Is it time to rethink democracy? | Head to Head

from the brexit vote in britain a victory for real people to the election of donald trump a new vision will govern our land people around the world are rebelling against the world in an increasingly turning to the political extremes so what lies behind the recent rise in populist honest and authoritarianism my guest tonight is an economist who blames the political establishment in her new book edge of chaos why democracy is failing to deliver economic growth and how to fix it she believes democracy is in crisis and has some pretty controversial suggestions for how to save it I'm near the Husson and I've come to the Oxford Union to go head-to-head with economist and best-selling author dambisa Moyo I'll ask her why she seems to blame democracy for falling economic growth and whether her plan to save democracy by giving some voters more power and influence than others could end up killing it instead tonight I'll be joined by an Pettifer author of the production of money and one of only a handful of economists who correctly predicted the financial crisis Jamie Whyte director of research at the Institute of Economic Affairs the IEA and a former New Zealand politician and philosophy lecturer and Jason Hickel an anthropologist at the London School of Economics and author of the divide a brief guide to global inequality and its solutions [Music] [Applause] ladies and gentlemen please welcome dambisa Moyo dambisa first book dead aid caused waves when she argued that rather than helping Africa foreign aid was actually making the continent poorer she's a former goldman sachs banker and ex consultant at the World Bank dambisa Moyo welcome to head thank you and one of the central premises of your book is that the popular discontent that we see across the West right now for example the brexit vote the election of Donald Trump the rise of populist parties is driven by the failure of governments to deliver economic growth yet many experts pollsters people have studied this stuff would say brexit wasn't driven by economics Trump wasn't elected by the poor or the left behind it's a complete myth it had much more to do with culture and identity issues which you don't really address in the book well I don't know doctorates that I completed here at Oxford you know a while ago is in economics and so I very much see these issues of challenge and through that lens I'm not dismissing that there might be other you know aspects and I'll leave that to people who are focused on those areas to to make the case for that I am concerned about the economics and we do know that real wages have come down virtually every developed country over the past thirty years social mobility has declined income inequality has widened and so the threat of of a lack of participation in the labor force to people be essentially given up on work all these aspects have created and give them things like Trump and breaks it not necessarily try get that that's your prism and that's your special ISM doesn't make it correct the majority of Americans earning less than $50,000 a year voted for Hillary Clinton not Donald Trump voters in the Rust Belt states who said the economy is the most important issue for the country went with Hillary not Trump on brexit income class were not predictors a vote in fact views of multiculturalism of feminism the death penalty was actually a greater predictor of people's views on brick's well let me claim their economics let me clarify a couple of things so first of all you know the a lot of what you've just said certainly culture issues around immigration which have been basically a sort of put forward as a main argument for brexit and for for the rise of Trump and populism or across Europe to me are masking a more fundamental problem which still has its roots in economics if people feel that their lives are improving that the future generations lives are improving I would argue that we would see much more stability we have seen much more stability in those periods I get that but then Donald Trump also one vote from rich people than he did hole people I'll give you a stagnating wages I'll give you a statistic that illustrates the story as you are aware they are the the general high level numbers that Hillary won the popular vote by three million if you take out the New York I'm not talking about the state just the metropolitan city of New York and if you take out the metropolitan city of Los Angeles not California just Los Angeles Donald Trump won the vote by over three million votes that is how split this country is people in New York City and in Los Angeles are essentially very liberal tend to be much more more wealthy and tend to be deriving their welfare and in terms of their living standard but from a global society unlike you perhaps I you know take the view there's no point in me making arguments that I have no basis in fact or knowledge to look and make you seem to treat growth as some sort of magic bullet and yet if you look at some of the biggest problems facing the world today problems you recognize in the book income inequality climate change more and more economic growth has not only failed to solve those problems many would argue experts would say it is in fact a driver of those very same problems would you accept that I would not and I would not accept it because I think one of the key points that people tend to miss is not that we have not gained from a model where we have dependent on growth we have failed to redistribute that growth in a way that actually enhances the lives of many people around the world if I think specifically of some of the examples of this there are many policies today that have short term gains particular in Western societies but have very deep long-term problematic consequences I'm trying to give a good example trade protectionism the fact that the United States through farm subsidies and Europe through the common air culture policy have locked out the goods that are produced in places like Africa and South America have essentially created an environment where we have not only created more bit more impoverished people but we've also created or fed into issues of political into the I'm saying deal with the real world not your aspiration noble aspiration which is small gross family more every January they're putting out reports and saying the world is growing we know that I think the estimate for this year is that the eight wealthiest people in the world have more wealth than the bottom figure in agreement and sales growth doesn't cut inequality in fact increases it was very clear I said that the point is not about growth the fact is that how we do redistribute that growth and on climate change you talk about the edge of chaos but what about climate chaos isn't it irresponsible to talk about growth growth growth given experts like Kevin Anderson at the Tyndall Center for climate change research have said that continuing with economic growth over the coming two decades is incompatible with meeting our international obligations and climate change well there's a whole literature which obviously haven't cited perhaps you've not seen which is focused specifically on what we call green growth there's massive discussion around this and in fact you talked about China earlier China is quite a leader head in terms of trying to ensure that we of course they are have you been there recently Beijing has more solar panels than most of the other countries around they are I mean the UN's environmental protection index made formulated by Yale University puts China 120 out of 180 countries in the world listen China is the second largest economy in GDP terms it's ranked near number 100 and per capita income terms this is one of the poorest countries on that metric the notion that somehow they should wake up and they have an economy that's functioning at the highest levels is absurd the United States even in the last 20 years they had cities where there's been mass pollution just Flint Michigan is not 20 years ago where they were polluted water and the notion that you're putting all this pressure on China which is still a nascent economy in many respects to me is foolhardy pressure you saw it adjourn it used to be engrossed I'm John Green booth it's not in your book you don't have the KFOR green girl I mean I sure do how many times it's your question well let's have a test let's have a test on your book how many times dimension there's a whole section I've mentioned it multiple times four times the words climate change up here in this to IQ under multiple beige four times what pages I've seen up I can give you the brain it's only four so all I'm saying is it's it's great please do check go home by the book tell me now tell me now though yeah what is your position on growth and climate and summarize at Fresno Center well as I said I think the framing is around green growth we have 90 percent of the world's population that lives in the emerging markets 90 percent okay those people including myself who comes from Africa have been assured have been encouraged that we can live like Americans live like British people you if you decide you want to go and put the genie back in the bottle good luck I do want to go to the panel on this just before I do want one last question I must ask this to you you were working at Goldman Sachs back in 2008 when what 10 years actually worked there yeah are you were there in 2008 you know at the time of the financial crash that Goldman Sachs helped caused which killed growth many might argue that are you really the right person to be writing a book about growth given the association with Goldman Sachs I don't understand the connection the question is if you work at an institution you're part of an institution that did so much damage to the global economy and then you come around and said these are the solutions for growth the biggest hit to growth came from the banks and from Goldman Sachs you know what I you know what you're exhibiting is a pure lack of understanding and how the global economy works so let me just let me loose it for you many governments not just this government in this country but also governments in the United States is a good example of this they have a clear and stated policy of cold housing for all this is a policy where they deliberately encourages everybody to own a house it doesn't matter what your income is in your abilities I'm not through the government was to blame we're all to blame because we essentially we though many are special role to play I think it's a very simple question does Goldman Sachs have a special role to play they paid a five billion dollar fine and said we accept on many institutions pay fines I'm trying to help you become a bit more educated in this field you can keep insulting me I'm just asking I'm just saying that we all have to take a responsibility I know you want me to give you a one-liner there's no special responsibility okay let's go to the panel panel here waiting to join this very interesting discussion I'm joined by an petty fool who's the author of the production of money one of her hands economists as a newspapers often reminders to correctly predict the financial crisis and what do you when you hear the arguments about the importance of growth as as presented by them visa both here and in the book what's your response dambisa you said government's should be making formulating public policy policy requires boundaries capital hates boundaries Goldman Sachs hates boundaries it wants to go where it wants to go and where can make the biggest profits and you're advocating essentially a globalized economy where boundaries won't matter where governments won't matter where public policy will not have an effect because markets will decide and I find that that that there's a really deep hypocrisy in that you'll try it you're on the one hand trying to blame governments on the other hand you are mostly in favor of markets making the most important decisions that affect millions of people across the world any response yes I'd love to respond so what is absolutely clear is that I am a supporter of this idea of globalization the movement of trade and goods and services movement of capital but also the movement of people emigrate as an immigrant however however we know that what is defined and explained in textbooks does not actually happen in real life because public policy and imperatives and trade-offs and real politic the fact that especially democratic governments want to win elections means that these things do not apply in real life Jaime White's with us who's director of research at the Institute of Economic Affairs the IEA also a former New Zealand politician and philosophy lecturer Dave David Attenborough so David afterburn one of Britain's great naturalist says anyone who thinks you can have infinite growth in a finite environment is either a madman or an economist well infinite of course not you can't have it but I really couldn't agree more with him there so the the era of globalization imperfect as it's been has seen billions of people lifted from poverty it's really been the most astonishing a period of success in human history in 1980 40 percent of the world's population lived on today's money $2 a day or less today about 8% I think and it's coming down down down that is a fantastic achievement which we should be celebrating and all these funny little I mean I find it astonishing that people are hostile towards the processes that have brought about what is close to a miracle okay let me bring in let me just bring in Jason hickel's waiting very patiently they're anthropologists at the London School of Economics all three of the divided a brief guide to global inequality in its solutions Jason I'm interested in the climate argue because dumb people are very forcefully rejected the idea that there is a clash there you can focus on green growth what do you think about that so it's interesting because the only reports that were published by international institutions on green growth we're done in 2012 for the UN summits on sustainability with interesting is that they did not cite any substantial models to justify this idea that rich economies can manage to grow well at the same time massively reducing material consumption and emissions down to the carbon budget 40 degrees Celsius since then fortunately there have been a number of key studies which I write a lot about and literally every single one of the models that has been developed so that that green growth is not a thing it's literally physically impossible to have exponential growth at the same time as reducing material consumptions and reducing emissions fast enough to stay with them to the 2 degrees Celsius carbon budget and and to me it's fundamentally irresponsible to have a book out there promoting endless growth in rich nations where it's not necessary in the face of all the research we how about planetary boundaries ok who is promoted and this group and in developed countries that's my book I don't know whose book that is sorry it's very clear in your book that you make it would be a clear in your book you're talking about the United States you're talking about you know nations like the UK you're talking about brexit and talking about Trump you're trying to say these people are upset because there's not enough growth that would be here to defend myself so and I don't worry about the United States growing at 3% I worry about emerging countries I talked about this very explicitly about emerging countries growing below 7% you need to grow at least 7% to double per capita incomes in one generation I'm desperately worried when South Africa Russia Brazil are growing at one 2% I am worried that India is growing four five percent also in the UK otherwise it's only to the extent that public policy is derived on the show public policy okay but the most provocative chapter of your book that's got the most attention of the reviewers and people have read it so far is the chapter 7 which is called blueprint for a new democracy in it you talk about various proposals platform and you quote you say quote radical reform of democracy is needed to save it from decay one of your most contentious proposals is to have voters in the West pass a test a knowledge test a civics test in order to gain the right to vote surely you must see how tests of that kind could be deployed probably would be deployed to disenfranchise the poor those with less access to education minority communities absolutely and I talk about that I mean obviously I am black obviously I'm a woman and obviously I'm from Africa if I were to purport and to support types of regimes or systems that actually do not allow people to vote based on a whole list of adjectives race gender wealth land ownership I'd be the first person that'd be disenfranchised so it'd be crazy and I've been accused of being crazy I'm not that crazy to suggest that I should not be allowed to vote and just to be just to be clear as immigrants and I'm sure they're many immigrants in this room they will tell you if you want to be a citizen in this country you want to be citizen they message you have to pass a test it is already the case so I don't know people aren't aware of this not for people who are born and it doesn't matter it doesn't argument I said it doesn't matter what your income or your origin or your race or gender is when you're an immigrant that shows up in these countries you have to take a test all I'm suggesting is the test is designed to eat to reward people for engagement you mentioned reward many people would say voting is a right not a reward second and a lot are and second we do percent participation rates doesn't mean a lot 2% across average the average across Europe I'm the United States 50% 30 percent of people who are low-income we do not want that situation so the idea is then you make it harder for them to vote by putting a weird way of getting well you don't understand the book once again because the argument was very maybe all the testing as well about yeah you probably the I mean just just deal with the discrimination point you say you're a black woman from Africa yes then why propose a test one in the u.s. deep south literacy tests were explicitly used to disenfranchise black because once again you're not appreciating what I'm trying to do which of which there are two goals number one we want to increase participation rate we want to ensure that the idea of one man one vote which is essentially the mantra that everybody's been told for many years about liberal democracy if we want that to hold as many people must vote but we also want to make sure that the people who are voting have some good knowledge of what exactly were brought voting on the the day after brexit and sure many people know this apparently the most googled term is was what is bricks or what is well it may be it may be but it seemed you know what in a world of fake news even urban legends become fact and i think that whatever the case well in a world of fake news by fact i don't mean they become true what i mean is that it goes around as you said urban legend people start to quote it like myself and it was very clear i said i don't know what to be untrue do you know it to be untrue with certainty well yes oh you leo Google did a study and a thousand people are you can extrapolate from a thousand people to all of the people who okay let's all listen I don't know start what the point of that question is the point of the matter is I was trying to explain to you that the book is designed to target two things yes participation rates and to ensure that we have a knowledgeable let's deal with a more controversial proposal you say that not just people should pass a test but people who are more qualified or more knowledgeable should have more votes or more influence you say quote three tiers of voters the unqualified the standard qualified voter and the highly qualified voter in a world of brexit and Trump and populism in the far right you really think giving some people more votes than others based on education will stop pop Phil is amol help populace okay so um let me take a step back and explain exactly what this chapter 7 is doing chapter 7 offers ten proposals these proposals are not supposed to be taken in wholesale because countries at different levels of democracy but also very importantly they all have some precedent somewhere in the world in the world so you're picking on a specific point around this question of ranking voters that already exist already in the United States and the Democratic Party super-delegates have a bigger weight in Switzerland there is a massive movement by the young on Parliament there to actually increase the participation in fact the weights of young people's vote between 18 and 40 so that's double the weights have you ever think people will go crazy if certain people get more power more votes than them based on their educational qualifications what do you think that would increase it not listening I nobody said anything about education once again the test is based on participation not on education you're taking sentences out that I have a broader context it means read to you in context page 201 waiting could also be tied to one's professional qualifications such as certification as a doctor teacher lawyer employment status level of educational attainment on the assumption that excelling in these domains makes one more likely to make well informed choices in the voting and once again I'm saying by that I I'm explaining if you actually read the paragraph before that you'll see that it was essentially saying here is how the argument goes the argument would be that you could have votes based on education and if you read the part after that paragraph I quickly dispel that okay let's go to our panel and you were eager to come in there well I wanted to just remind them visa why we had the French Revolution and why Thomas Paine read his book for the rights of man and why Mary Wollstonecraft wrote the vindication of the rights of women but I think I found the book disappointing and that it was shallow it's true that participation rates have fallen but I think the question to be asked is why have participation rates fallen and that's not asked in the book instead you're trying to tell patronize the public tell them that I then they haven't got it right and they need to be tested and trained in order to vote instead of asking why they're not participating they're not participating because they find that mark it's invisible unaccountable remote markets are making decisions that affect their livelihoods Jamie's shaking his head that's why they want to be diverted by this funny idea that markets make decisions only people make decisions I think that there is a problem with voter ignorance since each vote has very little influence on the outcome of the election it's not worth investing a lot of time and if it to get the the knowledge you would need to be an informed voters and I think it's very interesting there are lots of people come up with ideas about how to deal with this I'm not actually all that keen on your specific ones not all of them but I think it's a really worthy area of inquiry and we don't want this kind of hysterical reaction to any proposal that it's undemocratic or in all democratic systems have undemocratic elements in them otherwise they wouldn't function at all I think we've got way too much democracy now in the sense that far too many decisions are collectivized and and they're and they're made by people who are ill inform and it's wonderful to see somebody trying to engage with these issues we're not gonna answer it tonight obviously Jason we have too much democracy Jamie says yeah so I actually think that you've done yourself a disservice abusive because your last chapter is full of these interesting proposals about gerrymandering about media regulation etc etc but then you give this kind of absurd proposal about but about weighted vote sangwich overshadows all of that and no one's talking about any of your actual good reform and so I think you should rob ibly renounce the position and then talk about the other bits about gerrymandering and campaign finance I mean I want it to be innovative and the crucial point I want to make here is I think that the biggest issue is about democracy you actually failed to address at all and that is this if we're talking about the global economy we have to look at the institutions that are governing global economic policy like the World Bank in the IMF which we're voting power is monopolized by the US and a handful of rich nations where the global south which has 85 percent of the world's population has less than 50 percent of the vote on crucial decisions on macroeconomic policy that affects them I've written extensively about this my book dead aid was specifically targeting international institutions and the fact that the policy making decisions were centralized at a particular particular place where and very much removed from from the recipient countries you say in the book you're very critical of professional politicians as are many people and you talk about how to raise the standard of people in public office that they should have experienced outside of politics have real-world jobs how do you feel about the President of the United States did electing a CEO billionaire make America more stable less corrupt in your view so I don't necessarily like the way the president talks about women in fact I don't like the way talks about women at all I don't like a whole host of other things but all I would say is the American economy is functioning the state they're getting stock market highs all the time their unemployment rate not just for the average of the society but also for minority groups is that all time lives there there are some big concerns that they're dealing with but we all have to accept that Americans have made enormous sacrifices and unfortunately until European government starts to take more responsibility for what they have to pay and more generally we start to feel a bit sympathetic for what has happened to that economy and that country I think we're being a bit too simplistic okay I'm not note we're gonna have to take a pause join us for part two of a very lively discussion here with dambisa Moyo on-air dad we're gonna be talking about China democracy development and we're gonna hear from our very patient audience here in the Oxford Union after the break [Applause] welcome back to head to head on al Jazeera English I'm here in the Oxford Union with dambisa Moyo best-selling author economist she's got a new book out the edge of chaos dambisa what I didn't get reading your book is that you heap praise on liberal democracy on capitalism you say you want to save it from some of the problems that it undoubtedly faces market but then you also are full of praise on China and you talk about how quote economic growth is a prerequisite for democracy not the other way around so is democracy I'm wondering something you think that gets in the way of growth and prosperity so it's it's a brilliant question that I've talked about there's a lot of fantastic research out about this because ultimately we want to democracy that functions and survives svorski which is he was a professor in the United States talks about this he's got a model that predicts how long democracy would survive based on per capita incomes in a country and is arguments vary which I cry basic which is that if you don't have a middle class that actually is participating in the in the process that's voting then you end up with with a very narrow set of voters and that is a system we don't want to support we want to have a system where the population is at a critical mass to hold the government accountable and and they've argued in previous work my book they dated for example talked about the failure of democracy in Africa precisely because at this point our governments very rationally are able to pay attention to foreign aid because they don't have to rely on a critical mass at home and so there is I believe a a very clear correlation so I know you don't like simplistic yes-or-no questions but are you saying then be clear we say the Chinese model the undemocratic authoritarian model is better for growth for the economy than a liberal democratic model at this moment in our history ok so once again I do have to explain there they're essentially a comparing apples and oranges to proverbial apples and oranges these are two very different ideological systems Western ideology puts the individual as paramount the most important entity is the individual China's model is based on prioritizing society the entity of society as the most important and the reason this important is this is a critically important is that there are enormous social costs from a model where you have an individual as as paramount many of those costs we've kind of swept under under the rug population growth so the idea that I can have as many children as I want that's great that's my freedom that's my right I'm not impinge in anybody's right in theory but in practice we know issues of climate change issues of green growth and the trade-offs around growth but also in terms of healthcare there are many ways in which this idea of I can do whatever I like actually does impinge on society's ability to grow and transform the Chinese model is not at the end of the day the only model on the best model because it also has its own costs but this is the trade-off that we're dealing with in the questions of human rights abuses it's a dictatorship well the China's also the largest foreign lender to the United States and so for all our objections perhaps I'm just saying I'm just saying let's be very but if you're sitting in a Chinese very very very careful about how first of all we can go into history and talk about suffrage 1971 was the first time that in Switzerland women had the right to vote we can talk about the civil rights movement which is only in the 1960s in the United States so let's not all get hot and bothered about where China is China is on a path it does have to do a lot of work and democratic process it's already underway many Democratic on the way most people say is going the other direction themselves but first of all if you go to China and spend time there which I have they have democratic elections at the mayoral level there is innovation already happening in that political system I would just myself I think what's very this is this is the problem I want to avoid because we're very good at spending time talking about countries that are blatantly non democratic when actually this book and I think where the focus really needs to be and where the problems have come just in terms of the rights of populism and also the financial crisis these are in the West that solve the problem with telling me you focus wasn't the West it was the developing world yes it is ultimately because public policy comes from the West so you talk about you know not giving the West to pass most of the guests on this show of actually many of them have been from Western governments I've held them to account but when you say China is masterfully executing a carefully choreographed plan for growth which is largely attributable to its political system it does sound like you're endorsing that political system which is a horrific dictatorship I'm merely saying we cannot pretend that over 300 million people have been moved out of poverty in 30 years in China the bottom line is that has been done and no other country in history or prehistory has ever been able to do what the Chinese have done I don't think we should spend a lot of time pointing fingers at China you know physician heal thyself well physician is our economies and I know in the West I get you're in the car I said economy in Italy and our political ecology economies and put if you let me finish economies and political environment are under siege right now they are in the UK in the US and us yes but we don't have really I'll give you on a change elude yourself voter participation rates are low number one number two money comes money money has seeped into the political this is a bizarre argument that's all when you vote for Xi Jinping good vote away then because money has seeped into the political process ok 158 disagree with anything you're saying I'm just saying I'm offering a perspective let's focus on our own democracies where we have populism we have a gala but then I also read your book we've got Hungarian we got a Hungarian Prime Minister or band talking about solitaire exactly we have Russia producing 40% of the energy into this country in ask you some because of something you wrote where you're a very influential woman you're a best-selling author the reason we invited you on the show you have millions of followers on social media when you say China's contemporary economic success is largely attributable to its political system is that not some might say that's irresponsible cuz it sounds like you're saying that's the system you need for growth that's a good system let me most plain what I think the virtues of that system are that system is a long-term system we have a fundamental schism between the long-term economic challenges and headwinds that the global economy is facing led by developed countries things like debt etc productivity declines versus the short termism embedded in the electoral process in the United States I have elections every two years this is incredibly disruptive and it creates this mismatch between long term economic challenges and short term is in the political the Chinese model doesn't have to deal with that they're not seduced by today's voter or they don't need to seduce today's voter in order to remain enough in political office okay let's go to our panel Jason Hickel is an anthropologist at Ilan School of Economics when you hear dummies are talk about China in that way does that make sense the long term ism yeah actually I found this argument very frustrating and the reason is because the book is basically about the value of neoliberal free markets and you say that we need we need more of them okay but then you go into quite a lot of detail about how you know you admire China you've Meyer the New Deal in the u.s. it's exactly the opposite economic ideology so where exactly do you follow this I mean it's quite confusing and you're very slippery on that so I think it's pretty obvious because the new what you describe the New Deal Manhattan Institute a sort of Manhattan Project China what do they have in common they have the government playing an incredibly important role the government's the government not seduced by short term voters every two years or every electoral cycle that is what their capital allocation decisions are based on long term thinking long term planning issues which focus on future generations they actually targeted the wrong enemy it's not it's not democracy that's a problem because again the New Deal happened in a democratic society it's not democracy it's not it's not democracy that's a problem right actually what the problem is here is free-market capitalism which is self shorter mist and so the ten very clear problems with democracy we don't unfortunately don't have the time for me to go through them the notion that democracy is not a problem is mad it's crazy we're looking at across Europe right now we've got masses of populism I'm a horse here's my hose with the economic ideology you're actually support because that is at the crux of the matter he's just asked the question I want to know what ideological model she supports no I am NOT an ideologue let me be absolutely clear I know your ideological eye he rightly pointed out that I'm not ideological obvious the bottom line is that there are definitely benefits and merits from the capitalist Western system they are also very clear benefits from China jamee democracy is a problem not a problem when it comes to economic growth where do you stand on that to me well III one of the first agree with the basic position that democracy isn't a required precursor of economic growth and in fact if you look at the economic growth that occurred in the United States and Britain in the 19th century which was basically founded on institutions such as private property in the rule of law and so on those institutions got came into place in the British legal system prior to anything that we would today called democracy and then democracy came later so the basic point I think holds what's going on in China is indeed completely different or that that isn't a a rule of law liberal democracy type system but I think that the main point is citizens see that democracy is not a required precursor and indeed can't get in the way for the kinds of reasons the newbies is pointing out that that it instead of setting up the institutions required for stable and developing economy you get kind of politicians doing deals with the electorate in a certain sense and over the short term in ways that are destructive but by the way one said that I am an ideologue ok say that the most popular president of all time was Rousseff felt and that was because employment was high because people had jobs people had decent income and they had public services and they loved that and they participated and they voted what we have had since 1971 and liberalisation nearly bruising is that people have found themselves becoming disempowered because there are forces beyond their control beyond the control of their governments if Parliament's are unfashionable it's because Parliament's don't make the decisions anymore where do you stand on China is that a political economic model worthy of its socialist communist that people are educated the people are housed unlike many governments in Africa the people have cared for and the markets managed but then there's a lot of social unrest which is repressed brutally by the government I think it's not very surprising that we're looking very fondly back in the 1930s when actually the civil rights movement was just gaining momentum in the United States um yeah it's all well and good to remember those good old days but guess what people like me were not even allowed to vote at that time I mean it might be at night it might already and yeah you said it not I so there are some significant weaknesses in the democratic process this is absolutely the case I mean the notion that we can sit here take foreign direct investment from China trade with China have China lend our government enormous amounts of money and then turn around and say but this is a big bad wolf and we don't want to actually do with them I think it's possible okay let's go to our audience here in the Oxford Union you wanna raise your hands await for the microphone to come to you yes thanks very much if I can go back to the question around weighted voting yes so this I was African to post apartheid South African Constitutional Court said that the vote of every and each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and of personhood quite literally it says that everyone counts now given the voting is not just an instrumental exercise it's also an exercise in personal self-worth saying that some people can vote others can vote and worse more isn't that just fundamentally offensive well you know I have a sense of what you mean by offensive I mean I'm not really interested in emotional reactions I'm more interested in something that's quite sustainable this is about engagement it's how it is that we expect citizens to engage in the process I think that we need to explore everything I was very clear that I do not think that this type of weighted voting works in a general election I consider myself pretty well read I'm pretty engaged I'm quite interested in what's going on in the world but I would not argue that I actually know what the best use or what the best decisions around a health care system should be and I do believe that if I spoke to doctors nurses or people who work in the medical facilities they'll be better able to tell me that means if doctors have been asked to vote in 1948 we wouldn't have a National Health I know what you're going to say whether they want to have a public health care system lady there in the back right there in the corner yes you thank you from your comments it sounded like you make a you're making a very broad distinction between governments and private companies and the free market is this distinction reasonable in that for example if we were to limit protections that that governments enforce wouldn't private companies like Goldman Sachs operate like governments so it is absolutely the case that we now live in a world where corporations but not just corporations wealthy individuals are taking a bigger responsibility and bigger role in participation in public what things they used to be the pervy of only public affairs public governments you think about the Gates Foundation think about many other foundations around the world that are delivering health care outcomes and outside of the electoral process education etc so these lines are certainly becoming more and more blurred I personally think that we are moving more into the world that is requiring that not only because shareholders are demanding it but other stakeholders and communities they're saying if you're going to set up a company in our backyard we want you to help with the infrastructure want you to build schools we want you to invest in health care maybe they're in the red jacket you've mentioned this quite a few times that you know debates and dialogues on Africa at the moment when they talk about political aid business politics or glamour aid as you so succinctly put it different people are taking part rich the powerful why upper-class men are part of the conversation so what do you suggest needs to happen for Africans to take back control of the dialogue the conversation and decide what happens in our countries well one of the most interesting questions that I received when I was marketing ded aid was if if I were given a billion dollars what would I do with it and my answer was I would invest it all in a PR organization because as far as I'm concerned the aid movement has been tremendously successful for 60 years in convincing Africans that they're not worth being part instead having a seat around the table they're not that smart they're not that good and they're always gonna be a drag on the global economy the narrative of Africa has been in my lifetime one of Corruption disease war and poverty over the past ten years they've been a significant shift with the arrival of China and many other countries but them and those countries do have their issues but the notion that anyone would think that there's been a positive narrative around what the stories are on Africa it's just foolhardy come in here in the front I work on a policy for Oxfam we do believe that it can contribute to addressing challenges like inequality and redistribution in the almost 10 years since your book in regions like Africa we've seen a double butt tax revenues of quadrupled deaths from diseases like malaria HIV of halved and we've also seen poverty rates come down and Aid has made a contribution and have seen democracy move forward in fits and starts so the idea that you know you continue to hold those views and you would actually firm them up even stronger is is hard to understand can you explain yeah for sure I'm so two things first of all I don't know entirely know what the Oxfam aid budget comes from but many aid agencies that are although proliferated across Africa are heavily reliant on their governments on Western governments the corrosive nature of aid is around this question of democracy from the African continent we do want to be able to hold our governments accountable but we can't do that if actually Oxfam is going to solve the healthcare problem somebody else is gonna solve education how are we able to hold our governments accountable from a public policy stance if they are not the ones who are delivering these outcomes we do need to move away I was very clear that I didn't say we need to go to zero I think there are some initiatives and there are some good things that I Miami I myself am involved in some aid initiatives that I think are very good they're very targeted but even the aid programs to Europe after the war after World War Two in the form of Marshall Plan were short sharp and targeted they were not open-ended concessions that have been very corrosive to Africa not just because of corruption because of inflation the debt burden that they've left on the continent and I will just say one last thing you've given a whole list of positive things that have happened in the content of the last decade you're absolutely right they've been significant wins but to the notion that those are because of Aid I think is wrong I mean I think we as I said we've had China come in has been significant investment from China we're able to trade with the Chinese for better or for worse and I think that that is just one example many other governments are now going to the capital markets to raise capital so I think aid is producing some help but it's absolutely not the case that it is it's all because of the aid regime which has been around for 60 years I'm gonna go to the Gentle at the back and then the lady who's been waiting you talked about the very long term view economic policy needs to take root in a country and the short termism that democracy brings look at the example of Rwanda what Paul Kagame is doing he is basically limiting civil rights for the benefit of growth now in an African context do you feel that critical mass can be a masked with in the middle middle class to allow for distributive power within the economy so that rights and progress and the mercy can take root without having it hijacked by dictatorships and things like that I want to get where you're coming from are you someone who sings it's a good thing what Kagame is doing on the growth front regardless of the political vice-versa I believe that what Paul Kagame is doing is interesting what do you think about Rwanda under Kagame and what's happened well I'm not ruined and I don't live in Rwanda so it'll be kind of arrogant of me to sit here and start pointing fingers at that economy what I will say is that that country came from a genocide that the world turned their backs we flew people out within 90 days 10% of the population was massacred and we didn't really we did nothing the international community did nothing and so you know I am sympathetic to the fact that they they had a very difficult challenge everything was razed to the ground I think that they are showing improvement in many of the metrics that economists care about things like doing business participation they have 61 percent of women in in Parliament more than anywhere else in the world there are things that I can pick and say that that is something for us to look at an emulate lady here in the black jacket I said you'd come to you next to one of the things you do suggest quite often is actually to make voting mandatory and in Brazil it is mandatory and in fact more than 20% of the population does not go and vote and presents the fact that there is this policy and you could not argue that Brazil certainly in the last few years has been a disengaged society in any shape of form don't you think that not voting is not only a reflection of how society feels about their their elites and their representatives but also ultimately part and parcel of the right to vote is the right not to vote well I actually believe in in the Civic right people died for the right to vote and so I really I would I talk about monetary boards because I think it's something we should explore I think it really is interesting and you know as you know that 27 countries around the world that have mandatory voting from Australia Belgium Greece many countries in South America do I think that that people the only reason people don't vote is because they're trying to send a message to the political class and they need no I think there are a lot of economic arguments there a lot of people in the United States as you know that the presidential election every four years is on a Tuesday there are a lot of people who are on minimum wage who would like to vote who are not able to go to vote because it takes too long and it's a process I'm gonna go we're running out of time I wanna go to a woman at the back I was wondering about the importance of voters being informed and as well as misinformed what do you think is the balance of responsibilities between voters informing themselves and educating themselves and the government preventing misinformation and campaign finance reform that will get more accurate information out to the voters what is the balance of responsibilities or are they equal yeah I think that's a great question particularly in a world where we have fake news we have social media is a different conduit and so one of the things that I've been looking at and I've written about is whether or not we need some kind of glass-steagall regulation sort of this refers to the banking sector where they separate retail consumer banking from Investment Banking do we need that kind of regulation in the media so in other words some clear delineation between fact versus fiction I think that's something that's on the agenda right now and I would be very supportive of that I'm traditionally BBC Walter Cronkite's in the United States it didn't matter what race or gender or what part of the political spectrum you were on everybody got this one font of knowledge basically one font of knowledge that is very different now we're all sort of quite siloed we get our information for where we places where we want to sort of reinforce our views and so I do think if government and public policy actually wants to survive we do need to have much more diversity of thought in here yeah read the raid and find it challenging on one hand it talks about kind of aid and that being a bad culture and not being making it difficult to kind of create change and then on the other hand talking about trade and then you have kind of the market you know supporting people and helping to kind of develop economies I just wonder are we swapping one kind of challenging institution for another so it did it I offered five proposals for alternatives as for aid and again just to be absolutely clear that nowhere and did it did I say we want to go to 0-8 even in developed countries there are areas of society that are based on charitable outcomes welfare of the Gulf air systems the government etc so we don't have to go to 0-8 but we do we need to think about things like for direct investment issues around tapping the capital markets this is just the the suite of things that other countries that are very successful at developed and developing use and so trade you're right it's under a lot of challenge and threat right now with the rise of protectionism emanating from the leading economies but I do think that we it's not just about one solution is about a whole host or portfolio of initiatives and I offered them in the book as well you keep saying you didn't say age should go to zero yes didn't you famous I mean there was a lot of controversy around that when he came out the book you said what if one by one African countries each received a phone call telling them in exactly five years the aid taps would be shut off permanently yes but I didn't say that that's what they should do I said what if what if is a question it is not a statement I'm one final question Robert Kennedy famously said in 1968 GDP this measuring of economic growth quote does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages it measures neither our wisdom nor our learning neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country it measures everything in short except that which makes life worthwhile do you agree with him well yes and it is some degree because Simon Kuznets when he came up with a GDP statistics and he had a brilliant saying he said the truth of the matter is that there are four categories of countries they're underdeveloped developed Japan and Argentina nobody knows why Japan grows and why Argentina doesn't and I think that really is emblematic of the field of economics we are learning we're evolving we're innovating and a lot of what has been said here are is food for thought as things that people are trying to re-engineer to improve on and I would not suggest that we should throw out all the knowledge and all the impact that was mentioned earlier they're all the benefits and the significant improvements that the world has seen I mean today 71 years old is the global average for life expectancy these are significant benefits that have occurred over the last half a half century and I think we do need to actually recognize that they had been benefits from the system and we do need to tweak and focus on improving the ones where they've been weaknesses dambisa Moyo we'll have to leave it there thanks to our audience here in the Oxford Union thanks to our panel of amazing experts and thanks to dambisa Moyo for joining us on had thank you you

Channel: Al Jazeera English

Views: 250,683

Keywords: youtube, jason hickel, populism, trump, edge of chaos, ann pettifor, aljazeera, aljazeera english, al jazeera english, oxford union, goldman sachs, dambisa moyo, aljazeera live, brexit, aljazeera.com, africa, dead aid, al jazeera, foreign aid, financial crisis, head to head, mehdi hasan, aljazeera news, jamie whyte, far-right, far-right watch, far-right group brawls with anti fascist protesters in portland streets, far-right propaganda, far-right group britain first

Id: Io4OF7ux00Q

Length: 48min 54sec (2934 seconds)

Published: Fri Aug 03 2018