The battle for democracy, democracy is under siege. I read these two headlines recently in newspapers and this sentence too, 2016 was the most turbulent year for democracy since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Now, are these assumptions exaggerated or do they hit the nail on the head? A warm welcome to everyone. My name is Susan Wille and I work for Swiss Radio and Television. You have joined the debate about democracy, a session in cooperation with the World Economic Forum. Now, let's look at the facts. There will be soon elections in France, in Holland and in Germany and these elections are not only of national significance, they also serve as indicators of what lies ahead for Europe and beyond. It's also a fact that the effects of the political events of 2016 are already spreading far and wide. As you know, a majority of Brits voted to leave the European Union. For many others, Brexit was a total shock. The election of Donald Trump was a shock too for many. And for them, 2016 has become an unfathomable reality. But then for many others, on the other hand, that was a long overdue sign. A sign that the so-called governing elite has lost touch with the people. A sign that the desire for self-control or national independence has become greater or a sign that maybe liberalism and open borders are no longer the only way forward. And since then, the debate has guarded momentum. Liberal democracy currently finds itself under pressure, populist movements are on the rise. And we want to discuss about this because of varying reactions. There are those who are already celebrating without limitations. Others are already predicting the end of democracy. Still others may be shrugging their shoulders with the famous quote, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. But another possible reaction is we post questions. And this is what we're going to do today. Now with my esteemed panelist. So let me introduce our guests. I welcome Doris Leutard. She is the president of the Swiss Confederation. She's a member of the Christian Democratic People's Party in Switzerland. And she's also the head of the Federal Department of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications. And she recently said in an address to the nation, in times of uncertainties, Switzerland's success lies in solidarity and direct democracy. I also welcome Christian Kern. He's the new chancellor of Austria. He's part of the Social Democratic Party and his government currently is under a lot of pressure, including from the Freedom Party, FPO. And he recently said, this is our last chance. If we don't grasp that chance, our government will disappear from the radar screen. I also welcome Nicholas Scheer. He's an entrepreneur and, of late, also a politician, although you still have to get used to that description, I guess. Nicholas Scheer has joined us because he's launched a grassroots movement. He would call it a party, trying to overcome party-driven ideology, laden politics he wants to make a fresh start in Chile. And I also welcome Jan Werner Müller. He is professor in the Politics Department at Princeton University and also at IWM in Vienna. He's done an impressively amount of research about the history of Europe and he's also published a book called What Is Populism? He says that people are fed up with political correctness, but also populism is, in its tendency, dangerous for democracy. And last but not least, I welcome Patrick Schapat. He's a well-known international cartoonist. He's drawing for the American New York Times, for the Swiss Luton, the Sunday edition of NZZ. He's an astute political observer and he's got a special role today. So I've given him artistic freedom. I've given him a carte blanche. So he'll frame our debate with his famous cartoons. They are, can be quite painful, but as I said, I give him a carte blanche and why don't you, before we start discussing, give us your point of view on what's at stake right now? Thank you. Yes, so what's happening to democracy? What just happened to the greatest democracy of the world? Well, we know what happened. This is what happened. LAUGHTER A power was grabbed, if I can use that word. A whole political establishment was turned upside down. That is true. It was Christmas at Trump Tower. You know what? When Nick Kristoff of the New York Times wrote a few months ago that Trump had the temperament of a 13-year-old, he then had to apologize to a lot of parents of 13 years old. So this guy here was really spoiled at last Christmas. He got what he asked for. LAUGHTER And in two days from now, he will be trusted with the highest office in the world. That is true. This is a political revolution. This is disruption on a large scale. And there is, of course, a tech element to that disruption. It's Twitter. The way he used Twitter, he was able to get around the traditional intermediates, to get around the parties, to get around institutions, to get around the media, and to address directly the public. This was a disruption. And he raised an army. By the way, this is the tweet he sent on Christmas Day. I don't know if you saw it. So strongmen are on the rise. We think that all over all around Europe, you take, for example, Turkey. There is a story to that cartoon. That cartoon, it's a true story. It was displayed in a demonstration in Turkey by a demonstrator. And then he got arrested. He got interrogated by the police. For what? For insulting the Turkish flag. That's a true story. And there is, of course, Putin, Putin who managed to make Russia look great again without doing much for the economy, by the way. But is it real? Is it true that Russia tried to influence the US election? This is getting so real. It's getting crazy every day. You see headlines like this. Putin and the FBI help Donald Trump get elected.  And this is scary because we used to live in a world where we had different opinions on facts. But now it seems that we have different opinions on what the facts are. And this, for democracy, is really worrisome. Merci pour le moment. Patrick Chapat will have more later, as I said. You stand for yourself. Now I'm interested in your diagnosis. Let's start with the diagnosis. What's going on? Federal accounts endorse Lloyd Hardt. Switzerland, on a global context, often serves as a role model because of its direct democracy. Does this imply that you're fully relaxed, sitting in your chair now, and you're not worried at all about your country? Well, when you go back in history, democracy and the integration of the population helped a lot to have basic rights in every constitution that citizens have rights. And I think this is, for me, worrisome, that all over the world, how can we guarantee democracy with the integration of fundamental rights to our citizens? When parties change, a majority is changed in a country because election one or power goes to another party, that's part of democracy. This is not worrisome for me. But when presidents or countries neglect the rights of the citizens, the right also to express themselves in freedom, the right of media, the right also to vote, this is difficult. And a third element, which seems to be a little bit under pressure, is also that you have to accept the separation of powers. In many countries, we see a little bit that the politicians try to influence also the tribunals, the jurisdiction. And this is also worrisome because that's part of democracy, that we have a separation of power. And when politicians try to influence also the judges, that's no good sign for democracy. So in my analysis, yes, we see some tendencies all over the world, which don't get an applause from Switzerland. But I think that's also part of our discussion. Also here, part of Davos to talk about these evolutions and that citizens get also the instruments to influence and to vote for their rights. We're having this discussion because the established parties are being challenged from other parties, from new parties, from parties that question their politics. Now, let's look at Austria for the first time since World War II. We've seen an election for the president without the governing parties being present. And then you apologized to the voters. Would you say that Austria is at a turning point? And I think it would be a big misjudgment to believe that Austria is now closely before having a far-right president or government, which is not the case. Whatever leaf what's going on there is much more far-reaching development. And if you look at Brexit, the election of Trump, Freedom Party in Austria, Le Pen in France and so on and so on, then you will see that it's just the same pattern. And the drivers of these political developments and phenomenons are, at least that's my opinion, that we are living at a crossroad where globalization meets new technical capabilities, automatization, digitalization, and of course, migration also plays a significant role. And so what's going on is that so many people were profiting from globalization and digitalization. It's a huge opportunity. But then you said to your voters, we have trade, it's not you that have trade. We have failed, like you have failed. What did you mean by this? No, that's for sure. I think if you look at the survey which was accomplished here by the Rose Forum, then just 27%, if I understood it correctly, just 27% of the people believe that politicians care and are interested in the fate of common people. And so we have to consider this and find new answers and become much more open-minded because especially the center powers in politics haven't been engines of change or change drivers. And that's what people expect because they feel so threatened by the phenomenons I described before that they expect answers. And the right-wing populists are delivering answers. They don't have any solutions, but they have answers. And so that's something which is putting the traditional party system under pressure. And I think it's really a big change project. And if we accept that just the right-wing extremists or left-wing extremists offer procedures and recipes for how to organize change, then it's going to be a big mistake. I would like to clarify this point a little bit further down the road of this discussion. Let me stay with the diagnosis in Chile, for example. It's interesting that there are some parallels. There's a big disenchantment with the governing parties, with those who are responsible in guiding the country. And there's even political scientists saying that the same forces are at work that led to Brexit or to Trump because people need change. Would you say Chile is at a turning point? Before going to Chile, Susanne, if you may, how many of you believe in democracy? Raise your hand, please. It's made the biased audience. So group of 200, almost 200. How many of you, could you keep your hands raised just for, how many of you are registered in a political party? Please keep your hands up. So that's the problem. Room for improvement. Six people. In Chile, if you ask that same question, this is Davos, this is the elite, and we assume, and democracy without participation, it just doesn't work. At least that's what I've heard, and that's what I believe. In Chile, if I ask the same question, maybe one hand besides mine would be, mine, by the way, would have been down a year ago. So a group of entrepreneurs, we got together and we decided we need to change that because as long as we don't get involved, we're just gonna vote for two or three people or causes that other people put in front of us. And that's just social suicide. But what do you say with the social satisfaction that is also seen in Chile, and with the political forces that are power, that your country's at a turning point too, like many countries in Europe? So I just became a politician, it's hard to say it, but basically there's, it's more a question of statistics. But so I know you remember the bell curve, right? Mostly everything distributes normally. So what we think, this maybe just applied for Chile, but the lack of participation in the last election, only a third of the country voted from almost 90% of 10 years ago, that's very worrisome. So we believe that the people who are retrieving are the ones more close to the mean. We can make that, and that is not very rigorous, that you can see, but basically our bell curve looks pretty much like this. And when it looks like this, what happens, the extremes become over-represented, and the whole dialogue becomes entrenched, and that's super dangerous. Either extreme, at least, I don't know, I'm afraid about both, so basically our effort is we need to get the people to participate again. Although we don't yet talk about solutions, maybe for the audience, in order to understand your idea better, can you just in a few sentences say how you want to have an impact in democracy in Chile? We believe that if we have more citizens participating, proposing ideas, criticizing others, if we have representatives, really represented citizens, and not some interests that we don't, of course, it's not the case of the people in the panel, of course, but that we don't really understand, we will have more participation, and today it's a very limited scope, it's a very limited pool, to be a politician.  And it's not an ideological question, the day-to-day, today we met with the Minister of Canada, he had to quit his job two years before, his mother, his family could sustain him and his savings, everyone assumed he was a crook, but he started living outside supermarkets, introducing himself, it's impossible, it's impossible to be a politician, it's really hard, these guys deserve so much credit. So what's your idea, Nicholas? We need to, we have this image that it's so complicated, it's so Superman, and we have this image of a politician, it's so far away that it's very hard for a normal average citizen to relate to that. So what we're trying to do is to reduce, shrink that gap. So I'm a politician, I hope that everyone of you that sees me and says, if this guy's a politician, anyone can be a politician, right? And that's the thing, I'm an entrepreneur. It was supposedly, if you're an entrepreneur, now you have to be a professional politician, and that's really hard for the politicians and for the other, so you can't do anything besides in life and that, but that's not how it worked. That's now how citizens can evolve. We hope that we could be a bit more ease, give a bit more ease around the role of a politician.   And the people from Davos will connect to the app and we'll see if they like your ideas, and if they do, they will elect you, and if they don't, they will not, and if they do and you don't say what you said you were gonna do, they will kick you out, hopefully, four years from now. So it's a daring experiment, and in Chile, there will be presidential elections in October too, so we'll see. To finish off this diagnosis, Jan van der Mule, why are we even discussing this? You know, why has this debate got the momentum? Everybody says populism is on the rise, a word that we don't like in German anyway, but what's going on, what's your point of view? So what we read and hear every day, not infrequently at Davos too, even though we're all supposed to break with conventional wisdom here, is that across the world, the people are rising up against the establishment or the elites. But not everybody who criticizes elites is automatically a populist, and not all protest parties or new parties are a threat to democracy. We shouldn't equate the decline of traditional parties, including people's parties, with the decline of democracy in and of itself. I believe that only those people who say that they and only they represent what populists tend to call the real people are actually populists. So Donald Trump, yes, is a populist. Norbert Hofer is a populist. Marine Le Pen is a populist. But for instance, other parties which are often subsumed under this label, such as Podemos or Syriza, in my view, are not populists. You might not like their economic policies, you might say they're naive, they're misguided, but they're not anti-pluralists in the way that the real populists are. So in a weird way, and this might sound very counterintuitive, if we have more protest parties, if we have even more polarization, and if traditional parties sharpen their image as offering clear alternatives left and right, we might actually defeat populism.  So why the fuss, you know, some people say? Why these headlines that I quoted in the beginning of my introduction? Well, let me make two points in response to that. First of all, populists as anti-pluralists really are dangerous for democracy. They really are not like other democratic politicians. They will always say that all other contenders for power are morally illegitimate. So I don't wanna repeat all the things that Donald Trump said about his opponent, but clearly he was always immediately making it a moral argument, saying this is a bad character. It wasn't just policy disagreement. And that's something that only populists do. And less obviously, they also say that all those among the citizens, among the people themselves, if you like, who don't agree with their definition of the real people, somehow can have their status as belonging to the people put into question. Just think about Nigel Farage, still during the night of Brexit, saying that this had been a victory for what he called real people. Now where does that leave the 48% who wanted to stay in the EU? They're unreal. They're not quite part of the real British people. So populists always exclude at the level of the elites, but also at the level of people in a way that others don't. Just one more point if I may, because we all have this image now, Brexit, Trump, and as you hinted, next Wilders, next Le Pen, and then maybe Frau Capetrie. But this kind of image obscures one important factor. Nigel Farage did not bring about Brexit all by himself. He needed his Boris Johnson, he needed his Michael Gough, his establishment conservative figures. Just as much as Donald Trump needed his establishment Republican figures like Ingrid and Christie. And if you think of a counter example like Norbert Hofer, the reason he didn't make it is that enough conservative Austrians said, no, you can't vote for this guy. And yet I want to understand furthermore how we've gotten here. Before we delve into the analysis, I'd like Patrick Schabbat to give the frame of this question via his drawings, please. Stay with us. It's a pleasure. So yeah, this is a new era. And really a new sun is rising over the ocean and the future looks orange. That used to be an ad, I think. The future looks orange. What happened? So what brought us there? And of course, you think of 2008. I mean the financial elites, I didn't say Davos, they put us in a big mess, really. It was, they broke the bank. They broke the bank and that was a lot of destruction. That was a lot of pain and a lot of anger. So we saved the banks and then we adopted austerity. Greece was bankrupt and then they had to vote on the bailout plan that was pushed on them. So they had a choice. The choice was austerity or bankruptcy. Which form of poverty do we prefer? So more anger and more pain. Meanwhile, so public expenses were cut everywhere and meanwhile the high class continued to fly. And among globalization and the technological revolution, which was causing more pain, inequalities continued to grow. So the top one person didn't get it. This guy is not getting it. Yeah, why pay for roads and bridges when I hardly use them? So that's the problem. So populism rose and what's standing now? Angela Merkel, she seems to be still standing but not much around her. Now, let me add, thank you, Patrick. Now, let me add a self-critical point. I mean, we are here discussing the big question about democracy, but the parties who challenged the system are not included in this debate. Is this maybe part of the problem that also doubles the doubles man, the finest doubles man as an emblem for the elite is part of the problem. So Nicholas, you have been a young global leader too. Do you feel guilty that we are at the point where we are now? I did feel guilty, not anymore, because I'm in politics. I belong to a party. And you guys, you feel guilty, irresponsible leaders. So if you don't participate and why didn't participate, basically three reasons. So we don't want to be linked to an ideology that we don't really understand or subscribe or trust. And what's right and left? Are you kidding me? Second thing, there's no competition.  Any similarity to any other country is just a coincidence. And the third thing, because it's not transparent, we don't want, you know, we want to know what's the flow of money. And there's been a lot of problems in Chile in politics because, you know, no one really knows and there were some bad mechanisms to finance campaigns. So basically we said instead of build a party from ideology, which we know that no one anyway will subscribe, why don't we try it the other way around? We went around, we talked to 2,000 citizens.  They care about democracy, they're worried about Chile, they understand the role of political parties, but they don't participate. Why? Because of the reasons I mentioned before. So this party said, okay, well, let's try it, let's build a platform that is linked to the, you know, by the laws and let's build a political party, but let's take away ideology, let's make it extremely transparent, accountable, candidates, they can say whatever they want. I mean, almost, right? It has to be, but then they need to respond to what they say. Well, critics say that it would be difficult without a political program, and yet you've escaped my question because it was that maybe, you know, some politicians have lived too much in a bubble together with people from the economy. Now, Mr. Ken, looking at Austria, you've presented a 150 pages plan A, focusing on the creation of jobs. You said we have to create 200,000 jobs until the year 2020, and at least. So your opponents already called you the Trump in the slim fit version because you've been promising so much. My question is why now? Why so late? Why haven't you listened to the people's needs earlier? Yeah, honestly speaking, I'm personally in politics since seven months, so. I know, I was referring to the party. Don't take it as a personal accusation. But I think we have to award some misunderstandings, and I would like to come back to what Nicolás said because my perception of the political situation in Europe and especially in Austria is really different because if you look at the federal presidential election which we had, and if you look at the rerun, which shows that van der Pelen, which was the centrist candidate former head of the Green Party, by the way, has won even at a higher marching than after the second round. So, and what the major takeaway was that a lot of people were participating in the elections. The level of participation was even higher than six, seven months before. And if you look at the overall situation, my party, the Social Democratic Party, was one of the biggest parties in Europe. I think in the late 70s, we had around 700,000 members. To date, just 180,000, and due to demographic issues, it will further decline, that's for sure. So, but nevertheless, parties are declining, membership is declining, but the interest in politics and participation in politics is growing. And what we have seen is a significant grassroot movement, which was the basis and the fundament for the victory of Mr. van der Pelen. But what we see also is that these kinds of campaigns have also their downsides. Because if you just look, for example, at Podemos, how they are struggling, and if you look at Mr. Corbin, then it's really a particularly interesting phenomenon, because when you meet a guy, he's pretty enthusiastic about the new members. And he has, I think, the biggest party in Europe today is Labour, with 650,000 members. But that makes something out of the movement, because he has got a lot of members but he's losing permanent public support, which is interesting. What do you do that people trust again in your capability to solving people's problem? For example, your opponents already said, well, this has been the start number 100, restart number 100 for Osphia. That's always the case. But I'm a little bit... That's dangerous if you put it that way.  But in politics, there is a certain reluctance to even discuss concepts. For example, I published an essay about the economic politics of Europe in the Frankfurt Argument, etc. It was 25,000 types, and the answer I received from the political opponents was via Twitter, which is 140 signs. So that's one of the big challenges. And I don't even believe that it's intransparent because so many information is available, but nobody cares, because it's much more about emotions. And if you are going to ask me a question on how it could work, then it's leadership, it's change, and then, of course, responsibility. And the change momentum is particularly important because if you talk to the voters of these parties, for example, the main answer I get is, okay, I would like to have change. And then you ask, which kind of change? Doesn't matter, change. And the same is true if you talk to them about the motives, why they are electing and voting for these parties. For example, if I do so, I'm permanently meeting people, and when you discuss with them and with him and them, and telling them, okay, but if you vote for that kind of party, your situation will go from bad to worse. And the answer I received, just one sentence, and the answer I received is, I don't care. I absolutely know that they are not improving the situation, but what I would like to have, I would like to see you, and I would like to see the elites on your knees. That's the point. It's all about getting the right message across to the right people and to reaching out for voters. So when we've seen what Patrick Schapat all summarized in his outline, and your party has been on the decline as well, there's big topics in Switzerland also always or the top level of what people are worried about, like migration, like foreigners, like joblessness. So what do you do that? Your message comes across more clearly. I think it has a lot to do with social media and the new technologies. Traditional parties are used to discuss a lot, to accept also quite a huge integration of citizens, but the social media under well a superficial discussion, that's something which is new. Democracy is complicated. And if you look all over Europe, where we really had the change, perhaps citizens could vote once in four years. And so it's very easy to use new technologies, to use emotions. Well, the traditional parties did wrong. For our citizens, we don't have a better life than four years ago. So the voice for change is quite high. And therefore I think what we really can do better is that we have a much bigger integration of our citizens, but also to tell them, well, Nicholas, it's not so easy. Politicians are members of the state under you have a responsibility. And to decide is very difficult.  I think it will, well, just to say, oh, yeah, it could be the mayor of Zurich or of Davos. Well, it sounds quite interesting, but when you're in a function. To be the candidate. The citizens, you need to get more, 50 plus one of the votes. To be a candidate, that's already something, but imagine you will be elected. Then you take over responsibility. Then I can tell you the trouble starts. The trouble starts. And that interesting development you're going on. All what you promised will be checked. And that's perhaps where traditional parts, we are used what we promise, we do what we promise. We have to guarantee or at least to try. I was talking about Chile. And for many populist parties, it was easy to say, oh, they have a lot of promises. And afterwards the checks, this was something for academia. Also something for media. They also have to be checked. Is their life really better than what we've seen in the last couple of years? And in Switzerland I think, well, we are used with a permanent discussion, a very high integration of our population in parliament. We have different parties in government. We have four parties in a coalition government. So actually our democracy is strong. Although we also have some movements of people who think we are not the best government of the world. We think we are pretty good. Allow me to add one, allow me to add one question because preparing for this session, I was trying to look at Switzerland from the outside perspective, checking the media in foreign countries. And there I found an article about Switzerland and they were quoting a Swedish think tank called Timbro and to be transparent. And the objective of that think tank is to promote free trade and free society. But then they put Switzerland on place number five, you know, on his populism index, right after Hungary, Greece, Italy, Poland. So what would you say as a president of the Swiss Confederation, is this findings disputable, observed or true? Because of the Swiss people's party, I'm asking this question. Well, I think every statistic is false because it's normally influenced by those who gave the money for the statistic. I think in Switzerland, also the Swiss popular party, which is a right wing party, well, they have a majority, they have, but sometimes they also have a good attitude because they've put the finger on an issue which really is one. So they are in marketing elements also better than other traditional parties. So you're learning from them? Yes, I think we can also learn from them because we are too much complicated sometimes. We would like to, well, we make an analysis, a second report, a third report, we discuss a lot.  And then really things happen when you are elected, when you have to take over responsibility, then you have to be credible. For us it's more important. Also the right wing party, they are a member of government. Also as a minority, they are element of the system of the power. And therefore I think here media also have a role to play whenever parties or people are part of the power of the political elite, they have to fulfill a role and be credible. Not only criticise, that's very easy. Really find solutions and improve the citizen's life. Jan-Wenemülle, would you say that the Swiss system could be also role model to have some reconciliation of what's going on right now with this inclusive government system? So it's sometimes said that populists can be good for democracy because ultimately they want more participation and they call for referendums and so on. I think that's a mistake. I don't think they have any principled interest in more participation. They sometimes opportunistically call for a referendum but interestingly they basically always know the right answer beforehand and the people simply have to check off the right answer. Just think about what happened in Hungary recently where Viktor Orban with great fun far did a referendum on whether Brussels could settle migrants in Hungary. He basically lost the referendum for procedural reasons. Not enough people participated but it didn't matter because you already knew the right answer and basically then went back to Brussels and said, look, it's true that there was a bit of an issue with not enough people meeting the quorum but whoever stayed at home really agreed with me, the majority is with me. I know what the true Hungarian people want and this is my great victory. There's a big difference between these one-off referendums where basically the right answer is deduced from a symbolic construction of the real people by the populist and a system where you have continuous participation like in Switzerland and where it becomes real that people have many choices, they can vote on different issues. It's not like Brexit. Once in 10 years we give you a chance to say something and then people feel like, yeah, finally I can stick it to the establishment for once. That's very different from continuous participation where then innocent people also become much more savvy about where to get information, develop certain habits of discussing with others, become more mobilized. In that context, I remember a headline in The Economist, it was just before the Brexit saying that direct democracy is a suitable form for unimportant things like the Eurovision Song Contest, but it's not suitable to govern a country let alone a continent. Is this part of the problem that if we talk about democracy, we don't talk about direct democracy? Like a fig leaf somehow. The Eurovision Song Contest is very important, I think, in the cultural integration of Europe. Don't distract, don't distract. Just a footnote. No, I think it depends what you mean by direct democracy. If you just, again, mean a one-off referendum every 20 years and then you say, oh, the people have finally spoken, that's very different from saying, let's give people more chances to deliberate continuously, be involved over time, and then also, as happens in Switzerland, give them a second chance sometimes and say, actually, we voted on this, but now there's a counter-movement, a counter-referendum to reverse something. That's just very different and I think we should not malign direct democracy now on the basis of Brexit or we shouldn't fall back into, sort of, basically, 19th century mass psychology, where we say, oh, ordinary people, they're all full of resentments, you know, they can't understand complex problems and basically, you know, we should consult them as little as possible. And yet these needs have to be addressed. I think we all agree on that. People's needs have to be addressed in politics and looking at what's going on in Europe. As you mentioned, also, Frau Nationale, Marine Le Ben, she will be in the run-off elections in France. Alternative for Germany is surging at the expense of Merkel's CDU. Gehard Wilders is very good in the surveys at the moment. So what is happening right now, Patrick Chappatt, what is happening when those parties that challenge the system are becoming even more powerful? So where did we leave? I think we left Angela Merkel standing. Yeah, she's still standing. But the earthquake, that earthquake we're talking about, started, of course, when the British prime minister had the strange idea of asking the people if they wanted to remain in the European Union. And so the people said, no, no. And what are they going to do now? Who are they going to blame for their problems now? And that got populists excited all over Europe. And then the next big test was, of course, Austria. You know where Austria is on the map of Europe? It's on the far right of Europe. Sorry, Mr. Kern. Guard Blanche. I did not bring a cartoon of my president today, but. She called it artificial freedom or so. Artistic full freedom, yes. We just have to bear with it, OK? Well, I did not bring a cartoon of my president. But Switzerland is not far away from Austria, right? In Europe. And it's true that I am Swiss. So I can talk about Switzerland. For once, we were well ahead of Europe and the rest of the world in terms of populism and nationalism. For the last 15 years, Swiss politics has been influenced very much by the populist party, SVRP. And on February 12, we're going to vote. The Swiss are going to vote to simplify the naturalization of third generation immigrants. Third generation immigrants. So this is the grandsons and the granddaughters of people who immigrated 80 years ago. It's really hard to get Swiss citizenship. This guy on the left, he's going to make it, because he's meeting all the criteria. I want to become Swiss, because I don't like foreigners. Sorry about that. So yeah, it all back to that. You can say it's a vibrant democracy. That's true. And maybe if the Brits or other Europeans, maybe if Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their dog, Tubby, here, maybe if they had had a chance to, as we just mentioned, to maybe vote more often on tough subjects like foreigners, the way we do all the time in Switzerland. Every three months, we vote on foreigners, asylum in Switzerland. Maybe they would have felt more comfortable staying in the European Union. Or maybe they would never have gotten in just like the Swiss. We don't know. And that's the tough question about democracy. It's the line between not enough of it and too much of it. Anyway, Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their dog, Tubby, just started something really big. They start on maybe a new revolution. Maybe it's the era of a new globalization, the globalization of nationalism. Thank you, Patrick. Well, I know, young men and women, you're quite sceptic. But still, let me take up what Doris Loetard said concerning that we also can learn from people criticizing the system. It's a disputable premise, I know. But couldn't we also say that populist movements somehow are a savior for democracy because they challenge the system so much? For example, Nikolas Scheer, one candidate of your party, Dodos, he's a comedian. Nikolas Larin, he's running for president as a comedian, like Pepe Grillo in the Cinque Stelle movement in Italy, challenging the system because nowadays everything or anything seems possible. So are you somehow a copycat also of all this anti-establishment movement? We're going to have many Pepe Grillos. That's a big difference and many non-Pepe Grillos. But just for the record, I really like you guys and I really admire what you're doing. Don't get me wrong. And I'm just talking for Chile and Latin America. But the thing is that, so if I told you that there was a party in which you basically, if you want to be part of it, you download the app. And for that, you just need to tell us where you are.  And as easy to get in, as easy to get out anytime. And you will be able to provide feedback to potential candidates. And the candidates, the only requisite is that they have to tell who they are, what they think, what they want to do. And they put their candidacies. And you could crowd fund their campaigns so you can give them five bucks, Swiss francs or whatever. And you define your ideology. You define your own ideology. How many of you would be willing to be part of that party? Raise your hand. Just one, two, three, four, five, come on, come on. Did you have your hands raised before? No, right, that's why you raised it. OK, great. So I think everything else constant, these five citizens being part of the system, improve the system. But yet, and yet, would you agree that also in Chile, of the Pinera and Botulet, looking at October's election, the most promising candidate, too, is not a long-serving politician. So would you say that this era has changed? Well, yes. Because technology will change this. Of course it will. And for the point of the Chilean Pepe Grillo, which is not exactly, but the last week, a friend of mine actually came to me and very angry. And he said, you are completely responsible. You're going to ruin the democracy. You're allowing a guy from the TV just to show up on the platform. And he started as a comedian. And I got so mad.  He says, is he a citizen? Yes. Is he 35 years? Yes. Was he in jail? No.  Either you cannot vote for him, or you run for him, or you find another candidate. But you know what? If you're not willing to do any of those three things, I can tell you exactly what I told them here. But he was a good friend. You know, be quiet, please, right? Because you're not helping. By the way, we want to strengthen democracy. And I think we all agree that everything else equal the more people that participate. And it's better for democracy. And I think Twitter is helping us. It's harming us. Why? Because there are no consequences. You can say the other guy is a criminal. You can just lie and like, no, he said it on Twitter. So it really doesn't matter. No, that's completely wrong. It should matter. So we want to make it matter. And we want to bring social media to the real world and have it have consequences. Please allow me to stick to the core question. You know, what impact does the rise of anti-establishment movement have on politics as such? Christian Kern, when you showed your program Plan A, you also spoke of an idea, and you want to talk to the European Union about this idea, that they allow you to prioritize locals, i.e. Austrians over foreigners when it comes down to job applications. And the reactions were quite strong, saying what has happened that a social democrat actually suggests a nativist approach to politics. So has this already been a concession through the pressure that you have from right? No, it was perceived as a concession, but it was something completely different, because that was a consequence of the analysis of the fundamental situation, which is in Austria, very specific, for example. We have last year a very acceptable job dynamic, have a record level of jobs in Austria, but unfortunately also a record level of unemployment. And if you look at the causes of this development, you see that there is a significant movement of foreigners, especially from the Eastern European countries, to our labor market, leading to the situation that the number of unemployed foreigners is increasing and increasing and increasing. So that was just one aspect, and it has a natural explanation, because income and wages in Bulgaria, for example, is 20% of Austria, or in Romania it's 30% of Austria. So what are the people doing? They are coming to Austria and trying to improve their life situation. That's easily to understand, but this unemployment issue has significant consequences for the psychology of the Austrians, and this is one of the main motivations and triggers to support the freedom party, because again it's about psychology. And what you have to see also is that the countries who are exporting the unemployment to the Eastern labor market are the countries who deny to say, OK, we are participating in a solitary solution for the migration issue. Reallocation of refugees is possible. And yet this situation is not new. Again, if you're new in politics, I can't blame you. But still, wouldn't you say that these concessions have been a result of the pressure from the right to do something, to listen to the people? So have they been a game changer? Yeah, we have to. And I think they are working as a catalyst, of course. That's for sure. And we cannot longer accept that. It's a consequence of the search of right-wing populism. I'm honestly saying this. But there are two or three additional aspects. And number one is that these countries are net receivers, I'm talking about. And now they have orders that they are going to bring down the corporate tax to 9%. So this is a concept which is not possible to maintain. That's my feeling. And so Europe has to answer some tough questions. And what I'm doing is saying, OK, we are absolutely pro-European. But because we are pro-European, it must be possible to say, OK, there are developments which are going definitely in the wrong direction. And freedom of movement is one of the major pillars of the union. But if we don't discuss that, I'm more restyling that, OK, you can discuss with me. Or in six months down the road, two years down the road, we are talking with somebody completely different.  Just a quick final question. Your opponents, they say, now the governing parties, at first, they blocked our ideas. They were against it. Then they copied it. And now they sell it as if they were their own. What do you say to this? Is this just rhetoric? And no, of course it is. That's what people always say, OK, they can have the record and the benefit OK, but it's a reasonable proposal. And so that's the reason why I'm going for it. You've already, yes, go ahead. I think when we come back to your first question, I think really we can learn also from all these populist parties or movements. President Trump, a lot of his success was also the awareness that globalization was not good for every American citizen. He was aware of bad feelings of a lot of people who lost their jobs. And today, look here, what happens in Davos? A lot of people are aware, OK, we must have more inclusiveness. Also when globalization is a reality, we can't stop it. We must care about the citizen, the normal worker, who must also have a profit of these movements. And perhaps here, we have a little bit neglected this. In Europe, I would say on migration, it was the same element. We were aware, OK, we have more migration. We are very open, very intercultural. But also be aware, OK, integration is a very difficult task for every government. And here, perhaps, we did not listen correctly. And I think therefore, all these movements and tendencies, people who tell us, take care about that, that's also a chance for governments, a chance for the traditional parties. OK, yes, here, perhaps, we must buy parliament, buy open discussions, buy more integration of the citizen, create awareness. No, we care about this and that. And we are not elites far away from the daily life of our population. And I think this is very important to have more credibility, to have acceptance. And then I think a lot of these populistic parties will be phased out in a couple of years. What I think, movements like yours, only one element or one political element is not good enough. You will have a program, you must have a program. And I hope that a lot of movements will also have a program in a couple of years. Because I think for the political participation, for democracy, it's important that you have a concept, not only for jobs, but also for health care, for an idea of economic growth, an idea of many important elements of people's life. And I think this is important. Sure. Yeah. Just before I give you the quote, would you go so far as to say that the anti-establishment movement and parties can be a saving grace for democracy, or would this be too much of a... I think, well, in Switzerland we have already a big participation of citizens. We have with the direct democracy a system which was refined over 120 years. But I think there's still room of improvement. We can also learn and try to give credible answers to a lot of people who have not a big knowledge of politics and who have their daily life. Many young people who don't care about political parties, but they have every day's life. And here we must improve this life. And then I think we got also a lot of credibility to the old system. Now, Nikolaus, I see that you're very thoughtful right now, maybe rethinking all of your plans. But let me get back to you.  You have been, you know, liberal ideas. But obviously also it's been difficult to reach out to the public, to reach the poor in the country. So when you've listened to what they all said on the panel, do you think that you, with the pressure that's going on in your country, too, you can come up with something that is convincing? As Thoreas Loutard said, president. Yes. I mean, that's why we're doing it. We may be wrong, of course.  I believe in democracy. I respect other people's idea. And it's not that I have my own ideology. The candidates must have the ideology, but we're separating ideology from the party. We all agree that ideology is what's ripping us apart. We all agree that the problem of democracy is not participation. You had 700,000 people, now you have 180, that's a big problem. What I can tell you is that we started four months ago and we have 5,000 people that have gone to register in our party, 3,800 of them are under 29.  And by the way, it's not a movement. It's a party in movement. And what I really, what I most like about todos, by the way, the name of the party is everyone. So that's the spirit. So yeah, everyone can, like Nike, right? If you have a body, you're an athlete. Here, if you have the children, you can participate. But what I love about this project is that we're not blaming these guys. We're blaming you guys and us. I'm not, but now I'm part of the system. So you're now the problem. And as long as everyone is out, this is not gonna work. I want to end up with a quote from Tom Friedman. He basically said, when living in a time when one can destroy everything, but everyone can fix anything. It will be a nice final quote, but we still have some minutes left to discuss. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought, so that was my last minute. So I'll just continue, Jan van der Mule, to come back to that core question. The rise of anti-establishment parties, what effect do they have on politics as such? So what a letdown after this beautiful aphorism back to boring academia. Terrible. Make it fun, come on. No pressure, right? So I would just go back to what you said earlier. I have a hard time now taking Donald Trump as the authentic person who tells us about what the losers of globalization really want. And he is the spokesperson for the white working class in the US. Let's not forget that the people who are really worst off in the US and who objectively I think are the real losers of globalization did not vote for Donald Trump in the US. Secondly, in terms of the big question, can these parties have a good effect? Well, it's true that for instance, Podemos, which for me isn't a popular party anyway, but for some people is they got young people, well-educated young people back to the polls. Even the alternative for Deutschland got people to engage again in the political process who seemed to have basically checked out before. Now for most of us, that's a good thing. The only thing is ideally these really populous parties, like the IFD, would cease to be populist. They would cease to be anti-pluralist. They would basically say, we stop saying that all the other parties are, as the phrase then goes, Einheitsparteien or fake parties or Angela Merkel is effectively already a dictator. There will be a nice outcome because then we would in a sense, more people would feel represented. These parties would basically strengthen democracy, but they probably wouldn't come to power unless others agree to have coalitions with them, which they should only do, and here I, in a sense, complement chancellors' account, if the other parties then have catalogs of criteria and say, yes, we might work with you, but only if you stop seizing really populist, if you stop inciting hatred against minorities, if you tell certain people that don't really belong, et cetera, et cetera. That's maybe an uplifting end, except that in history, it has hardly ever happened. I can't think of a single example of a populist party that decided, well, okay, we're gonna cease to be populist. And in a sense, one can see why. Why would Marine Le Pen stop doing what she does? It's going swimmingly. Seems to be a recipe for success. So as long as they're populists, I think we should say that, yes, sometimes they can be helpful, but we're not gonna copy them, and we're not gonna do coalitions with them unless they basically shed their anti-democratic baggage. Okay, and nevertheless, I'm trying to find an uplifting end, so let's take some resolutions. I thought there was a uplifting. Yeah, well. So did I. The year is still young, so I would like to have a final round of questions and hearing from you just quickly. What in concrete terms will you do over the next 12 months to fight for democracy, to make a strong country? Kirsten? I think very important is, as I mentioned at the beginning, to restore the powers of the center, and which is extremely important because we can't leave the concept of bringing change to the populists. So I think the center parties really have become a little bit complacent, and what we have to do is to define ourselves as an engine for change and for encountering the real challenges, which is globalization, digitalization, because there are so many chances, so many opportunities, and we have to have a positive feeling to explain to people, so this is going to be great if we do the right things, if we do the right decisions. And then, by the way, there is another aspect which is about political culture in general, because you mentioned before, I think, showing us your drawings that it's about political correctness, and I think it's very important to keep the concept of political correctness because I don't see anything good in humiliating women in misbehaving against minorities because that's what I'm teaching my children at home, and so therefore it's important to say, in the end, it's about ethics and moral. Christian, when you say that the center parties have become too complacent, I'll challenge you a little bit. I give you a few seconds time to think, but you said that we have to learn also from anti-establishment movements because they get their message across. The most convincing slogans of 2016 was America First or Take Back Control. So with what slogan will you fight for democracy, do it slowly, Tard. Well, in Switzerland, this year we won't have elections, so I'm not responsible for a slogan, but I think for Switzerland, as a small country, for us, openness was always an element of our success, economically, socially, culturally. So we will be the opposite program, and I think inclusiveness for us, the feeling of integration, the feeling of sustainable solutions, that's, I think, value we want to defend all over the world, and I think also we have a lot of dialogue beginning from China up to the Arab Spring countries in North Africa who are in a process of democracy, who try to follow the rules of law, to have governance, and I think that's also something we should not forget. It's not only the United States or other countries. We have a lot of countries who are on the move. Also sometimes thanks to social media that a lot of people now have access to a lot of information, and Switzerland will also try to be a moderator with our advice or try to have governance in many systems who allow citizens to participate, who allow to have institutions to allow that fundamental rights of citizens are recognized and lived. I guess we'll need some time to boil that down to a catchy slogan, but there's some time until the next elections. Nikol Shia, with what slogan will you put your energy into fighting for democracy? I'm so optimistic of our future. One, because we're really bad at the moment, and I don't believe in Murphy's law, and because I really think this is an amazingly challenging point on history. I mean, we agree this is the fourth industrial revolution. We're minimizing, I think, the potential of that. Of course, there are going to be winners and losers, but I think there are enough reasons to be optimistic and to be pessimistic. And your slogan? It's difficult to find slogans here. You said you have to learn from the anti-establishment parties. Participate? Democracy first. OK, we've got one.  You should draw that one. Or maybe first Jan-Werner Müller, what slogan would you suggest? So in terms of people that I or maybe you can actually reach, I know it's not very inspiring, but I think it's very important. Don't collaborate. In other words, American Republicans stop normalizing Trump. Don't let him get away with what he's doing. In Europe, if you're Marguerite or François Fillon or Jose Hoffa, don't basically reinforce the populist narrative. Don't do what led to Trump and what led to Brexit. Namely, supposedly establishment conservative actors effectively collaborating with populists. I think this is what we need to keep our eye on, not just the extremists, not just the populists, but the potential. And I use that word with historical resonances, collaborators. So again, a very skeptical note. Christian Kern, you've had some time to think. Yeah, unfortunately, my slogan is not as serious as yours. I would like to pick it from the unforgettable Elvis Presley, who said a little less conversation, a little more action. Wow, okay. Christian Kern, Elvis Presley's slogan for the Austrian Chancellor. I think we like that. Patrick Schabbat, we have to bring this debate to a close. I give you one more little couple of us for one cartoon. Yeah, and you know what? I don't have the cartoon, but it's in today's New York Times. So you can grab it on your way out. That was a good teaser. I can describe the cartoon. It's a panel. It's a Davos panel with very distinguished people. And then the title of the session reads, How to Thrive in an Anti-Elite World. And my idea is, to me, Davos sounds a bit like the Sunday Mass. So people go to the Mass. They have good intentions, good will, and then they go back to business on Monday. So you can see a lot of the discussions in Davos are, of course, about what we're talking about and the big impact this is having on everyone. But then when you look at a lot of the business community, you can see a sign blinking, which reads opportunity. And so the answer will have to come from the politicians. And I think globalization and the tech revolution, those are, this is a global world distribution of wealth. So the answer has to be political and it has to be global. That's my point. Thank you, Patrick. And luckily we have the Elvis Presley slogan with a little less conversation. So I am optimistic that we'll get down to work and you'll all be held accountable, of course. Well, that brings our discussion to a close, but I do hope that you continue this debate online or via Twitter or via Facebook. Please send us your comments and questions. And with this, I would like to thank to our fine panelists, our esteemed guests and also a heartfelt thank you to you all to have joined this session. Thank you.


With those three girls, I think all of us are probably known and have a reputation It's like I'm the one from Jodie Shaw. You're the loved-up one from Love Island. You're the crazy girl from the Valleys I used to be the crazy girl from the Valleys, but I feel like it's more like Sexy mum now Yeah, I think mine's probably the bit of the quiet one from Jodie Shaw believe it or not Did you just say the quiet one from Jodie Shaw? I don't think you were the quiet one.  Yeah, I'd never want to be that one You're the original. Yeah, but I always sort of wanted to be like the other girls because you got to think when we all started It was me Charlotte, Holly and Vicky, but then I was sort of in the background And I think like my reputation now is probably oh, yeah, that's the one that was in the relationship for them I just I just think of you crazy Sophie from Jodie Shaw Yeah, you're still like Jodie Shaw. Does that annoy you? Because like I might be known as the crazy girl from Jodie Shaw like sometimes people don't want to work with a crazy one So it is a lot different and you might get different word of me and you might get different word of me So it works to me. I've had it sometimes and sometimes it doesn't work. I'd say Olivia has the best reputation right now She's like the marriage If only they knew! I think it is because I was always loved up like I was just like I was the weird loved-up one And I think because I found Alex like and that is we're seen as a couple as a two But like you said to Jodie Shaw They gave us such a big platform and there's such a huge brand like Love Island I'm still Olivia from Love Island. Yeah And it is hard to sort of change that not that you really want to you're that bothered But it does affect how people look at you like you're the girl from reality, aren't you? Yeah, you did reality TV. You're the girl that slept with someone on TV. Yeah, I still get that Did you do that? You slept with him, but he's your husband. Yes And I think it's but it's the same thing as like you did those things on Jodie Shaw You did those things on the valleys. I never slept with anyone ever. Not sleep with someone, but you were drunk. I was crazy on the valleys like absolutely But you were younger then so why should that you know be who you are now? Yeah, exactly But for some reason people won't let go of that.  I feel like people look at me and think why is she dressed like that because she's a mom I don't feel like I'm every day mum. Do you know what I mean? Sometimes I'm like oh god, can I post that because you worry about your reputation?  I'm like I I'm still young like I could still show my body off if I want to do I mean that doesn't make me any less of like a good mum. Yeah, you know, I've obviously got drunk I fell out of clubs and people think that's bad. But in reality, that's what we all do It's normal. We just build. Yeah, exactly Yeah, do you think like as like women we should do society expect us to worry about our reputation more than guys?  Do you know what I mean? So it's crazy how like he didn't get any hit for that. Yeah, but I got for that because I'm with a male friend Like if we're talking about reputations that like you wouldn't want to have as a person is someone that's nasty So many people have like a nasty For example like P's Morgan like he's just nasty in here. All right. Who's that Helen Woods?  I'd rather be branded a slug than it's like the fence that I got and people talk about certain other celebs or whatever I go. Oh my god. She's awful. Yeah Imagine someone seeing that If you're being told you're nasty For example Helen Woods will then go be nasty and she'll use it to get fresh you'll get PR from it I don't I do get why people if they're being called a slug and then they go out and pretend that they are I get that and it's sad, but I get it. It's just sort of live up to your reputation I suppose and it's the same isn't it living up to your reputation, but sometimes it's not true I think sometimes I do it like sometimes I might be the girl from Jolly Shore So I'll be the girl like Jolly Shore like I'll be like that, but then in reality I'm not like that all the time.  She's not even like she isn't yeah I'm like, I mean we have got good ones. Like we're not known as like the horrible girls


All right, look, look at where we are.  Let's go somewhere else because I'm running out of room. So we're going to take all of our amniotes and what you're going to see is this. We're going to take our amphibians. Amniotic amphibians are going to be our out group and that is the frog, the salamander, those guys. All, everybody on this page is going to be a tetrapod, meaning it has four limbs. So you can imagine how that's going to be unique from the fish, which have fins. And then we said, okay, what is going to unite all the critters that are coming next and it's the amniotic egg. We've talked about the amniotic egg a little bit, but the amniotic egg is this amazing structure. Amphibians still have to have water to lay their eggs in. If they don't have water, their eggs will dry out and they cannot reproduce. So they're stuck, at least migrating to a water source to reproduce. If they don't have a water source, they're not going to reproduce. So someone along the line developed, mutated into an amniotic, to having an amniotic egg and I just need to show you a picture of this amniotic egg. It's a chicken egg, that's all. And what it is, you have a shell, you have a food source, you have your little critter in there and then you've got a series of membranes and various structures that ultimately function to provide oxygen. I mean, think about it. Like a chicken egg, sure you need to keep it warm, no doubt. You've got to keep it moist as well and you've got to allow gas exchange because that's a critter in there. So it needs to get rid of its carbon dioxide and it needs to get oxygen in.  I was about to say frog, but could it grow into a baby frog? That's a great question for an exam. No, because frogs, that's a great true falsi. Correct the falsi. Frogs have amniotic eggs. No, they don't. I don't remember what I was saying, but they don't have amniotic eggs so they cannot get one. I don't even know, but let's go over here. The first people to get the amniotic egg is the reptiles. So we could say reptiles are coming up, but watch what I'm going to do to our cladogram. This is going to make you mad because we like to think of ourselves as mammals of ever. I'm going to throw mammals here. Mammals are going to branch off of this tree and watch what happens to my reptile group. This is reptiles. In fact, the ancestor that had the amniotic egg was more similar to reptiles than mammals and we got various characteristics like hair, mammaries, warm-bloodedness, blah, blah, blah. In amniotic egg reptile land, there's a couple of things that happened. First of all, they all, in addition to having an amniotic egg, they have a special skull. And I want to show you a picture of this special skull because I think it just will help you visualize. Check out this hole right here. This is a diapsid skull and the reptiles have that in common. All of them have this diapsid skull. But then birds have a diapsid skull and non-avian reptiles share a common ancestor. So we'll call it an avian reptile and here's the crazy part. Back here, in fact, I want to make this into a branch that branches into the avian reptile and cross this one out in the middle and have it branch into a dead extinct branch of dinosaurs. What? True story, avian reptiles, birds, are basically the living ancestors of an ancestor that gave rise to dinosaurs and avian reptiles, seriously. And they share characteristics. They share skull characteristics and I have to show it to you. It's called the incredible ant orbital finestra, but of course. And when you take anatomy with me, seriously, are there more names to learn? Look, ant orbital finestra, there it is, it's a hole. And it's a hole that is found in dinosaur skulls and bird skulls. How's that even possible? Think about the word, ant orbital, ant anterior to the orbit, eye orbit. Ant orbital finestra is hole.  That's how they know, that's one of the pieces of evidence that suggests that birds are nothing more, nothing more than living dinosaurs. Fantastic. So let's write that in here, ant orbital finestra, wow. In our non-avian reptiles, let's go back to our diversity sheet and look at all of our non-avian reptiles. Holy di-ver-se-t. Wow, there's a lot of those guys. And then we have to have a little smattering of avian reptiles, which, I mean, avian reptile watching, avian dinosaurs, that's not, those aren't reptiles, settle down. There is the end of my avian dinosaur reptile bird land. We used to think birds were their own thing, but they're not, they're reptiles. Okay, did you get that idea? I think so. Let's take a look at our mammals and we're going to call it good.