This House would prefer money to free elections

TIM SEBASTIAN
Ladies and gentlemen, a very good evening to you and welcome to the latest in our series of Doha Debates coming to you from the Gulf state of Qatar and sponsored by the Qatar Foundation.  We all know that money and politics go hand-in-hand, but in many parts of the world people are told they have only one choice: take the money but stay out of politics.  That message has gone out to millions in China, Russia, and here in the Middle East: that you can be free to make your fortune but don't expect anything much in the way of democracy.  It's the subject of our debate tonight and the motion before us: This House would prefer money to free elections. Well, the two sides of our panel disagree fundamentally on this issue.  Speaking for the motion, Dr. N. Janardhan, a political analyst based in the UAE and a former editor of Gulf in the Media.  And with him Jean-Francois Seznec who is both academic and businessman, a visiting associate professor at Georgetown University's Centre for Contemporary Arab Studies in Washington.  Against the motion, Mani Shankar Aiyar, former Indian government minister, outspoken commentator and M.P., and now Honorary Fellow at Cambridge University.  And with him Wael Abbas, well-known in this region as a political blogger, democracy advocate and journalist.  A native Egyptian, he's often been critical of his government and its human rights record. Ladies and gentlemen: our panel.  [Applause]  So now let me ask Narayanappa Janardhan to speak for the motion, please.

N. JANARDHAN
Thank you, Tim, and hello everyone.  I begin my argument in favour of the motion with an admission.  I'm making my case as an ordinary and practical person, not as an intellectual.  This distinction is important because very few intellectuals would trade their freedom for money, so put aside your intellectual hats and put on your common man's caps.  I also want to frame my arguments by widening the canvas to a larger question:  which is more important - political reforms or economic reforms?  The world has always been a place where economic sense is viewed as commonsense.  Money which represents food, shelter, clothing and dignified life is certainly more important than the political system for most ordinary people - and the majority of the people in this world are ordinary.  An example that establishes my point that economy drives politics is the recent US elections.  The reason for the Democrats' loss was not because Obama is black or Muslim.  It was triggered by news of 15 million Americans being unemployed.  Will another round of free elections solve the crisis?  No. To borrow Clinton's slogan, it's the economy, stupid.  People want more money, more jobs, more benefits.  So free elections are a means to an end, not an end in itself, whereas money can be bought, the means and the end.  This is why more than 80 percent of citizens in most of the Gulf countries express strong satisfaction with the way they live, even without significant political power.  Will political reform take away their money?  Maybe. These countries point to the chaos, lack of growth and divisiveness that elections have brought about in Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Bahrain, to name a few.  The question then is: can economic reforms take place without political reforms?  Yes.  It is only in the American experience that democracy and capitalism developed simultaneously. In Europe, capitalism came before democracy. South Korea reformed economically first, as did many South American countries. China, Singapore and the Gulf countries are still pursuing economic reform over political reforms. In the Arab world the current unemployment rate is about 20 percent.  80 percent of this figure constitutes youth.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Could you come to a close?
N. JANARDHAN
More than half of them prefer migrating abroad, not to countries where free elections are practised, but to any place where they can get a job, money and a decent livelihood. Someone once said: "It's hard to even preach to an empty stomach." Finally, while money is a necessity, free elections are a luxury. It is like the sixth sense that makes it possible to enjoy the other five. Thank you.
[Applause]
TIM SEBASTIAN
Narayanappa Janaardhan, thank you very much indeed.  So you just take the money and run then, that's all you're interested in - no development in society, no community development, just take the money, take the money and run?
N. JANARDHAN
Well, all that comes only if there is enough money that is put into the society, right, I mean, what is the point of just having elections?
TIM SEBASTIAN
And what guarantees that you can keep your money when you've got it...laws?
N. JANARDHAN
Well, I mean, people devise enough ways.  I think once you become economically ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
They put it under the mattress, do they?
N. JANARDHAN
No. Once you become economically empowered, you also become politically empowered.  It also brings about some kind of social empowerment...
TIM SEBASTIAN
That's what they thought in Russia, didn't they?  That's what the oligarchs thought in Russia. They're hugely rich and what do they find now? They're raided, they're pursued, they're mown down, they're put in jail for years. What did their money do to protect them?
N. JANARDHAN
I think those of them, this is a modern age where people have a fair semblance of what freedom is all about...
TIM SEBASTIAN
But it destroys your argument... it destroys your argument completely. The money does not protect them from their own government, does it?
N. JANARDHAN
It does, to a large extent. I mean, people don't have any ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
But it hasn't, has it?  Look at the facts.  How many of them have been put in jail?   The largest business man in Russia - jailed.
N. JANARDHAN
I'm sure more people are in jail today who are poorer than those who are rich.
TIM SEBASTIAN
You think so?
N. JANARDHAN
I think so.
TIM SEBASTIAN
And you think that money protects you?
N. JANARDHAN
Well, to a certain extent.  It's more than protection - it at least gives you a chance to survive.
TIM SEBASTIAN
And you have nothing to say, you'd rather people told you how to live your life, you'd rather be told what you can read, what you can say?
N. JANARDHAN
Well, the whole point is, if I don't survive, what use is freedom?  And I think only money helps me survive.
TIM SEBASTIAN
And what are the guarantees that help you survive?  I mean, you look at the Arab Human Development Report, it says year after year: ‘only a well governed, accountable and responsive state ruled by just laws can provide essential rights, freedom and opportunities without discrimination', opportunities without discrimination.  You trust an unelected government to give you those?
N. JANARDHAN
No, well, opportunities today means education, jobs, and unless they get that, they're not going to do well in life at all, and I think that comes first to them.  An ordinary person will definitely believe that economic freedom is more important than any sort of political freedom.
TIM SEBASTIAN
And never mind those who don't have it, never mind the poor, just take your money and run?  It's pretty selfish, isn't it?
N. JANARDHAN
That is not selfish.
TIM SEBASTIAN
No?  It's not?
N. JANARDHAN
No, it isn't.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Oh, that's news to me.  Narayanappa, thank you very much indeed.  Mani Shanker, would you like to speak against the motion please?

MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
Well, as a Member of Parliament, I have fought six free elections and I know that you can't fight free elections without money, so I'm not quite sure what the contradiction is that we are presented with. The fact of the matter is that almost all countries which have a high per capita income are countries which hold free elections, and almost all countries which have a low per capita income are those that don't hold free elections.  There doesn't seem to be any guarantee that even prosperity under a dictatorship can be sustained.  For the Soviet Union underwent the fastest rate of growth ever under Stalin in the 1930s, and today the Soviet Union is history, whereas the United States for example, which has been through several crises in the last 220 years or so, has survived them because democracy throws up answers which dictatorships attempt to suppress.  In the case of India, we didn't have free elections until we became independent and our rate of growth was 0.72 percent per annum.  Since independence we've had a series of free elections, 15 for the centre itself, and our rate of growth has gone up to over 9 percent.  It is true that China has demonstrated remarkable rates of growth without free elections, but you can see the simmering anger.  According to one estimate, there were about 70,000 demonstrations against the rulers in China over the course of the last year, and the emphasis now being placed by them on harmony is an indication of how the kettle is boiling and the lid is jumping, and so long as the steam is allowed to go out, as happens in a democracy, you'll be able to keep the pot boiling.  But if you don't, then there'll be an explosion - an explosion that has taken place in countries for example like Iran, where the prosperity under the Shah was unprecedented and yet were people happy? No, they overthrew that regime. It's possible that they are still not very happy but I am certain that the more Iran democratises, the more prosperity is likely to grow.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Could you come to a close, please?
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
Pardon?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Could you come to a close, please?
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
Yes, so there I would come to the basic conclusion that in fact it is free elections that promote prosperity and sustain prosperity. You can have prosperity without free elections, but that is not a mixture that can be sustained over any very considerable period of time.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, Mani Shankar, thank you very much.  You talk about simmering anger in China, but look at the simmering anger in India.  You're fighting insurgency in a third of your districts now. You have 900 million people in the gutter who haven't benefited much from free elections, have they?
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
True, but 300 million have.  That's approximately five times the size of the population of your country.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Yes, but three times that number without basic entitlements and they're fed up with it.  They're not going to lie down quietly.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
I think the basic reason why there is so much discontent at the bottom is that we don't have enough democracy at the bottom.  It's not by denying democracy to those at the bottom of the economic and social ladder...
TIM SEBASTIAN
But it's the poor who vote, the poor who vote in huge numbers in India, don't they?
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
It is because of the vote that we had a major change in our constitution 20 years ago, and today we have as many as three million elected representatives at the grass roots. Now to the extent to which higher echelons of our democracy are willing to empower them at the grass roots, that we're going to contain this anger, but if we attempt to contain this anger by denying even free elections, I'm afraid the whole pot is going to blow up.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But the only people who take any notice of or get any notice taken of them are the rich. The government doesn't bother with the poor. The government holds the door open for the rich, doesn't it?
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
Sorry, Tim, that's complete nonsense because the fact is that in India the poor are the ones who vote, the rich do not go to vote, and these poor have determined that they're going to...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Influence is something else.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
Pardon?
TIM SEBASTIAN
I'm not talking about whether the rich vote.  I'm talking about their influence.  They're the ones who get things done, the big corporations, they're the ones that governments listen to, your government listens to.  Not the poor, not the people who voted.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
There is simply no doubt that there is a tendency for government to be captured by the classes, but every five years the masses get the opportunity to say: "Out with you!"  That's why we've had ten governments in the last 20 years.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, Mani Shankar Aiyar, thank you very much indeed. [Applause]. Now please let me ask Jean-Francois Seznec to speak for the motion please.

JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
Well, this motion is really a choice between wealth and democracy today and my remarks are really tailored for the Gulf because I know the Gulf a little better than many other places, but I'm not against democracy, I like democracy warts and all.  It works in the US where I live.  But democracy cannot be imposed from outside.  It must naturally come from within, or else it creates havoc. I mean, the Gulf States are basically enlightened autocracies today, but they create stability and wealth by using their God-given oil, gas and industrial power. Democracy in the Gulf today would guarantee instability and poverty by bringing extremist groups to power.  In fact, wealth can only happen through stability. Of course the enlightened rulers are not perfect. There are many issues of financial abuse and human rights, but by and large many of these concerns are known and some are addressed, albeit not fast enough. But the present rulers are really bringing to the Gulf, they are bringing the Gulf into the 21^st century against the wish of strong and organised conservative elements. The rulers are increasing participation slowly through Majlis and Shuras and so on, but they're not liberalising at all. Most important perhaps I think is that they are providing a vision to their countries and their citizens to become leaders of the world and the economic centre of the Silk Route.  I think their vision requires stability to create wealth, but also requires and promotes education and creativity among all the citizens of the countries, men and women. Ultimately this will lead to a diverse and rich civil society which then will translate into free elections but not before. If we bring democracy today, it would not bring the power to the people, by the people, for the people. It would bring the power of the extremists against the people and for the extremists.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Jean-Francois Seznec, thank you very much indeed. Where is the encouragement to people in the Gulf to become leaders of the world when they can't even become leaders at home?
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
I think there are many forms of leadership, and I think one of the ones we saw ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Name me one.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
Well, industrial power - I think these countries are becoming in the region, they're becoming among the leaders in the chemical industry, in the aluminium industry...
TIM SEBASTIAN
And who runs them?  Who runs them?  They're not in private hands, they're in the state's hands.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
Some of them are in private hands, especially in Saudi Arabia, but most of them are in, most of the time in state hands.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So the state takes the money and the state decides what you can read, what you can say, and what participation you may or may not have.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
I am not sure I agree with that in the sense that the state is running a lot of places by the civil servants and the civil servants are not always working very closely with the families.
TIM SEBASTIAN
And who are they, who are they answerable to?  They're not answerable to the people out there.  If there's corruption they're not taken to, held accountable by the people. They may or may not be held accountable by the rulers but often not apparently.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
I think the regimes in this region have been in power for almost 250 years except for a few times, and they have developed systems to really listen to the people.  The advantage there is in this region is...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Like they listen to the migrant workers in Dubai for instance or elsewhere in the Gulf and the kinds of conditions that they've suffered?
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
I'm afraid you're absolutely right. They are not listening to the foreign problem.  If I had to put one of the big problems of the region it's the fact that you have 16 million foreign workers versus 20 million locals, that is ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Foreign workers who have very few rights.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
They have very few rights.  I'm talking about the... if you have a democracy here with votes, the votes would only apply to the local people in any event.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Don't you ever think how much better this region might be if it was democratic?  You talk about the gains and the progress it's made.  Maybe the gains would have been much more, under democracy.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
I doubt it very much because the people who have the ability today to get elected in ‘free' elections are not necessarily people that would commit to have a long-term freedom for everybody...
TIM SEBASTIAN
But at least you can get them out once they're in.  That's the advantage, isn't it? You can get them out.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
You hope that's the case, yes.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Jean-Francois Seznec, thank you very much indeed.  Now could I ask please Wael Abbas to speak against the motion?

WAEL ABBAS
Yes.  This might sound a little bit cliché, but I'm on this side basically because I believe that democracy is a basic human right and a basic human need, whether a person knows that or not.  I can trust no leader, no matter how wise he might be, because I cannot say ‘she' might be, with taking decisions that will affect my life and the future of my children.  We've seen leaders of rich and powerful countries leading them to war and ending empires in ruins. 50 percent of the population of some countries who are very rich and can afford to buy luxurious, fast sports car are not allowed to drive these cars. On a more serious note, there are countries where a great percentage of the population don't have a nationality, and despite the fact that they have a lot of money, they cannot even leave the country and travel abroad. Money in my opinion goes well with dictatorship. You can easily buy a newspaper and kick out its editor-in-chief, just like what happened in Egypt recently. The only time that I saw money work in harmony with elections was when candidates bribed voters with cash or one kilo of rice.  Thank you.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Wael Abbas, thank you very much indeed.  What would free elections do for you in Egypt?  Same as in India - create a generation, new generation of haves and have-nots, more have-nots than haves?
WAEL ABBAS
No, I believe that it will enable people who had no voice before to participate in the decision-making process, which is the most important thing I feel.
TIM SEBASTIAN
They'd have a voice, but it doesn't mean they're going to participate in the decision-making progress, does it?
WAEL ABBAS
They will if we let them, if we enlighten them about it, if we allowed the media to work freely, if we allowed a civil society to work freely and to have access to people - which is not the case in Egypt at the moment.
TIM SEBASTIAN
It doesn't happen in lots of countries. I mean, you look at the United States, it's only the people with money that get listened to. You go and knock on the door of your congressman and senator and the first question they ask you is:  "Are you a contributor?"  If you're not, forget it.  That's your access to democracy.
WAEL ABBAS
At the moment we have new tools, like we have the Internet.  We have people who were nobodies and nobody heard of them before, and now they are speaking out on the Internet.  They have blogs, they have Facebook ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Speaking out and having no influence whatsoever.
WAEL ABBAS
They have.
TIM SEBASTIAN
What is the influence, tell me?
WAEL ABBAS
In my country we were able for example to expose torture at police stations and we were able to take some officers for the first time in our history, our recent history, to court and send them to jail. We were able to expose sexual harassment, we were able to ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
It doesn't change the government though, does it.
WAEL ABBAS
It doesn't but it puts pressure on it and it enlightens people who are, in the long run, who are going to take action against this government and change it.
TIM SEBASTIAN
And again, whichever state you're in, it's the people with money who are going to be the people who have influence, isn't it? Whether you have free elections or not, there's no getting away from that. It's money that buys you options and freedoms.
WAEL ABBAS
It is, it is, but once you have influence ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
So you're on the wrong side of the debate?  You should he on that side.
WAEL ABBAS
No.
TIM SEBASTIAN
No?
WAEL ABBAS
It is in a sense but it's about reaching people and changing their minds, changing the way that they look at things. When people are encouraged to take action and to work against this situation, it will be changed, because it is like that, like what you say at the moment, but when we work on it, it will change.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, Wael Abbas, thank you very much indeed.  We're going to throw the question open, the motion open to the audience now: This House would prefer money to free elections. There's a gentleman in the first row, we'll take your question please, we'll get a microphone to you.  Thank you.

AUDIENCE (M)
Good evening.  My question is to ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Could you tell us where you're from please?
AUDIENCE (M)
I'm from Qatar.  My question is to Mr. Francois.  You said that oil brought us wealth and wealth brought us prosperity, right?  So what will happen when the oil finishes in the next 70 years - all hell breaks loose?
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
Well, it's a most important point and I think the leaderships and I think the people as a whole are very much aware of this, as you are aware of it. The oil will come to an end, gas even in Qatar will come to an end sooner or later.  It might take two or three generations, but it will be there. I think there's a major effort to change the economies very, very quickly to value-added economies and as the King of Saudi Arabia says, knowledge-based economies in order not to depend on oil any more.  Whether it will be successful I don't know, but a very large percentage of the GDP is already going into these kinds of industries, so yes, I think in the long run the Gulf, if it pursues the policies it is pursuing now, will succeed into moving away from oil.
TIM SEBASTIAN (to questioner)
Do you believe that?
AUDIENCE (M)
No.
TIM SEBASTIAN
What do you believe, that you need some democracy to cement ...?
AUDIENCE (M)
I think that we need more, yes, more democracy, to provide more space for human development, because what I'm seeing now, I currently work in RasGas company and what I am seeing [is] that all that they're doing are just more production of the gas. A few days ago we celebrated that now Qatar produced 77 million tonnes of natural gas a year, so what we're doing is just depleting our gas resources, not using it for something good.  We're not producing anything, we're just selling gas.
TIM SEBASTIAN (to questioner)
And democracy and free elections, are you in favour of those?
AUDIENCE (M)
Yes.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Now?
AUDIENCE (M)
Now.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Okay, thank you very much. [Applause].
Lady in the front row.  Can we get the microphone please, thank you.
AUDIENCE (F)
Good evening, I'm from Iraq.  My question is to Mr. Jean. You mentioned that democracy would be one of the effects for stability - as in, stability will be affected by democracy, sorry.  So what you mean here is that the only way for a country, or a wealthy country, to live stable, in a stable situation, [is] for their people to keep their mouths shut and keep on spending their money and being stable in that way, and that's the only way for them to be stable? Or... democracy won't be the solution for them to be stable for the wrong...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Jean-Francois Seznec.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
In a way I am saying that.  I don't deny that I am actually saying that.  What I'm saying however is that over time, as the economies develop and people have established a certain amount of income and wealth, then because of the policies which are taking place today of economic growth, it requires education, it requires the opening of society to men and women so that little by little you have a civil society that develops which then will bring democracy.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So you're saying: "Keep your mouth shut and that'll bring stability."
AUDIENCE (F)
Exactly sir, that's my point.  If you want a new generation, if you want a new generation to learn how to be, to learn democracy and the basics of democracy, how would you imagine they would learn if they don't have the right to express themselves freely?
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
I fully understand where you're coming from on this, but the fact is today, if you had really open mikes, so to speak, in society in the region, you will have the Islamists take over and I'm not sure that would keep you in particular able to speak.
AUDIENCE (F)
No, sir, what you're saying is that if we open democracy and if we allow democracy in specific countries, people are going to be bullied, but then that's not the case.  If I'm not going to be bullied by someone, then I won't be able to bully that someone and tell them that: "No, what you're saying is wrong, what I'm saying is right, and this is my point of view."
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
I wish you were right, I wish you were right.  I mean, I fully appreciate what the lady is saying, but the fact is, the elections in Kuwait tend to always produce the Islamists in power, the elections in Bahrain four years ago - 80 percent Islamists in power and all they were talking about is Islamist issues and not the issues of the people.  Even in Saudi Arabia, God forbid, there were elections a few years ago, and the Golden List I think it was called, passed and that was really not democracy and I'm afraid...
TIM SEBASTIAN
So God forbid that democracy produces a result that you don't like.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
Well, that's exactly the point today and I think we have an issue with that.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
On the other hand, you have a country like Pakistan, created on the basis of religion and yet every democratic election the Islamists have never got more than 3 percent,  so the argument that if you have democracy in a Muslim country, only the extreme Islamists will come in, is a completely wrong argument. You allow democracy and the chances are that people will get elected who are dealing with the real problems of the people and not with false problems of doctrine.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
This is the case if you have a civil society, a very active civil society, that exists in Pakistan just was it was existing in India before partition and so on, you have an enormous ability of the civil society to exist. In the Gulf we have not had this so far.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
These two have just shown that it does exist if we give it a chance.  This young man, that young lady, - I wish they were Indians. [Applause]
TIM SEBASTIAN
How do you get a civil society if you don't have democracy?
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
The fact is, 20, 30 years ago here very few people were educated. Today everybody is educated and the schools are improving by the day and that is creating critical thinking and this is in fact one of the goals of all the governments of the region is to establish critical thinking in the schools. Now, they may be shooting themselves in foot by doing that but the fact is in one generation you will have a very active civil society and I can see why people are too impatient for that.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, okay.  Gentleman in the second row please.
AUDIENCE (M)
Good evening.  I'm a Qatari national.  My question goes out to either panel. The question is, does democracy add value if it's there for the sake of it?  Taking Qatar for example, every other day we see press releases of Qatar climbing positions in international ratings, whether it be competitiveness or transparency, so again: what would democracy bring to Qatar now as opposed to 70 years later?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Wael Abbas, would you like to take that?
WAEL ABBAS
No, I'll pass.  I'm not very familiar with the situation in Qatar so ...
N. JANARDHAN
Well, I think the problem is not about, you know whether democracy comes to the region now or later.  The problem is whether the conditions are right or not and I strongly believe that the conditions are not yet right. I mean, democracy should be something that grows from below, it should not be a top-down approach.  Essentially now what we see in terms of political reforms in the region is reforms from above and until you have a certain political culture in the region, there is certainly a lack of political awareness. Just the fact that two young people here demand democracy in the region doesn't necessarily mean that everybody else is ready, everybody else is politically aware of what they require. So far it has been a completely patron-client kind of relationship in the region. People have got used to a certain standard of living, a certain welfare mechanism, which is not always true in all the other developed countries or democracies, so I think there needs to be a certain amount of political culture that needs to be developed and I think the beginnings of that political culture is being seen in terms of the whole lot of knowledge economy that's been based - education is the most important thing.  I mean, as you move on, you will have a situation where things will develop, where there may be some amount of discontent, dissatisfaction among the people because of a growth in population...
TIM SEBASTIAN
You seem to be promoting a nanny state here.  "We'll tell you when you're right, we'll tell you when you're ready, somebody else will tell you.  You're not right yet but you can have it in a couple of weeks or a couple of years."
N. JANARDHAN
Democracy didn't come first in Europe, capitalism came in first.  I mean, there was a ground that was prepared for democracy to come in to most parts of the world except in America where both came about simultaneously.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
I'm afraid your history is wrong. Democracy came to the United States while the white people there were stealing somebody else's land, killing all those who were resisting the taking over of that land, and enslaving another continent in order to promote their development.  But they did talk about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of billions of riyals, in their constitution, and it is equally true that liberte, fraternite, egalite came in a country that was extremely backward at that time.  So democracy itself promotes prosperity, it's not the other way round, and I do not think this colonial argument of creating a culture is a valid one, for after all, what it took Britain a thousand years to arrive at, India started on the first day that we became independent. We were told that we couldn't have universal suffrage.  We were told that a country which is divided on the basis of caste cannot possibly promote any ideas of equality.  But we have totally dismantled feudalism.  We have succeeded in bringing millions, tens of millions of people, into the middle class on to the prosperity trajectory and it's only if we persist with this that others will come on, but if we were to say that the best thing now is to close down our democracy so that we can become like China, well, you're welcome to go to China.  I'd rather remain in India.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
I think one of the problems we have forgotten when we talk about history is that most of these democracies came out of bloodbaths where people killed each other for years and years and years. Even in the United States there was a revolutionary war, which was not pleasant. The French Revolution came out of the most amazing violence and if the only way to get democracy is through violence, this is really a big problem. I think what the advantage of the Gulf today is that they can move slowly because they have the wealth to do that.
TIM SEBASTIAN (to questioner)
I want to go back to the questioner and ask him whether, I don't think anybody has really answered your questions about what it would do for Qatar, did they?
AUDIENCE (M)
No, not really.
TIM SEBASTIAN
What do you think it would do for Qatar - democracy?
AUDIENCE (M)
Well, I think, the reason I ask is because I'm sitting halfway between both sides.  I do think that ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
It's uncomfortable, isn't it?
AUDIENCE (M)
Yes, it is, but the point being that yes, so long as you are moving in the right direction is not the point. The point is ensuring sustainability. However you can't ensure sustainability unless you have a strong government that can create a strong middle-class, so nobody's really tackled that issue yet.
N. JANARDHAN
No, well, when there's a price to pay for democracy and I'm sure it's easy to say: "Yes, we will pay that price for democracy," but I'm not sure that the people in the region are yet ready to pay that price.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Wael Abbas - a price to pay for democracy?
WAEL ABBAS
Of course there's a price to pay for democracy but people should be given awareness first before they are given democracy and this awareness should be through freeing, making breakthroughs in the media and in the civil society, and enlightening people about the values of freedom and democracy and stuff like that, so people will start embracing and understanding that democracy is going to help them.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right. I'm going to take a question from the lady up there, yes, you.  Could you tell us where you're from please
AUDIENCE (F)
I'm from Sudan, and my question is directed to the proposition.  So in non- democratic states, it is perhaps the stability that allows for the sustainable economic policies that you argue translate into prosperity.  I believe that this debate isn't about wealth versus democracy, it's about which way should we go and which path to take to maximise the population's welfare and there's a hidden assumption in all your arguments that economic prosperity alone translates into the maximum welfare of the population. My question is, what if the people are not happy with socio-economic or socio-political aspects of their living?  I mean, isn't that also a factor that you're disregarding in your debate?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Jean-Francois Seznec.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
Are you suggesting that we should have taxes to sort of equalise the income because a lot of the problem is - it's true, as has been mentioned - the wealth is going to a small percentage of the population, not so much in the Gulf but in many other countries and taxes of course are a very difficult issue. Nobody wants to pay taxes and in countries where taxes exist like Egypt, nobody really pays them, so it's a bit of an issue. Maybe I did not understand the point.
WAEL ABBAS
I have to disagree with you because we are forced to pay them like 10 per cent sales tax on anything that you buy so ...
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
Sales tax yes, that's true.
WAEL ABBAS
... you're forced to do that.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
Sales tax, yes.
TIM SEBASTIAN (to questioner)
You wanted to come back, sorry.
AUDIENCE (F)
Yes.  I think you just completely disregard my question. [Applause]. I'm not saying that we should have taxes, this is a completely separate debate.  What I'm saying is that you are ignoring other aspects that for example, with the lack of democracy comes a lack of change, so if let's say the example that was given by your fellow speaker was that Obama didn't lose just now, the Democrats didn't lose because Obama was black. They lost because people wanted a change.  Democracy gives you the opportunity for that change. In other countries, what if people wanted change but they can't voice it?  And that change doesn't always have to be economic. I just want to point out that I believe that in the Gulf which is your primary example, it might not be as great an issue, because people are living comfortably and that is like someone pointed out because of the wealth of oil, what happens when that runs out, when problems that were hidden, social problems and political problems come to light when that economic prosperity no longer dominates, then what happens? [Applause].
N. JANARDHAN
The more I try to argue here, I would be sounding like a materialist, you know, but that's not the point.  The point is ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
It's the side you're on.
N. JANARDHAN
No, the point is that you know, you have to have the necessary conditions on the ground for you to promote political change and I think economic prosperity brings about those conditions to a large extent.  I mean, I think it's far more easy to cushion any kind of political change once you've had economic reforms, once you have a prosperous society, to a large extent, then you can bring about political change and you know there have been voices raised about what happens when you run out of oil and that's exactly, I mean, I think in the last ten years, you've seen that the Gulf countries have brought about a host of diversification policies and their economic issues. I mean, today I think roughly about 30 percent of GDP is from non-oil resources, I mean, so that's progress for many years ahead.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Mani Shankar Aiyar, you don't look convinced by any of this.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
I'm totally unconvinced, because while he talks about the price for paying for democracy, what about the price you pay for prosperity without democracy?  It was Jean-Francois who suggested just now that the Saudis want a knowledge-based economy. If they get a knowledge-based economy, then people are going to demand on the basis of that knowledge that there'd be a major political change...
N. JANARDHAN
We agree with that...
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
...now therefore if you gave them that political opportunity now, the change would come without violence, but if there's going to be resistance from the oil classes to the knowledge classes then there's going to be a lot of trouble and it is not...democracy is the great safety valve. You give it, you've seen that democracy operates in very poor countries, it also operates in the rich countries, but I've never seen a dictatorship lasting whether in a prosperous country or a weak one.  I mean, you can have, dictatorship itself does not ensure either prosperity or poverty.  Even again, Germany getting rich under Hitler, where does it go?  It goes into war.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Let him come back.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
This is not... you're saying the choice is either democracy or dictatorship, we're not in dictatorships per se here.  I called it in my statement at first 'enlightened autocracies' and this is what it is. The people for the last 250 years around here, they have been ruling almost by consensus and it takes an awful long time to get any decisions, but decisions sometimes get made so it's not totally an absolute dictatorship as we have seen in many other places. I also wanted to apologise to the lady, I didn't mean to disregard her question.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right.  We're going to take a question from the gentleman in the red shirt up there, you.
AUDIENCE (M)
I'm from Pakistan and my question is for Mr. Aiyar, he's supporting the free elections, so what about the part of Kashmir in India?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Well, I think this is a particular aspect that we're not delving into at the moment.  We could spend a whole debate talking about Kashmir, but we're discussing a particular issue about whether people would prefer money to free elections, so I'll take another question then.  Gentleman behind you, to the left.  Yes, you sir.
AUDIENCE (M)
Yes.  Hello.  I'm from Bahrain.  My question is to Dr. Francois.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Actually we're going to take some questions to the other side.  Have your question, then we're going to shift it round a little bit.
AUDIENCE (M)
Can I say my question?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Yes.
AUDIENCE (M)
Yes, Dr. Francois, you have said earlier that money brings prosperity and I completely agree with you on that, but I mean, have we become so selfish that we have come to ignore those foreign workers that work their heart and soul here on the same soil that we Arabs are living on? Seriously like we are ready to step over their rights because we don't have free elections, we don't have someone to go and talk for their name. Thank you.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
I could not agree more. In fact if there was democracy, I'm afraid the foreign workers would be treated probably even worse than they are today. I mean, there is, in Bahrain in particular, where 50 percent of the population of Bahrain is now foreign - when I lived there, it was only 30 percent - you know, I think there is a lot of unhappiness among the population about having the government bringing so many foreign workers, so I think that would create even more damage to the population, but I'm sure there are other views on that.  
N. JANARDHAN
Let me just give you an example, you know, there was a poll conducted in the UAE about three years ago after all the ruckus that was created by human rights groups about, you know, foreign workers being treated badly etc. and there was an effort to try and ascertain from them what exactly they wanted. They were given several choices: a better standard of living, higher wages, political freedom, perhaps even citizenship and all they wanted was a better standard of living and better wages and timely payment of salaries, that's it, when they could have asked for labour unions I mean, that's what the human rights ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
But they couldn't even get that, could they?
N. JANARDHAN
My whole point is for an ordinary person, that's what matters.  I don't think he really requires political freedom to survive, he wants his basic wages at the end of the day.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Doesn't he want to elect people who are going to ensure those conditions for him - Mani Shankar?
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
Don't you think the human rights of the foreign workers who are here, will be better protected in a democracy than in an autocracy?  I mean, we have severe human rights violations which are not exposed because of the nature of society.  Now, I don't see... I find that most democracies do allow foreign workers to come in, even if there is some domestic opposition. Whether foreign workers come in or not depends upon the nature of the economy and the demands for labour and I think that the protection of the human rights of the immigrant workers will be much better guaranteed in an open society than in a closed society. That doesn't mean that they are not being protected, it's simply that they would be better protected.
N. JANARDHAN
No. Without trivialising the issue, I think, you know, many of the foreign workers in the region are doing much better here than they do in their own countries.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
But that's why they come here.  I mean, why would they come here if they didn't get more money?  I'm just saying that you can get more money and more freedom if you come into a developed democracy rather than into a prosperous autocracy.
TIM SEBASTIAN (to questioner)
I want to go back to the questioner at this point and ask him whether he thinks that democracy in Bahrain would actually improve the conditions of workers there.  Can we get the microphone back to you?  Would you like to come back on this?
AUDIENCE (M)
Well, yes, I mean, it's true that they can be represented somehow like after great amount of pressure on the government and on politicians. All I'm saying, that they need some sort of person in the government, they need some sort of person in politics that actually speak for these people, like I mean, it is true that they earn more money here than they earn in their home countries, but they are living in conditions that no-one should have to live in, so that's all I'm saying, they need to be represented.  Thank you.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, thank you very much. Wael Abbas.
WAEL ABBAS
I don't think this is going to happen in countries where there is no democracy, because in order for foreign workers to be represented, I'm not saying that they should run for parliament, for example, but in order for them to be represented there needs to be free media that tackles their problems and there should be civil society, an active civil society, that works on the rights of these people and there should be political parties like socialist parties for example that can work on the rights of those people.  Other than that, nobody is going to hear their voice, since the money is controlling everything here. The money is the government and the money is the businessmen who actually employ those workers so they will never talk in favour of those workers and their newspapers that they issue for their money.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
If I may, I think one of the issues on the democratic approach to foreign workers is, as I said earlier, I think under a democratic system the foreign workers would be treated worse because there's a lot of tension between the unemployed youth, especially in Bahrain, who see their jobs being taken by foreigners for various reasons, which happens, and the foreign workers will be treated worse, many will be thrown out immediately.
TIM SEBASTIAN
And what's your evidence for saying that?
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
Well, just having lived here, that's all I can say.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But it hasn't happened, has it, you haven't seen them working under a democracy because there isn't one?
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
That is true.  We cannot prove a negative, you know.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Exactly.  There you are. Lady over there. Yes, you. Where are you from please?
AUDIENCE (F)
Oh, sorry, I'm Iraqi.  The issue of switching to a knowledge-based society came up and I just wonder; how do you expect that change to come about when there's no incentive to access knowledge, to gain knowledge because of the wealth?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Who would like to take a stab at that?
N. JANARDHAN
Yes, well, I mean, I think the whole point of trying to develop a knowledge-based society here, is for the reason that the gentleman mentioned, that in the years ahead, you are bound to have a situation where you may run out of oil, you may have a situation where there are a lot of unemployed people here, you don't want to rely on expatriates all the time, so you want to create another economy which is not purely oil-based and that's the reason why they're developing a knowledge-based economy.
AUDIENCE (F)
I think you're being slightly idealistic though.  People are thinking of today, they're thinking of the present, they've got the money today. Why access knowledge...?
N. JANARDHAN
Even today, even today there are a host of, you know, areas where people want to get into, but they don't have the right skills. I mean, the private sector is willing to employ I mean, nationals in the region, but it's the nationals who are unwilling to either join them for lack of, you know, adequate pay or it's the private sector which believes that they are not adequately skilled. These are the reasons and I think there is enough scope for the governments to pursue a knowledge-based society here.
AUDIENCE (F)
But people are being employed here anyway without the education and what incentive is there to access knowledge?
N. JANARDHAN
That isn't true, I mean you're talking of the very few countries in the Gulf.  There are quite a few countries in the Gulf which are experiencing unemployment problems.
AUDIENCE (F)
That was the example that you used, you used the example of the Gulf.
N. JANARDHAN
Yes.  In the Gulf there are a good number of countries which don't have, you know, which have a major unemployment problem and they are trying to pursue a host of issues where they're trying to, you know, sort out the unemployment problem by giving them adequate skills, by trying to promote the idea of, you know, trying to work in the private sector and not just rely on the public sector.  The public sector has been doling out a fair bit now. They want to at some point stop that and ensure that people are working in the private sector as well.
TIM SEBASTIAN (to questioner)
Okay.  Where to you stand on the issue of free elections then?
AUDIENCE (F)
Free elections?  Where?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Start in this region.
AUDIENCE (F)
Is there such a thing as free elections though?  I mean, even in the States there is something, there's a quid pro quo. They might be called ‘free' elections but in some way there is some sort of manipulation, promises that are not followed upon. There is no such thing, I believe, no such thing as a free election. The concept of free election is ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
So just take the cash and run then, yes?
AUDIENCE (F)
That's one way to look at it.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Okay, all right.  I'm going to take some questions for this side of the argument, please, so if you don't have a question for this side, please put your hands down for the moment.  Gentleman over there, you, sir.
AUDIENCE (M)
Good evening.  I'm Mohammed from Yemen.  My question is for the opposition.  What good is a free election when you, as an example, participate in the policy-making process, feel very good about yourself, but later the government does not perform as well as expected economically and financially and so for the rest of the year you're broke?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Mani Shankar Aiyar, you've participated in a few governments that didn't impress you, didn't you?
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
I have to apologise.  Owing to my hearing problem, I didn't fully catch the question.  Can you just repeat it?  Could you just sum it up for me?
TIM SEBASTIAN
What good was the free election when the government doesn't do what you ask it to do, doesn't perform as well as you hope it will and you're broke afterwards?
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
No, no, no, you have another election then. The whole point of democracy is that if they don't perform, you kick them out. [Applause]. See, the lovely thing about democracy is that you don't respect your leaders.  A democracy is an area where the politicians' position socially is just below that of the dacoit or the prostitute.  We politicians are regarded as awful and that's the great thing about democracy.
TIM SEBASTIAN
You are talking yourself out of any future job here.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
I'm out of a job at the moment so it's all right.
AUDIENCE (M)
I'm sorry but I do respect my politicians because I would not elect them in the office if I don't, but I'm saying, just like that, you know, sometimes we don't know what the government's going to do before we elect them and when we do, they might do a good job, they might not, so I'd rather, you know, be very sure about it, have, you know, a good economy, just live a good life and whatever happens, happens later.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
But that's what Winston Churchill said: "Democracy is a very bad form of government, but it's better than any other form of government."  There is no guarantee that an election will produce a good result, but it will produce a result which can be changed, whereas if you don't have elections, you may have to live with whatever the system is, indefinitely, however long it harms you.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
That is assuming, that is assuming that you have sides which will play fair, to a certain extent. There is not really great fairness in politics, but if you have sides that come into power and then refuse to leave, or start oppressing the other groups, then you have a major problem.
WAEL ABBAS
But you have a system and institutions and a constitution that control that, it's not about playing fair, because if you're not playing fair, you'll be exposed and you will destroy your own credibility because the system will expose you.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
There are hundreds of constitutions that are violated day in, day out, and even in this area, so I don't trust that too much.
WAEL ABBAS
But you have the mechanism to fix them within them, there is a system inside them that fixes them automatically, whenever they are violated.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
They're not played with, yes.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
The only answer to a free election which produces a bad result is another free election and if you don't have that free election, it means that there's not a system of free elections, so a system of free elections is not only good for people, it's also good for prosperity, so the contradiction that is sought to be placed by you before us, that it's either money or free elections is the wrong choice. In fact, if you have free elections, the chances are that you'll get more money.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But not for the 900 million in India?
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
Well, you'd get perhaps a little more than I would, but still we'd all get a little bit more.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Okay.  Questions again for this side of the argument please.  Lady in the front row.  You have a question for those against the motion? 
AUDIENCE (F)
Hi.  I'm from Egypt and my question is for Wael Abbas.  I would like him to explain a bit more about what you said earlier about that there's got to be a price for democracy and taking Egypt as an example, many people are afraid that if the Muslim Brotherhood should enter the elections, if it's a free election, really, that they might actually win and taking also what Jean-Francois said a while ago, that extremism is what we're going to have if there is democracy in this particular region - do you think that their argument is not necessarily about wealth versus a democracy, but really about wealth versus extremism?
WAEL ABBAS
Well, that's the propaganda that our regime is using, that it's either them or the Islamists coming to power, but we've seen in the Presidential elections back five years ago, that the second person who won the Presidential elections was Ayman Nour despite the fact that he, it was rigged. He won one million votes. This shows you where the people are heading, and that people want change. It's not necessarily that people will choose extremism because they believe in them, but because they are the opposition, they are the available ones, they are the ones who have access to them, they are the ones who are successful in promoting themselves, but if we had democracy, if we had free media, if we had a free civil society that has access to the people and really represents the people and represents their ideas and tells their problems and argues against the Islamists and... so people will be able to choose. Maybe we will change their mind-sets, will change the way that they perceive things in this country, and will choose the ones who are going to help them. It ended up like that in places like Gaza, where people chose the resistance, Hamas, because they hated Fatah, but not because Hamas was the best choice, but because Hamas had good deeds fighting the Israelis and stuff like that, but it didn't mean necessarily that they are the ones who are going to help reform the educational system, the health care and stuff like that, so we need this kind of enlightenment to people who have been living for 50 years under a military regime in order to change the way that they think and in order to choose carefully who is going to represent them and who's going to run their country.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right. Do you want to come back on that?
AUDIENCE (F)
Yes.  I mean, you live in Egypt and you know how it is, so you're saying that people are choosing the Islamists because they are the only credible option apart from corrupt government, but does that mean that you don't really think that people might vote for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt if all the mechanism you talked about earlier, the things that should proceed an election to guarantee its freedom - you think that the Islamists are not going to win in Egypt?
WAEL ABBAS
They are going to win if things kept on being like that, if people kept being in the dark and they were provided with no alternatives. If the government keeps shutting up the liberals and the socialists and the Nasserists and the other political sects in Egypt, the Islamists are going to win, but if everybody is allowed to provide a programme which the Islamists don't have at all, that shows people how we are going to deal with the problems of this country, problems of unemployment and housing and health care and education and stuff like that, the Islamists don't have that kind of problem. All they are saying that we are going to reform this country.
TIM SEBASTIAN (to questioner)
Are you comforted by that, you accept it?  You're afraid of the Islamists coming to power in Egypt?
AUDIENCE (F)
Actually, I don't think it's quite realistic because I mean, that's a bit idealist because this is not going to happen any time soon. The government in Egypt or Jordan or well, many countries in the Middle East, are not going to allow the opposition to explain their programmes in full. This is just not realistic enough.
WAEL ABBAS
That's why we have to work on it, that's why we need activists, we need people who are working to free the media and free the civil society and destroy all the obstacles that are facing them. [Applause].
TIM SEBASTIAN
Jean-Francois Seznec, you want to come in.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
Absolutely. I think you mentioned the word 'civil society' and a free civil society, I think we both, we all agree on that. The problem is how long does that take, and I agree with the lady saying that it will take a fair amount of time if I can paraphrase what you just said and I think we, it's exactly what we are witnessing in this region is, we have to let it develop and it's not happening at this point and it will only after the education and the people start feeling very comfortable in their own lives.
WAEL ABBAS
But if the government is controlling the education, controlling the curriculum, not allowing you to discuss stuff, our education system is so corrupt. We're not allowed to discuss with our professors, we're only allowed to obey and we have to follow the book and if they cancel part of the book, so we're not going to discuss it, we are not going to study it.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
I totally agree. This is why Qatar has five American universities, just to do that and Abu Dhabi too..
WAEL ABBAS
Foreign universities are not the solution for the poor population. Not everybody can afford to go to foreign universities. We need to reform the local governmental education system. [Appause].
TIM SEBASTIAN
Gentleman in the red shirt in the second row, you've had your hand up for a long time. 
AUDIENCE (M)
Good evening.  My name is Mohammed, I'm a Palestinian American. My question is for the opposition. Now, for the most problems in the Gulf, they are very young countries. Qatar has only been around since the 1970s. Now, the biggest problem they face is competition from outside, so when the government is controlling society, they are providing a culture where it's become like (inaudible) based that's wherever they have universities for educated people, so when the oil does run out, they have the leaders to take place and to move forward.  Now, if Qatar had a free democracy, had free competition for everybody, a foreign company would come in and just dominate everybody. The Qataris will not have the knowledge or the skills or the abilities to compete with these people, so isn't it really better that they cap these foreign influences until their people are ready to compete on international level?
TIM SEBASTIAN
So you're saying limit democracy for the sake of the indigenous population?
AUDIENCE (M)
Yes. Isn't that what the government's supposed to do, take care of its people?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Wael Abbas?  Limit democracy?  Limit the influx of people?
WAEL ABBAS
Of course not, of course not, but what I understood is that you saw that we are against foreign influences. No, we're not against that at all. You get education from abroad, you get science from abroad, you get machines and experience from abroad and then you use them and then you learn from them and then you make something for your country, but this doesn't have to do with limiting democracy at all. You still can have democracy and you still can debate about these foreign influences and how you are going to utilise them the most in order to make your country better.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Do you accept that argument?
AUDIENCE (M)
No, I don't, because if my country's built on the backs of foreign workers, how can I stand up and say: "This is my country, I did this."
WAEL ABBAS
Ah, you talk about foreign workers?
AUDIENCE (M)
Well, foreign influences.
WAEL ABBAS
I thought you were talking about foreign universities.
AUDIENCE (M)
It's a foreign influence from outside. If my country was built on foreign aid from abroad and I just paid for it, it's not really my work, it's not my hard work in blood and sweat that went in to building my country.
WAEL ABBAS
The modern Germany that we know was built on the backs of Turkish people after World War Two, and still the Germans claim that it's their country and it's their culture and it's their industry and everything.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right. I'm going to move on to a question from the lady in the second row, please.
AUDIENCE (F)
Hi.  My name is Noor from the United States.  You know, my question is for the panel against the motion. We've been talking about democracy coming into place organically in the Middle East or in whatever country in question and we've been ignoring external influences, so I'm wondering, do you think democracy is feasible, sustainable and beneficial if it leads to the withdrawal of foreign support, especially monetary foreign support?
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
Democracy is feasible wherever the mind is free and the mind is free everywhere.  I don't think the mind becomes less free or more free depending upon circumstance. The mind is free and it chooses. I don't think... I'd be very surprised if a foreign influence can over-throw where I stand.  Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi said: "I want all the doors and the windows of my house to be open so that the winds of the world can blow about inside it, but I refuse to be swept off my feet," so in that sense every society is always ready for democracy and almost no society ever actually wants autocracy except for the autocrats who rule that society. That is why democracy is going to eventually prevail everywhere and it'll prevail whether it is a prosperous growing country or whether it is a stagnant, poor country. Democracy will win in the end.  [Applause].
TIM SEBASTIAN
Jean-Francois Seznec.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
I think these are wonderful words, they really are, beautiful words, but unfortunately I really don't see this happening in this region anywhere. I mean, look when we talked about Iraq a bit earlier and there has been minimal foreign influence in Iraq I'm saying ‘minimal foreign influence', it's, you know, not really serious, but we see that the events from overseas from everywhere and internally are only creating havoc in Iraq. The groups cannot work together because it happened too suddenly, so when we say that democracy and I really mean that when democracy comes up organically from inside, I think that's what we're looking for. If we're bringing it from outside, then it explodes.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
You know, I lived in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It was a very ordered society, but it was a very oppressed one. Today there is an element of democracy in Iraq and although the results of that last election are still really to coalesce into a government, the fact of the matter is that the people of Iraq have an opportunity to determine their own destiny instead of just leaving it to the Ba'ath Party to do it.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Mani Shankar Aiyar, we're speaking on a day when 14 roadside bombs - 14 roadside bombs - went off in Baghdad this morning.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
In Saddam's day you don't know how many people were killed because that information was not made available. 
TIM SEBASTIAN
That's not a comparable number, it's not a comparable number...
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
Look, that democracy has been brought about as a result of the invasion of Iraq.  That invasion was wrong, but the invasion being now a part of history, there is a growing democracy. I would rather that there be a growing democracy there than a growing autocracy. That growing autocracy suppressed freedom.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
But the opposite could take place in Iraq. You could have the sense it's really not working and everybody's at loggerheads in Iraq. You could really have one party starts oppressing totally the others and go back to the old days of Saddam Hussein under another name. 
N. JANARDHAN
Eight months after the last election was held and the results were announced, they still don't have a government in Iraq.
TIM SEBASTIAN
I want to go back to the questioner and ask you, you seem troubled by the idea of democracy.  What worries you?
AUDIENCE (F)
Well, I mean, if we're going to take the example of Iraq, you know, the security forces are funded by, you know, from Western money.  Much of the civil society groups' infrastructure in Iraq is funded from foreign money, so I mean, there is that monetary element that you need some sort of money, you need the resources to fund civil society groups to allow them to thrive and I'm just not sure that if the West, or, you know, whatever foreign country withdraws its support of certain institutions, how democracy can thrive. I mean, of course the idea of democracy is very strong, but without the practical, you know, money or whatever it takes, you really can't have it.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
The most expensive elections in the world are held in the United States of America. The fact of the matter is that democracy is expensive and money is used in democracies, but I don't think it de-legitimises the process because people need money to carry out their message. Ask any advertising executive. If you need money to sell chewing gum, surely you need more money to sell ideas, especially against an opposition that has contrary ideas. I think what actually happens in a democracy is that there is a play of different forces, different ideas. It throws up a synthesis and that is why the more mature a democracy becomes, the more likely it is that there will be 2 rather than 20 parties. That at least is the experience of developed democracies.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Wael Abbas.
WAEL ABBAS
There is a problem with the civil society in our region because it has been given a bad name for a long time, whether the dictatorships were military regimes or monarchies. They have been always looked upon, they have been banned for a long time and then when they were allowed to work again, they were looked upon as agents of the West. "They are here to change our culture, they are here to work against our religion, they want us to accept the homosexuals, to give more rights to women" and stuff like that, so the people in general don't think highly of the civil society in Egypt, so they will not participate, they will not donate money. That's why civil society in our region at the moment needs money from Europe and from the States and from other places. But let's look at the Eastern bloc, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe now. They all, they didn't have a civil society, and a civil society back during the socialist era was looked upon as agents of the West too, so, but nowadays they can sustain their work on their own, they accept donations, businessmen contributing and it's working find with no foreign aid at the moment.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Okay.  We're going to move on, take a question from the lady in the front row.
AUDIENCE (F)
Hello.  I'm Lebanese.  My question is against the motion. Mr. Mani Shankar, as you mentioned earlier that you believe, I mean, that you have no guarantee or no chance of you knowing whether the government is going to be a good one or a bad one, so you just are going to go for democracy. Well, don't you think if we think that way, that we have no chance whether to know if it's good or bad, then I believe that, well, I prefer taking the money and voting for that government, whatever government is giving us money and then sitting at home and wondering like whatever. Okay, if it's good or bad at least I have something.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
You know, you can sometimes choose the wrong wife just as you can sometimes choose the wrong government, but there is an opportunity in a democracy of reversing your own decision and the fact is that when choices are placed before a people, it's unlikely that all of them will choose in one direction and the more mature a democracy grows, that is the longer it lasts, the greater are the chances that whatever comes to power is a coalition of thoughts and not just a single thought and that is what reduces the chances of your electing a disaster. It may be impossible to elect a really outstanding government, but it's also almost impossible to elect a real disaster and there is continuity and stability in democracies which you don't see in dictatorships.
AUDIENCE (F)
All right.  Well, as I said before, like if you have no point of view whether it's good or bad, you take that decision and you don't even know if it's good or bad, that's what you mentioned earlier, so at least I have something. I have money in my pocket and that's good. And about the wrong wife, well, how do you know if, you said, maybe it's a bad wife or a good one. Well, at least, as I said before, that I have something which is money. Why do I need democracy, I mean, if I don't know, why do I need to make a choice if I don't even know if it's positive or negative, pros and cons, whatever.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Wael Abbas.
MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
Because man does not live by bread alone. You can fill your stomach but how are you going to fill your soul, how are you going to fill your mind?  How are you going to keep your tongue going? [Applause].
TIM SEBASTIAN
Okay, Wael Abbas.
WAEL ABBAS
I have to say something about that.  Hitler, when he came to power in Germany, he promised the Germans a cup of milk for every child on every table and he fulfilled that, he actually provided people with their needs, but afterwards what did he do?  He destroyed all that, he took all that away, so that was no guarantee. 
TIM SEBASTIAN
Jean-Francois.
WAEL ABBAS
Having your wealth at the moment and having a job at Krupps or whatever Schindler factory ...
AUDIENCE (F)
You're mentioning again that there's no guarantee, no guarantee for anything.
WAEL ABBAS
No guarantees under Hitler because he was a dictator.
AUDIENCE (F)
You had no guarantee for anything.
WAEL ABBAS
The people had no chance of removing him from power because he came to power and he established himself with guns and people had no chance of removing him.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Okay, Jean-Francois Seznec.
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
The fact of history is that Hitler was elected by a free election in Germany under the Weimar Republic and that he did not give back the power.
WAEL ABBAS
But the population were not aware of that then and he had militias that terrorised people...
JEAN-FRANCOIS SEZNEC
In this case they were not able to change the situation.  If we had a democratic system in some countries here, and you did have a free election, you don't know whether the groups that area going to win - which in my view in places like Saudi Arabia and so on would be the Islamists - whether they would actually put their own success in jeopardy in the long term.  By the way, when you choose the wrong wife, sometimes it's the wrong husband. [Applause].
TIM SEBASTIAN
Gentleman over there, you sir. 
AUDIENCE (M)
Hi. I come from Lebanon. I've been living in the Gulf for the past 11 years. It's funny, you keep mentioning about Saudi. Last year, if I'm not mistaken, you remember the floodings that happened in Jeddah. Well, it was the first time ever that people used, as was referred to before, the power of the Internet to basically revolt against what's happening and all those people in power who came without them electing them ...
WAEL ABBAS
... exposing them basically.
AUDIENCE (M)
Exactly. Exactly, exposing them.  Remember that, and there are many other examples, I'm sure Wael can talk about them. But my question is, and I'd like an explanation to that, is who dictates what's free elections, who dictates what's democracy? You've mentioned something very important - political democracy is coupled with economic democracy, is coupled with many other things that come as a result of the real democracy that we read about in books. Excuse me for dwelling on that but I just have one more question.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Well, you've given us quite a lot of questions, who decides what democracy is, who decides what free elections are?  Let's just have them answer that, thank you.
WAEL ABBAS
I believe that the people themselves are the ones who decide what is democracy.  There should be a referendum and everybody in the country should be involved when we are trying to impose a constitution on the people, they should have a say in this constitution, so that's what decides how democracy is going to run this country afterwards, how the future of this country is going to be.
AUDIENCE (M)
But Wael, you know very well that unfortunately we're talking about a generation that's been brainwashed over a long period of time.
WAEL ABBAS
Exactly - that's why we need free media, that's why we need an active civil society, that's why we need real political parties that are not established by permission from the regime, but real political parties that are established from the base and that's why the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are successful, because I believe, despite disagreeing with them that they are the only legitimate political party in Egypt because it established itself.  It didn't wait for the government to give them permission and a newspaper and a villa to start their headquarters.
AUDIENCE (M)
But you we're talking about free media. The Internet is a free media, isn't it?
WAEL ABBAS
It is at the moment, but we are on the internet because we want to free the other media, because the other media reaches more people. I cannot claim that I reach the whole population of Egypt, I reach like 25 percent only.
AUDIENCE (M)
Do you think free media will come any time soon?  And you're talking about newspapers, TV, radio.
WAEL ABBAS
We made some breakthroughs back in 2005 and we forced the regime to admit that there is torture that is taking place in police stations and that there is rigging in the election.
AUDIENCE (M)
Why didn't you expose that on the Internet? You didn't expose it. Neither  newspapers, nor TVs, it was published in one newspaper.
WAEL ABBAS
No, no, no, more, more, more. Let me tell you about this story about sexual harassment. It was first posted on our blogs, but two years later the official newspaper in Egypt Al Ahram admitted that there were incidents of sexual harassment and in the parliament they are discussing at the moment a law against sexual harassment and it all started on the Internet, on the blogs.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Dr. Janardhan.
N. JANARDHAN
My point is that, you know, you've been trying, most people try to equate free elections with democracy. I don't think that's what it is.  Free elections are just a part of democracy.  Democracy requires a host of other things and as you mentioned, civil society, freedom of expression, empowerment of women, a host of things. Invariably everybody assumes that democracy is just about free elections and to arrive at those conditions where you have to have an ideal democracy is extremely difficult and that's the point. It takes a whole lot of time before you can get to there and it's not easy. Till then what do people do?  It's not going to happen. People just dream about the purple ink or the, you know, the ballot boxes and the ballot papers and not have anything in their stomachs, so that's the reason why ...
WAEL ABBAS
Your method is not going to help it because empowering businessmen is not going to help that, reaching this stage.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right.
WAEL ABBAS
Empowering businessmen will only empower them defending their interests only but not the interests of the general population.

TIM SEBASTIAN
All right.  Ladies and gentlemen, we've come to the point in the proceedings, we're going to vote now on the motion that This House would prefer money to free elections. If you just take your voting machines, if you want to vote for the motion, that's the side represented by those on my right, you press button 1 in a moment.  If you want to vote against the motion, that's the side represented by those on my left, it's button 2. Which-ever button you want to press, would you do it now.  You only have to press once and thanks to the wonders of science we'll get your vote on the screen in about 15 seconds.....
Here we are, there is the vote. There is the vote: 37 percent for the motion, 63 percent against. The motion has been resoundingly rejected. All I have to do now is to thank our eminent speakers, thank you very much for coming. Many of you have come a long way. Thank you to you, the audience, for your questions. The Doha Debates will be back again...[applause] The Doha Debates will be back again in a month's time. Till then, from all of us on the team, have a safe journey home.  Good night, thanks for coming, thank you.