Ivan Krastev: Can democracy exist without trust?

Five great revolutions have shaped political culture over the past 50 years, says theorist Ivan Krastev. He shows how each step forward -- from the cultural revolution of the '60s to recent revelations in the field of neuroscience -- has also helped erode trust in the tools of democracy. As he says, "What went right is also what went wrong." Can democracy survive?
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, global issues, the arts and more. Find closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages at www.ted.com/tra....
Follow TED on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
If you have questions or comments about this or other TED videos, please go to support.ted.com

[@lalasargsyan5252]

The main idea of the text is a critical examination of the current emphasis on transparency in government and its potential drawbacks. The speaker raises concerns about how an intense focus on transparency, fueled by technology, might lead to a situation where politicians fear changing their views due to public scrutiny. The speaker suggests that while transparency is important, it should not hinder the natural evolution of political perspectives through open and rational discussions. What we can conclude from the text is that a nuanced approach is needed in promoting transparency in politics. Simply advocating for complete openness may have unintended consequences, such as stifling the willingness of politicians to adapt their views based on thoughtful dialogue. Striking a balance between transparency and the ability for politicians to engage in genuine, evolving discussions is crucial for maintaining a healthy and effective democratic system. The speaker highlights five revolutions that shaped the current state of democracy, emphasizing the positive and negative consequences of each. While advancements like the cultural revolution of the 1960s and the rise of the Internet brought positive changes, they also contributed to a decline in collective purpose and the formation of political echo chambers. The speaker cautions against overly relying on transparency, suggesting that it can lead to the management of mistrust rather than the restoration of trust. He argues that democracy should encourage people to change their views based on rational arguments, expressing concern about the potential impact of constant scrutiny on political discourse. Ultimately, the talk prompts reflection on the delicate balance between transparency and preserving the essence of a free society.

[@andreasfreyaldenhoven5785]

Really smart man who seems very humble. 54k views? I feel like he steps into a great European tradition of thinking with utmost precision and working on important matters while being more or less out of the public's eyes.

[@sagnikacharyya5777]

understanding this needs an open mind open to new ideas and desire to see the known world in a new light. Exellent.

[@JZGreenline]

I watched this video 4 days ago and @ the time I said I did not get anything out of what he said. One commenter told me I need to re-watch. And I have to agree this is a great speech. What he is saying for every action there is a reaction, and for every good there is an evil. And I see this now. Consequently for all the bad there is some good. I think finding hope out of this very pessimistic speech is exactly what Krastev wanted from us.

[@GeorgiySlobodenyuk]

For every movement forward, there has been a retroaction. He mentioned an example where if every member of a political party knew everything they said would be put live on the internet in a day, they would shut up and not talk less. He also implied that changing your position is more important than consistency, and if we always document what people say, they might put more emphasis on staying consistent (even though their position is wrong) instead of changing their mind.

[@ShakuShingan]

I think Krastev is underestimating how much we knew about politics before the 90s. Just because we had less internet does not mean we did not follow politics and hold politicians to account. In many ways, parliamentary reporting the 18th century was far more thorough than anything online today.

[@BlowDevilUp]

This is the most exciting topic that I could think about.

[@ManLikeMatts]

this was a great talk ...much appreciation

[@GraeHall]

This guy is adoreable, he plays his origin story brilliantly.

[@PiraticalFox]

Yeah. Because no one has ever hacked anything on the internet. But given proper security measures I actually do agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think that the security is there.

[@AutodidacticPhd]

So many of the problems he sees are solved by the solutions we already needed. implementation of alternatives to first past the post voting and getting private money out of politics. And when he asks if good people are going to run for office under a microscope... my answer is that they very well might, for the first time ever, IF we change the system to give them a chance against the crooks we've always had.

[@vonkruel]

Democracy should not mean voting every few years for a pre-selected candidate. Our "democracies" have failed to scale up. We need *real* democracy - the kind where people can get involved in anything they want, provided they're capable of contributing. How to make that work - that's an important project. We can definitely use the Internet to help organize our efforts, but so long as we keep looking to our "leaders" for answers, the future isn't looking good.

[@tonylove16]

I think this discussion would be spot on if he would have considered money's role in all of this

[@GluttonForSex]

Yeh. The scary part is that we've been there many times before as a species. From the 10 commandments to communism to socialism, insightful people have always looked at the world, identified the problems we all face and proposed a solution. In every case, the human condition has ultimately shipwrecked it all. This is all the more disturbing because it happens even when the common good is imposed through education and enforced through punishment. I seriously don't know the answer is anymore.

[@juju101]

"there is a big shadow where there is much light" .. great speech, igniting thoughts and questionning of status quo :)

[@roywoodjr1]

I'm not sure hope is the intended message. I would suggest that "understanding" is the desired outcome. Understanding how the revolutions he identifies conspired to change the qualitative face of public discourse and make it such that indeed, "what went right is also what went wrong." I'm not sure he conveys anything resembling an answer in the form of a solution.

[@MaxAnnoying]

ouch... this guy strikes where it hurts.

[@SAsgarters]

Democracy is nice if there's some organ that can tell the public what they don't want to hear and can ignore the wishes of the majority, when the majority is wrong, without having to worry about consequences. Unpopular things need to be done at times, and demographics need to be protected from each other.

[@wINNIEbOS]

what is the book he's talking about? I can't quite figure it out.

[@mokslobrokolis6685]

1984 by George Orwell

[@gindevwe]

Democracy does exist but a lot of trust is needed, which has to be won by actions, not promises. Gonna watch the video now ;)

[@hobbykuenstler]

I see a problem, too. The mean thing is that the talk starts with valid points and tricks people into agreeing with the conclusion ... which seems to be: politicians should be allowed to do whatever it is they want to do. Of course we need to be able to course correct. But politicians should ideally just present the options and ways to think about the decisions we need to make. Then people should get to decide what to do with the information.

[@dvdragon]

Great lecture!

[@thrivesurvive]

If we get money out of politics and stop gerrymandering, democracy can work.

[@ymousanon4615]

Distrust is essential to democracy ! Trust is about belief not facts

[@herbvergara1]

Wow, how profoundly the idea of selective transparency resonated with me in this speech.

[@shade9592]

I may be a bit uninformed on this but from what I can tell is that democracy based governments seem to work best when the populous is well educated.

[@wushish]

Something that a lot of Australians need to watch.

[@oluwatoba11]

Do I dare say that democracy is four lions and a lamb debating what (who) to eat for dinner? A wise lamb will simply not vote. Common sense behooves him to walk away. Hence, the increasing distrust in democratic processes.

[@gorrellp]

Very true but, direct democracy tends to be biased towards the favor of the majorities vs. the minorities, hence here in America where I live we would have had a hard time abolishing things such as slavery and the rights of women. Hence we have to trust a fewer group to make decisions based on the common standing (Representative Democracy).

[@OneSummerSky]

What you said about psychopathology and political leaders, you may be interested in reading the book: Political Ponerology by Andrzej Łobaczewski.

[@Mystery207]

"I personally believe...that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because...uh-some-uh people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and the Iraq, everywhere like such as...and I believe that they should, our education over here, in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for our children."

[@TheGamanic]

Well they don't clearly see it as punishment. I'm not saying it doesn't have its flaws, I still maintain it is the least worst form of government we have thought of so far

[@Drvelasco45]

if you have 1 minute to spare, check the ecuadorian political scene. Among all, the aproval rating. Big things happening in that small country

[@JimPowellS]

I couldn't take away what he was trying to get at. He never answered his question. He made some interesting points and observations. E.g. Democracy used to bring income equality but now it brings larger inequality (this doesn't seem to hold true on the global scale though - developing countries are improving whereas Western countries are going down which could be viewed as equalizing). His last point that transparency will always be limited by those in power seems true but so what?

[@LeonidasGGG]

Brilliant!

[@Rebasepoiss]

Really? In Estonia during the Soviet occupation, it was all about connections(not money because everybody was poor). If you had connections you could get a car permit, a better apartment, better goods etc. People without connections didn't get shit. It was only after selling yourself out to the communist party (by joining them) could you gain these privileges. If that's equality then I'm all for more inequality.

[@MansionByBeach1]

"Democratic revolutions since 1980s has been accompanied with an increase in inequality." I salute this guy for stating this rarely spoken truth.

[@bugsz1]

The blank balots mean they don't want anyone, not that they had no choice.

[@PedanticNo1]

Blank ballot. Good idea. None of the candidates running for the presidency of my country (United States) appeal to me. What other recourse is there, aside from simply NOT voting?

[@MagicalSunrise1984]

interesting point i do believe that a public that is more educated is more able to deal with the complexity of politics and have better judgement when nations will make sure every single child gets a chance to study up until a second degree and more if they are able and wanting to - things will start to look different in the politic field too

[@ordnascrazy]

[Esperanto] Mi opinias, ke la demokratio ne estas la plej bona regsistemo. En Italio la afero ŝajnas tre klara: kvankam oni havas la rajto je voĉdoni, samtempe la politikistoj estas ĉiam la samaj. Do, jaro post jaro oni daŭrigas voĉdonis malsimilajn grupojn de la samaj politikistoj. Krome, ĉu ĉiu havas la tempon por sekvi politikon kaj donis al si tempo por penso, diskuti kun aliuloj kaj decidi?

[@SuperFata]

LOL, whenever I ask that same question to fatalist "anti-democracy" nay-sayers, it is nothing but silence and the (imagened) sound of distant crickets in the field.

[@BabyBop999]

No, it sucks, but it would be much worse if we had direct democracy. They would still be teaching creationism and school would only be necessary through the 8th grade.

[@cityofdestiny9039]

That's not exactly how I heard his presentation. Actually, I heard the opposite - - that transparency will increase trust in the democratic system.

[@TheLivirus]

"Consistency is going to be more important than common sense." Well isn't that an effect of money having too much influense over politics. If a politician changes his mind today, at least in america, people are going to assume he was bought. If you could just get money out of politics, consistency would weigh much less.

[@Summzy420]

I think issues should simply be voted upon by citizens using the internet.

[@GigaBoost]

So this guys point is: Transparency is bad because it will make the politicians do what they promised when we elected them. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? 12:00

[@WhenceRed]

Facts struggle toward the Truth

[@TheLivirus]

That's why the constitution of every democracy protects minority rights, some more, some less. But yeah, some level of tyranny will always be there. "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill

[@TheGamanic]

Exactly what I said, or are you saying that these "people" are super intelligent, rational people?

[@justgivemethetruth]

6:54 - "remember until the 1970's the spread of democracy has always been accompanied by the decline of inequality, the more democratic our societies have been the more equal they had been becoming, now we have the reverse tendency the spread of democracy is very much accompanied by the increase in inequality." This is the takeaway to me. We used to know that you had to have some system to keep the most powerful from getting too powerful, example is the highly progressive & estate tax.

[@ZucchiniEscobar]

Yes you are right, the people are the voting majority. That makes sense.

[@scottmc283]

Krastev starts with the idea that people are less and less involved in mob rule, sorry I mean democracy. We don't use force, fraud, or coercion in our personal lives. If lying, hitting, and stealing are wrong to do for you and I why is it okay anything else?

[@TheGamanic]

Who are the people

[@theseanze]

illegaltender[dot]me check it out if you want to read more on the topic the website above was created to let people read my thesis in religious studies, which makes this point about democratic history, the necessity of social capital/credit (at least a non-legal tender). Trust isn't something you can campaign on but it's the necessary baseline for progress, and that's the point of social progressivism. It's time for Americans to finally take ownership of what democracy means & its potential

[@gulllars]

The main problems with democracy is: Apathy, (appeals to) emotion, and (lack of) transparency. In general i tink there are too many economists and lawyers (and other human sciences) in politics compared to engineers and scientists (natural sciences). I think this leads to politics being played as a game (politics) instead of it being treated as problem solving for complex systems (policy).

[@Rebasepoiss]

Sorry but this guy is talking nonsense. He's saying that transparency is bad because it unveils the crimes of politicians? It's like saying that efficient policework is bad because that increases the number of criminals... The negative (and short-term) effect of transparency is less trust, the positive (and long-term) effect is better governments and more trust, at least that's what I hope.

[@john2477]

Voting should compulsory. Everyone should be required to vote just as we are required to serve on a jury. If you don't vote the police will come to your house and escort you to the polling place so you can vote for your first, second, and third choice for each office. In exchange for this you will be allowed to vote for "None of the above" if you so desire.

[@BabyBop999]

That's why we don't have a direct democracy in the US

[@TheBeatKeeper]

Democracy isn't advantageous if a voter can only vote for a few narrow undesired choices.

[@YouHolli]

Reverse 1984! My ass, where does this guy live? Behind the moon?

[@PiraticalFox]

Slaves? I think that's a little strong. What are you suggesting as an alternative?

[@heltok]

democracy is nice if it's voluntary, otherwise it's just two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch or 2 muggers and 1 victim voting on how to redistribute money.

[@Chaitanyarokx]

this is what India needs.If once 100 percent of the people vote blank only then there is hopr of it improving.

[@cityofdestiny9039]

I have learned to write in "No Confidence" as opposed to choosing the proverbial lesser-of-two-evils.

[@3csimon]

No, you want everyone to have a say in how society is organised, and most people are idiots.

[@AQGOAT24]

No get off the conspiracy bandwagon. Voting makes a difference, that is why Obama was elected. It is just that Politicians are pretty terrible, so that your options are limited.

[@TheLivirus]

You should watch this: /watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw Money does not trickle down, they trickle up. By helping the weakest in society get back up, they become stronger consumers and stronger tax payers and thus the investment pays off. Societies grow best togeather.

[@GigaBoost]

Blank vote? Why not vote for a third party?

[@yellowklayman]

Only in American democracy

[@omegavalerius]

Well at least there is a chance for more equality in the arab spring. I wouldn't yet judge those as increasing inequality.

[@IrresistibleWitch]

Amen!

[@TheAfrobob]

agreed

[@njrod2008]

lol, because the political climate is so much better in the US.

[@HiAdrian]

I think you point is good, but read over that sentence again.

[@cstuewe21]

Voting isn't broken...it's fixed!!!

[@overusedoxymoron2003]

Quite a lot of pessimism and cynicism here. Can anyone find any hope in what this man says?

[@laguna888888]

the pesimists, the optimists and the Bulgarains!?

[@TheLivirus]

No it's not.

[@gabriele5203]

English teacher forced me to watch this and I want to cry. Some points he made seems like total bullshit to me.

[@julius7623]

oh wow!

[@IseeRightThrough2you]

Voting got your comment to the top! That's a start, right?

[@JZGreenline]

I didnt get anything out of this

[@TheGamanic]

But the people are the mob

[@AtomFA]

communist

[@pfmrokman]

the zeitgeist movement.com

[@stephentsang2000]

Did he said people voted with "black belts"?

[@3csimon]

Why are you obsessed with democracy being right?

[@Moses_Rod]

It can't cuz their DEMOn's going crazy controlling the mASSes~13

[@MedievalChips]

He's not Russian lol

[@velja27]

Yin and Yang

[@randomartist01]

Constantly... distracted... by left side... of face... I mean, he ain't Dan Ariely or anything, but somethin's up.

[@conchamolusco]

Can it? Should it?

[@TractorWrangler01]

Democracy can not survive with out a Constitution to protect your basic rights. Which BTW would make it a Constitutional Republic much like the USA.

[@GigaBoost]

Oh man, that Russian dialect.

[@pfmrokman]

Ballot box = Suggestion box for slaves

[@judithrussell2370]

mandem has predicted future

[@BlowDevilUp]

Institute direct democracy.

[@pfmrokman]

From your user name and reply I bet I can guess your age, skin colour, country of origin and parents income. Ready.? 24, white,America, "middle class" (I would have said 'upper' but who wants to argue semantics) If you don't ever have to think of anybody but yourself you will live a happy and fulfilling life..(That's my tongue in cheek way of saying...don't breed)