. And a major factor of all these new conflicts and change and shift is the conflict inside elites. If you look on our elites, there are so many conflicts inside elites, in the sphere of liberal versus conservative, in the sphere of different economic models, and also in the sphere we have discussed, what is the relationship in between the right for freedom of speech and the right for privacy.

Both these rights are equally and equal. But for populists, the right for freedom for speech is the most important and they are fighting against the right for privacy and private identity. And elites are quarreling all the time and they do not offer common value in this sense.

This is global picture.

Christopher Walker

So I think you’ve done a wonderful job identifying the disruption and the anxiety that many populations face given these profound changes in technology and economics and the like. And so it gives us good fodder when we come later on into responses. But let me turn now to Martin Kupka for his observations.

Martin Kupka

I should say that from my point of view, it’s the two main factors of populistocracy and all promises and all proposals of populists are around money and fare. And we see a lot of concrete promises for the better economical conditions for people. But the area of Czech policy, it’s full of these empty promises.

And we know that all these promises, they aren’t able to fulfill, aren’t able to deliver. But the policy, it’s like a hourly hotel without satisfaction. And we see that the yesterday promises are forgotten.

And now we see as well that the main tool of the populistocracy, the main tool of populists are in the promising and over-promising the better economical conditions. And the second point is the fare. The fare from immigrants, the fare from all the other threats.

And it’s more than about arguments, it’s only about provoking the new emotions. And in the situation when people are overwhelmed by information, political conflicts, new and new messages and bad news, and it’s also the strong point for the current environment, then it’s definitely the concrete point when the space for rational arguments is smaller and smaller. And in the first place, it’s only emotions, without possibility to efficient explanation and also official description.

It’s the one point, and I see this also in the Czech reality, as strong momentum, and then it’s something like the erosion of the democratic principles, but step by step. It’s like a slow cooking of the frog. It’s the usual picture.

And then it’s necessary to show the strict principles and to show these threats, but not with overlooking of common people, because it could be, and we see this also from the essays of Roger Scruton and also from the Czech point of view, It’s a really, really important momentum. We really need to explain people with definitely the strong messages, but without overlooking of their own acceptations and their own emotions. And then it’s absolutely necessary to have efficient solutions for them and also the direct reaction for their frustration.

And then it’s also necessary to keep the international orders as something which is not lost for all the other years. And also the importance of the state of law as something like the fundamental principle. And then we should use the strong pictures, strong rhetoric for underlining these principles and to facing a lot of populist promises and approaches.

Christopher Walker

So thank you very much for that. It strikes me that both Iveta Radjicova and Martin Kupka touched on this feeling that many people have in open societies of things being out of control because they’ve moved too quickly in the technological domain, in the economic domain, movement of people, and the response to this to give people a sense of empowerment is critically important. And this is true, I think, across Europe and in North America as well. Why don’t we turn to Larry Diamond now, and then we’ll get the audience involved.

Larry Diamond

Okay. Well, the first thing I’ll say is it’s really an honor to be here with these two distinguished individuals. And I think Yvette has given such a comprehensive assessment of what has brought us to this juncture and generated the diverse forms but common features of illiberal populist surging challenge to liberal democracy here in Europe and really worldwide that I don’t need to repeat it. There’s no point in that.

The only thing I would add is that coming to your identity dimension, Iveta, I think there’s another element of globalization that has become an important factor here, which is immigration and the challenge to some common sense of identity. You know, in the United States, we are a nation of immigrants. I am a big fan of immigration.

I don’t think we can meet our economic challenges in the U.S., and this is, I think, obviously true for the European Union, without more immigration of both welcoming advanced talent from around the world and welcoming, you know, other talent. I mean, one of the reasons why our farm economy in the U.S. is in crisis now is because Donald Trump is expelling all the farm workers, declaring them illegal immigrants.

The majority of these people are not citizens and or quite a large proportion of them who are working our farms and picking our produce. And probably some of them have come to the U.S. at least temporarily without documentation.

But, and there’s a big but, if we don’t manage immigration in a planned way, it’s going to feed populism in an extremely dangerous way. And I think there’s an obvious solution here that comes under one form of a broader concept of having a high fence but a big door. And if a country doesn’t have control of its borders, it’s not really a country.

And it is going to face a populist backlash from people who feel like they’re losing control. And I think the sense of losing control in multiple means losing fiscal control of their budget, losing control over their lives and affordability, Losing control of what their society is and who they are as a people provides a lot of fodder for this populist wave. And so I would underscore that liberals, whether they’re coming from the center left or the center right, people who believe in pluralism, competition, social coexistence, an inclusive society, have to have an answer to this problem.

You need it in the European Union and we need it in the United States. And it has to be humane, it has to be respectful of human dignity, but it also has to address this problem. Now just to back up to that being an element of a response, ‘cause I think we might as well move to the response, the problem has been very trenchantly laid out.

I would say, I would offer the following elements of how I think we need to diffuse populism as a phenomenon and rule by illiberal populism, if that’s what we mean by populistocracy. First of all, Iveta has said it in terms of the style of communication they have, which is emotion-based, identity-based, symbolic, semantic, you used the word. Populists, including your populace here in Europe, very frighteningly in these recent state elections in Germany, alternative for Germany, and MAGA and Donald Trump in the United States, they’re just better at using social media and exploiting and fanning fear and identity passions and mobilization on social media and moving quickly and adroitly, nimbly, and often falsely by deploying and magnifying disinformation.

There’s no reason why, there’s no intrinsic reason why more democratically committed forces, I will say liberal forces in the sense of believing in liberal democracy as a system of, you know, competition, rationality, free and open exchange and so on, center left to center right. There’s no reason why it’s impossible for us to compete in that way. But we’re too rationality-based.

You’re not going to win in social media by responding to some outrage about immigration or some rumor about corruption or some image of some immigrant challenging or committing a crime or something by, or some deep fake about an establishment politician by saying, oh, that’s not true, and here’s our 10-point program for the next election. That’s not the way it works. And so we’ve just got to get with the times in terms of the modes of communication and the way that emotion, identity, feeling, imagery, ridicule, humor, memes drive the internet and drive the messaging of our times.

And somehow, I think it’s possible to do this in a, quote, civic fashion, in a liberal fashion, though increasingly I think we can’t use that adjective anymore, and both rapidly respond to debunk and pre-bunk information, but also affirm with a little bit of imagination, a little bit of humor and symbolism, the traditional civic values of commitment to freedom, dignity, openness, truth, as you say, so on and so forth. Then I think we learned from Hungary this past April, Poland in October of 2023, but a number of other instances where populistocracy was defeated at the polls, including Sri Lanka, with that electoral alternation a few years ago, that you need to build a very broad, inclusive electoral front. And it can’t just be the social democrats in Germany and the Christian democrats in Germany saying, well, let’s form a coalition and hang on by our fingernails and hope Alternative for Germany will go away.

They’ve got to stand for some bold and creative things to respond to people’s anxieties. And this requires a lot of on-the-ground listening. Mr. Kupka apparently has been doing that here in the Czech Republic.

He’s on a listening tour, and I think that’s a very valuable thing. We really have to have our ear to the ground to find out what is driving the anxieties of people and why the populace are making inroads. A couple more things, Chris.

Everywhere that I have seen a pushback, a successful electoral pushback against populism in a kind of existential campaign to turn it back. This was very true with Donald Tusk in October of 2023. It was very true with Peter Magyar in Hungary in April and in the months before.

Wherever you go, they’re surrounded by the national flag. And I think liberals, you know, they’re cosmopolitan. They don’t want to feed nationalism.

But we have to take back the flag and reclaim it for a civic form, a liberal democratic form of patriotism. And not let these illiberal populists redefine what pride in the nation means. And just finally, I think we’re finding this now in the United States.

I think it may be one reason why populistocracy is going to suffer a very significant electoral setback in the United States on November 3rd. We have to find ways of mobilizing the style of anger against the establishment. The populists are now the establishment in a number of countries, and they are a very unprecedentedly corrupt establishment.

And we have to fuse people’s unhappiness with their living conditions, unhappiness with affordability, unhappiness with inequality and privilege, with corruption. Because that gets to the fairness issue, the justice issue, and what I think is a winning electoral formula.

Christopher Walker

So thank you very much for that, Larry. Before I turn to Martin and Iveta, we also want to try to keep our ear to the ground here. So we’re going to have an opportunity to put a question on the screen and allow the audience to capture a QR code and take a few minutes to respond.

So I think colleagues here will do that shortly. And as you’re responding to this first question we have, we have two all together, I hope. Let me hear briefly from Iveta on some reflections on what she’s heard to date Perhaps what other responses we should prioritize?

Iveta Radičová

The main instrument of democracy is dialogue, so I will try to do it. I agree what you have mentioned fully. I would like only to add.

When we are talking about immigration and immigrants, we have to distinguish in between the countries which are facing aging of population and shortage of working force because part of the immigrants are really solving the problems inside the countries. And this is the case of whole Europe because Europe is facing the aging of population. So today, who will distinguish?

You know, immigrants whom we have, small country like Slovakia, 5 million and a half, 150,000 workers from third countries working in our industries and services. Otherwise, we can close it immediately because of aging of population. Second thing, yes, I understand fully what does it mean to be proud.

To be proud, because to be proud is a basis of national identity. So what I can be proud? For corrupted politicians?

Not at all. For populists? Not at all.

For our economic results? Not at all. So for what?

For what? So what we can offer to be proud. Third, if you put it together, then what has happened is that there is deep difference in between the performance of democratic institutions and real life.

There is a real gap because life is on life. Life and structure and social stratification is based on totally different criterions like our democratic institutions are created. So we are solving social inequality through Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family.

Oh God, very far from what really, really need and how they behave, how they feel in the country. So in one sentence, democratic institutions we have established during the last century are not capable to answer new challenges created by technological changes and technological and informative revolution. This is true also for the media sector.

It’s all digitalized, totally. And each of us is using a hybrid combination of sources, not only one source. And this hybrid combination depends on whom I trust.

And I agree that part of societies are much quicker in producing information, then we are prepared to react to this information. What we can do, question, who really is agenda setting? Who?

Who is producing the sources for new and new information? and for whose interest is this produced. And we are facing totally new phenomena, and I call it that it’s state propaganda of hate using all possible media channels they have at disposal.

So what we can do with the governments who behaved as, not only angry politicians, they behave more. They create anger. They create negativism.

They create dark politics. So what we can do facing this change of political situation, last sentence, really last, the shift according to VDEM measurement, There are today 91 autocracies, 88 democracies around the world. First time during the history, more autocracies than democracies.

And from the time of measurement, sorry, not from whole history, from the time of measurement of democracy. And liberal democratic countries, we have only 29 small groups. really small group so more processes are transitions from democracies to autocracies than opposite I am sure that technologies and medias are not the reasons they are only instruments I see the reasons mainly in the political sphere

Christopher Walker

and what I noted over my shoulder with the voting from the audience was, and I’ll turn to Martin Kupka in just a moment, was freedom and prosperity look to be the most cited examples of democracy delivering. I’d like to ask, maybe we put up the second question now if we could, and also we’ll turn to the audience to take questions if we have a mic that can go around, but let me turn to Martin.

Martin Kupka

Short note, I’m not a social scientist. I’m the active politician. And for me, it’s necessary to find and to show and to describe the definitely possible positive solutions as how to deliver the democracy.

And I’m absolutely sure that it’s necessary on the side of liberal Democrats to deliver efficient and positive results. Definitely the high quality of economical solutions and then also the other way how to, for example, face the efforts, how to widen also, for example, the media freedom and the others. And the skills of Democrats will be considered by their concrete results, their concrete effort as well, but results.

This will be on the first point. And I’m absolutely sure that on our side it’s necessary to use the national identity in a positive way, not in a negative way. But it’s something which is necessary to show because I can say that we can be proud, for example, of our previous strong persons.

And I am sure that we are able to be proud of our history and our tradition also in political life. And then it’s necessary to show and to connect this with the possible new solutions, possible new proposals as well. And for example, the concrete point, in the whole Europe, there are really big threats connected with immigrants.

Visible threats. And for example, the possible way how to solve this it’s to be strict in the state of law, in the concrete good legislation for this. And I can say that in Czech Republic, we haven’t realistic, we haven’t so big problems with the illegal immigration.

And what was the reason? The really strict law, the really strict legislation and the efficiency in this concrete way how to show the respect to this legislation. And I can say it’s the way how to deliver the democracy because the state of law is something like the principle, the fundamental principle for the future.

And then we can be also successful in our way how to show that all these things which you mentioned, for example, the international order, the state of law, and definitely the previous strong values, all of them aren’t lost for the other years. But it’s necessary to be efficient and to show also in the good way and also in understandable speeches, in understandable arguments and forms as well. And I absolutely agree that medias, it’s only tools, instruments, not the goal.

And we really need to use all new forms which are attractive, which are acceptable for current society, and to use all these tools for the perspective of the democratic values. And I’m absolutely sure that it’s not lost.

Christopher Walker

I’m going to turn to the audience and start integrating questions. One of the things that comes to mind with Martin Kupka’s observations is that the movements that have emerged in the recent past, over the last decade or two, have actually identified real problems in democratic societies. So it’s not to say that these movements are completely disconnected from reality.

It’s not true. Whether it’s immigration or people’s discomfort with the speed of technological advance or economic inequality, it’s actually pinpointing something that democratic publics are not comfortable with. And in a sense, it’s then up to the system to respond in a meaningful way.

And I would say even on the basis of recent elections in other European countries, including but not limited to Germany, if the establishment isn’t able to meaningfully address citizens’ concerns, it’s clear that those grievances will continue to be expressed in other ways. So why don’t I start integrating questions from the audience? I think we had one here.

And if you could please identify yourself and then zero in on a question.

Youssef Sheri

Thank you. Youssef Sheri from Tunisia. Building on what Yvette said about institutions that are not any more responding from the 20th century, not any more responding to the needs of today.

I wanted to ask Martin, how can you still lead the political party nowadays? How political parties can still attract youth? And we see Gen Z don’t even want to work in companies.

How do they join political parties today? Thank you.

Christopher Walker

Do we have one other question? Maybe let’s…

Iveta Radičová

Oh, many.

Christopher Walker

We have many. So I’m going to do two or three at a time just to try to get as many in as possible. Let’s go right here.

Vokashin Petrovic

Vokashin Petrovic, formerly from Freedom House and someone who has spent the last six, seven years working on behavioral cognitive science in relation to democracy and human rights. So my question is why we are denying cognitive science? Why we are denying the fact that we are emotional beings and that we are making emotional decisions when it comes to all aspects of our lives, including economy, including politics?

and why we still see emotional decision-making as something that is faulty rather than it’s our default state. And from that perspective, also, I would ask why we are not acknowledging the fact that one of the biggest mistakes of democracy is that democracy stopped making people feel safe. and that those are two key mistakes that we as democratic actors have made and allowed opening for authoritarian actors to come in and to swipe people.

Christopher Walker

Great, thank you. Let’s do one more over here. We’ll do them in threes and then we’ll get responses and go back to the audience. So the one right here.

Speaker 7

Thank you. Thank you for the panel. I’m from Algeria. I’m a corporate lawyer and human rights activist.

So my question actually would tackle one of the comments that Ivera Radjikova made with regard of the media. I think one of the many issues that we see in Europe and also, of course, coming also from the U.S., it’s basically the control of the media by billionaires who are actually extreme right, billionaires who are actually having a very clear narrative and attacking, for instance, immigration, as Larry Dyer really highlighted. And we see the same thing in Europe.

I mean, come and live in France, work in France, and seeing that very commonly from the second generation, even the illegal immigrants, or the second generation of France living there, not feeling comfortable, and there are clear data, whether from the Le Monde or Le Figaro, saying that they are willing to leave the country because of its safety. And that’s something that’s been created because of the controlled media. So how can we tackle that when we know clearly that will be basically something to have a serious precaution on the French economy and the EU as well.

Christopher Walker

Great, thank you for that. So we have two questions that are in the same broad sphere, question on political parties. Maybe if you want to address the first one.

Martin Kupka

I can say that I’m from conservative right-wing party with a really very close connection with reforms. And I should say that we should respect democratical institutions. because we really need them also for the future.

But in the same sentence, I would like to say we really need to reform these institutions for definitely the changeable life. And also because of the really quick improvement and development of technologies. And in the concrete reality of Czech Republic, it’s necessary to bring to all these institutions digitalization and also the AI tools for definitely better and faster answer for the questions of people and for the expectations of people.

And the second part of the question is the same issue for the similar issue for political parties. We really need to answer the usual questions of people without without overlooking their vicious expectations and also the current emotions of them. We really need to feel, for example, the frustration from the lack of feeling a safe life for them.

And also because of our historical experience, You really need to show them that nobody is able to secure the really safe life for them. But the democracy is in possibility to influence their own responsibility and their own life. And I can say that for us it’s also necessary to hear the expectations of people, to answer them directly with the sense for the current reality and for all different threats with definitely all modern forms of communication.

It will be necessary to have these skills on our side.

Christopher Walker

This is a good segue into the cognitive and communication part of the question. I’m going to do my best to get as many people into the discussion as I can. We have limited time. So if the panelists could also be succinct, that would be great.

Iveta Radičová

I would try. I am a combination of former ministers, several ministers, deputy, academician, prime minister, what do you wish. I know very well the work of Freedom House.

Very well. As I was 30 years working for NGO and guarantee one very important NGO in Slovakia Republic. And I fully support your point, fully.

The system of decision-making procedure is really a combination of three things, three dimensions. First is some rationality, my social economy, concrete everyday life situation, and at the end, concrete emotion connected with these two things. Yes, yes, there is no discrepancy and no dialogue needed according to this issue.

I fully agree. But the problem is how you use the emotion and how you create the emotion. Here is the problem.

And through this, I will continue to media that, yes, last week, I was at the celebration for the memory of the murdered and killed journalist in my country, eight years ago. And we call the memory, memory for freedom of speech. And if we have a situation that those who are trying to be gatekeepers are killed, those who are under the pressure because they are doing their investigative job, because police is not as an institution doing it, that’s reality, then this institution is really far from what we can call effective democratic institution.

And journalists are really heroes and at risk. And this is not normal. They cannot do their job.

So that’s why I am saying we are far from what we can call freedom. they have to feel free and safe and this is not the reality that’s why i say say we are really on the journey towards autocracy like larry has defined it in in his 12 steps we are near the last step, change the voting system. And I really openly saying I have a fear.

And I don’t know what to do. I am here also because to find some recommendations when I can do more. I am traveling around Slovakia, having discussions, supporting those who are real fighters for freedom.

And I don’t want to do it through political party enough. I have done it 30 years. Enough.

I need to find another channel and support democratic party, political system, if we have it at all. This is the main issue and task. And to support free media by all forces we our own activities, our own life strategy, try to be not the hero, but to show that the pattern to live according to the rules can lead to success.

This is the aim.

Christopher Walker

And I would just note on the safeguarding of systems, including protecting journalists, Corruption was the featured item under what members of our audience would seek to fix first so that democracy delivers more effectively. So I’m going to turn to Martin Kupka. I’m probably going to try to do a lightning round over here. People have very short questions because I know the hook will come out soon. But let me have a comment from Martin.

Martin Kupka

The freedom of the media of public service is now the most hottest issue in Czech Republic, also because of the previous development of media in Slovak Republic and also in Hungary. And for us, for democratic parties, it’s definitely the main issue, the principal issue for the next months to keep the independence of the financing of the media of public service. And for me, it’s something like, I can say, the most principal and the most important thing to keep the current system of financing and the effort of the current government in Czech Republic.

It’s to change this financing and directly connect it with the state budget, which is in the really huge deficit. And it’s definitely the direct way how to change the quality of this media and also how to change the whole democratic environment in Czech Republic because I’m absolutely sure that also in this current media reality, it’s the traditional media public service are the fundamental point. Fundamental point, not only because of the content of their program, but also because of the quality of the whole environment, because in their skills, in their responsibility, it’s also to keep the fundamental quality in the level of messages through the whole republic.

And I’m absolutely sure that it’s also the best defense system against lies and also against, for example, disinformations And in the concrete situation in Czech Republic, it’s also the best defense tool before the Russian propaganda, which is definitely visible also in the whole Europe, not only in central European region.

Christopher Walker

I think Martin Kupka’s point on Česká televizie and Český rozlas can’t be emphasized enough. If you look at countries who’ve lost their public broadcasters, invariably they suffer in democracy and economic terms. And so I think this point should be stressed and I’m happy you’ve done so.

Larry, would you like to wait until the final? So let me do this. We’re going to take it.

The questions are mushrooming. Let’s do three from over here. I apologize in advance.

And if you could be very quick, and then I’ll turn to the speakers to respond as they’d like or offer closing remarks. So let me start in the front row here with this gentleman, if you could briefly identify yourself and then pose your question.

Youssef Sheri

Hello, everyone. My name is Michael. I’m a political science student in Bratislava.

I wanted to ask a question to the panelists. As Ziveta mentioned, that the old order is no longer here, and yet many democratic parties still push for the return of it and fail. There are successful examples of addressing those pains that the current society faces, like maybe Zoran Mamdani in New York.

With more populists coming to power, how does a hypothetical archetype of a candidate look that could stop or challenge these populists, and what must they bring to the table?

Christopher Walker

Thank you very much. And let’s go to the front row here, please.

Alvaro Hensler

Hi, Alvaro Hensler from Peru. I’m starting a political movement in Peru, and I’m traveling around the world trying to identify the future of political parties and why illiberal populists are not only getting votes, but even satisfaction and popularity for the people. You have unveiled the reasons why populists are on the rise, but I want to tell me that many critiques of democratic leaders, what are we doing bad? what are not doing, not functioning, and leaving a space to populists?

Christopher Walker

Great. Thank you for that. And we’ll take one more. Let’s go to the woman here, please.

Speaker 7

Hello, I’m Aoife, and I’m Irish.

Vokashin Petrovic

Coming on from that, I was wondering what system of power, because people keep saying they think there needs to be a change in the system, which you believe is more fair. For example, Ireland has proportional representation. And then also, do you think part of the shift away from democracy sends from a sense of complacency that new generations have been born with it,

Alvaro Hensler

so they no longer see it as something they have to fight for?

Vokashin Petrovic

It’s just kind of expected.

Christopher Walker

Great. Thank you for all those questions. And my apologies again to others who didn’t have a chance to pose them. And I’ll simply avail an opportunity for our speakers to address whatever aspect of these questions they like and also offer closing reflections. So why don’t we this time start with Larry and then we’ll work to the other two speakers.

Larry Diamond

Okay, I’ll make two points. Number one, I can give you a profile of a counter-populist politician who can turn things back from populism effectively because he did it in Greece. His name is Prime Minister Mitsukakis.

And I think if you study how he did it, this was obviously left-wing populism, but it’s a left-wing populism that almost ruined the country of Greece and almost drove it into bankruptcy. And he inherited a pretty bad situation. And, you know, he did it through transparency.

He did it through good governance. He did it through effective policies to generate economic growth and reform unsustainable statism. He did it through, has been doing it, he’s still prime minister and I think will seek another term, through effective communication.

I think there’s something to be learned there. Maybe we’ll have an opportunity for counterpopulism in Peru from our colleague here in Alvaro doing something similar. I think you can sell rationality if it’s framed in a certain way that speaks to people’s anxieties, identity needs, and demand to be consulted and involved and not just technocratically manipulated and looked down upon.

And that’s just the last point I’ll make, is that I think we actually do have new tools and new means of engaging people, listening to them, and giving them voice and influence, and that’s by going back to the ancients, going back to Greece, and using a modern version of some dimensions of direct democracy through citizen assemblies, which I think are becoming a very interesting potential phenomenon now, and the tool that we’re working on at Stanford University of deliberative polling, and the online mechanisms of democratic deliberation. to give people, including young people, there’s a whole phenomenon of this. This is only high school and college students to enable them to wrestle with issues and engage one another with some common base of information, but autonomy in really thinking through the issues with one another.

Christopher Walker

Let me turn to Iveta for her comments, then we’ll give Martina the last word.

Iveta Radičová

Quickly, types of Democrats in the government, for me, I only will add the Prime Minister of Canada or Madam Prime Minister of Denmark and many others. There is a list. But last sentence.

This century is combination and synergy of crisis, crisis, crisis and crisis, war, war, war and war. Complexity, complexity of uncertainty and crisis. And doesn’t mean that when first crisis, terrorism, then immigrants, then financial crisis, then pandemia, then energy crisis and crisis.

and climate crisis. And people would like to hear, okay, politicians, and what you are doing? Because each day I’m listening the same, new crisis, new crisis, this crisis, that crisis, and where are the results?

So for me, the only answer is, come on, we know what to do. We know what to do. And you will see the results with your support, with your participation, with your will, with your values.

And look, we stop to talk about common values, common good. So don’t use it as empty phrase. show that our common value concerning human dignity, our common value concerning economic, not gross, this is stupidity, but economic performance and plus all package of human rights, We are prepared to realize, except only talking, talking and talking.

That’s the answer. I do not know another.

Christopher Walker

Thank you so much. And let’s turn to Martin Kupka.

Martin Kupka

Really quickly, I should warn against the possibility to change the democratic systems and the democratic regime. Because it’s absolutely no way. We haven’t got any better system in the whole world.

I’m absolutely sure about this. And also the legitimacy of representation in the democratic system, it’s definitely something done. And we really need to build on it.

The second point is how to deliver better and more understandable and more as well attractive for people. We really need to use all new technologies for the delivering of our messages and our content in definitely an attractive way. And we really need to use all common forms of the delivering content of our policies.

And also to propose, it’s also my personal question, to propose the good reform for the democratic institutions and also for the concrete areas of life, the healthcare system, the education, etc. And also to successfully deliver this and to show the concrete results of these activities. And the efficiency of the democratic solutions is the way how to better deliver our system or our policies. And I really believe that it’s possible.

And we really need to have more charismatic politicians because we need on the global level that the policies more and more personalize. And we really need to have responsible and also the charismatic politicians.

Christopher Walker

So I feel like we could do our panel again with a bigger audience right now. I’m going to resist the temptation. And I’m going to thank our great panelists, Martin Kupka, Larry Diamond, Iveta Ratova. Thank you very much.

Iveta Radičová

Thank you. Thank you.