Transcription
Okay. Uh, welcome everybody. I'm Jim Levenson, dean of the Jackson School. It's a pleasure to see people here from throughout the Yale community gathered for this event. Uh, I recognize a lot of familiar faces from the Jackson School. I know we're joined by many of my colleagues, uh, and fellow students at the School of Management, as well as other professional schools and Yale College here. I also want to offer a special welcome to our Jackson School admitted students, uh, who are currently participating in our admitted students program. I hope today's event gives you some feel for the sorts of opportunities and the richness of the Yale community, um, and what it's like here.
Sort of in the interest of, of full disclosure. We do this every day. Um, so, you know, sometimes a double-header, but, but today just once. Um, it's my honor today to introduce the Jackson School's inaugural Blue Center Senior Fellow, Baroness Theresa May. Baroness May previously served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 2016 to 2019, the second woman ever to hold the office. Her premiership marked the culmination of 21 years of continuous service in Parliament. She held a total of 14, 14 ministerial or shadow ministerial posts. She served as the first female chairman of the Conservative Party and the longest-serving Conservative Home Secretary in more than a century.
It's been a privilege to have Baroness May on campus this spring, and she's truly participated in many, many parts and in many events across the Yale community and has really integrated herself into the university. She has spoken at the Yale Political Union in a debate, very brave. She's hosted a tea, she is English, uh, with all of our Jackson Master students. She's toured the Yale Center for British Art and the Elizabethan Club. She's worked with Yale Jackson students on using AI to combat human trafficking, an issue Baroness May is deeply involved with as the chair of the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. As the inaugural Blue Center Senior Fellow, Baroness May has also been teaching a seminar course throughout the semester on the complex dynamics that are reshaping domestic, or excuse me, democratic governance in the modern world, the subject of her speech here today.
Following her speech, we're very lucky to have Professor in the Practice of Grand Strategy, Rory Stewart, here to ask Baroness May some questions and have a conversation. So without further ado, please join me in welcoming to the podium Baroness Theresa May. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.
Well, good afternoon, everybody. When I was about 12 years old, I woke up one day and decided that I wanted to be a member of Parliament. And when I grew up, I mean, not at 12 years old, I wanted to be, I wanted to become an elected representative to serve the public. And while I knew this wouldn't be easy, I was in no doubt that it would be possible because I lived in the United Kingdom with its long history of democracy, of parliamentary democracy, albeit a shorter history of women's suffrage. But the ability of people to vote, to cast their choice in who should govern them, was rooted in our history.
On the 27th of April 1994, many years after I woke up as a 12-year-old, the first full democratic elections were held in South Africa. The television pictures of that day showed people queuing for hours for the chance to cast their vote. For many, for the first time, as this was the first time, all adult South Africans, regardless of race, were entitled to vote. On that day, Nelson Mandela said, "I watched along with you all as the tens of thousands of our people stood patiently in long queues for many hours, some sleeping on the open ground overnight, waiting to cast this momentous vote. This is one of the most important moments in the life of our country. I stand here before you filled with deep pride and joy. Pride in the ordinary humble people of this country." And that, in a sense, is what democracy is about. The ordinary humble people having their say in who should govern them, having the freedom to choose and having the freedom, if they don't like the result of the choice, to change their mind at the next election.
There are countries which claim democracy, but where the result of an election is never in any doubt. Sometimes because key figures in opposition to the government have been exiled or have died, even possibly at the hands of the state. But a true democracy gives people the freedom to choose. A true democracy gives people a voice.
Now, democracy doesn't exist in isolation. It is underpinned by certain values or principles: the rule of law, free a free press, the liberty of the individual, the right to hold different, sometimes diametrically opposing views. Critical in this is the rule of law. In a recent speech, Lord Wilson of Tradigga, King's Counsel, the UK's Shadow Attorney General, said the following: "The rule of law is not a law. It is a constitutional principle and an ancient one. At its heart, the rule of law means that the state is governed by laws and that everyone in the state, and indeed the state itself and its government, is subject to the rule of law." He went on to say, in relation to the UK, but it applies elsewhere: "It is a deep-rooted constitutional principle of our political community that everybody is subject to the same laws. Wealth, power, status, or privilege provide no special protection. Governments and public officials are subject to the law and must exercise their powers lawfully."
Now, critical, of course, to this structure is the separation of powers. Parliament, democratically elected representatives, make the law. An independent judiciary interprets the law. If Parliament disagrees with that interpretation, it is open to it to change the law for the elected representatives, the people's choice to change the law. But people's trust in the law is undermined when they think that it is not being applied equally. When, to coin a phrase, they think it is one law for them, the powerful, and one law for us, the ordinary humble people. And when trust in the rule of law is damaged, so too is trust in democracy.
I said another important value in a democracy was a free press. And this ties in with the other point about the right of individuals to hold differing, sometimes diametrically opposing views, but critically to respect the right of others to hold those views. One of my concerns about our democracies today is the way in which debate has become so polarized. We live in an absolutist world where you must either be 100% with me or 100% against me. If you're 100% with me, you're a saint. And if you're 100% against me, you're the devil. And I couldn't possibly debate with you or argue with you, let alone come to a compromise with you.
The word compromise is an interesting one because anybody who has been in government knows that very often in government you have to compromise in order to get a piece of legislation through. You may have to accept some changes so that it is acceptable and is going to be voted through. I learned a lesson about the word, uh, compromise in 2010 when, uh, I, along with my Conservative colleagues, had entered government in a coalition in the UK with the Liberal Democrat party. But I had in my constituency a man called Sir Nicholas Winton. As a young man, just before the start of the Second World War, Nicky Winton had been in Prague and he had seen what was happening to Jewish families, and he set up Kindertransport, transport for hundreds of Jewish children to come to the United Kingdom to be with families in the United Kingdom. Many of them never saw their parents ever again, but had were given a life by Nicky Winton. And shortly after the 2010 election, I was at an event in my constituency and Nicky Winton called me over and he said, "Uh, remember this, Theresa, compromise is not a dirty word."
But in today's absolutist world, too many see compromise as a weakness. Moderation is seen as weakness. Absolutism is a sign of strength. People look for power. In a democracy, it is important to be able to listen to another person's point of view, as I say, to respect their right to hold that view and to be able to debate points respectfully. Yet in today's political debate, we see a coarseness of debate. And I'm afraid, I think, and, uh, those who've been in my class know that I have a bee in my bonnet about social media and the role that it plays. I've always said that social media is a bit like, uh, old Joe who used to sit on the end of the bar in his local pub muttering into his pint of beer. Nobody took any notice of old Joe because his views were either so extreme or so ridiculous that people just ignored him. Now, old Joe doesn't mutter into his pint of beer. He mutters across social media, and all the other old Joes around the world pick up his mutterings and mutter back. And suddenly, those extreme or ridiculous views become a worldview. And all those who hold that view, AI drives further similar views towards them. They become an echo chamber. This makes political debate the more difficult because if people are only listening to views that accord with their view, there is no debate, there is no argument, there is no opportunity to explore, to be challenged. And that is an important part of democracy. An important part because democracy is about people who want to serve being elected, but are being elected with different views and different answers to today's questions.
And so that issue of social media leads to one of, I think, one of the greatest challenges in looking at today's world, and it affects our democracy, which is how do you determine what is true? Where do you go to find the truth if all you are seeing on your social media is the views, your own views, being replayed back to you? Now, talking about truth, that's not to say that over the years politicians haven't amplified their messages, put the best possible gloss on them, spun their stories, but I think social media makes it harder to know where to go to find the truth. And that will be exploited both by those who want to succeed electorally and those who want to damage or destabilize and ultimately destroy democracy.
Democracy is undermined when the rule of law is undermined, and it is undermined when people lose trust. Why do people lose trust in democracy? Well, one of the things I spoke about earlier is when they think there's one law for the people in power and another law for them in their lives. They lose trust when they see politicians not listening to their issues. When they see politicians not delivering on their issues. But there is a challenge here for those of us who are elected representatives in a democracy, which is that today's world has become more instant. People expect things to happen more quickly. Trust has to be repaid more quickly.
And into this world of absolutism and lack of trust come the populists. They don't want to debate. They know the answers. The answers are all easy. They'll tell you them. They'll probably shout them at you. But government is not easy. Government is hard. I said earlier, it often requires compromise. It is not an absolutist world. Yes, you have to have values underpinning what you do, but you cannot have that absolutist approach to everything that you are doing. And government takes time. So there we have that mix of the absolutists, the polarization, the populism, and amongst all that, I worry about people losing trust in democracy and democracy itself being undermined.
And one of the things I worry about most is the polling evidence from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and I dare say elsewhere, that young people are increasingly not seeing democracy as the way to run government. The most recent poll I saw was conducted by the University of Glasgow, uh, at their John Smith Center, and they looked at 16 to 29-year-olds, and they said in that poll, 27% backed dictatorship over democracy. To be fair, 57% backed democracy, so just a majority. But 63% thought democracy was in trouble, and 72% said that democracy is too divided. So, and when the, uh, pollsters looked into this further, they said young people are positive, they support our democratic inheritance, and many want to play a part in it. But what young people want from politics is a more open, honest political culture which provides answers to their basic needs.
It's one of the questions I have been posing is, is this lack of trust in democracy a lack of trust in democracy itself, or a lack of trust that democracy will deliver? When we have generations who may feel that they, and certainly I think we see this in the UK, that the hope of their future being brighter than the lives that their parents, being better than the lives that their parents led, is less, uh, than, uh, doesn't seem to be there, whereas in previous generations, every generation has been able to feel that it was doing better, uh, than the previous generation. When you have that situation, people cast around and wonder what it is that is failing them. Is it the politicians? Is it the system? Uh, and as I say, I think with all of this that is, uh, that is going on, with this absolutist world, this polarization in politics, the rise of the populists, there is a real danger of democracy itself being undermined and democracy itself being damaged.
And I believe democracy is important. Going back to what I said at the beginning, it is about the freedom of people to decide who is going to govern them, who is going to be making choices about the laws under which they, they live, who are the people that they trust to be able to do that and to do that in a way that is going to deliver for them. Winston Churchill once said that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the others. I think democracy is the best form of government precisely because it gives people that freedom. And if you want to know how valuable democracy is, go and look at the photographs of that election in South Africa in 1994. Look at the people queuing up for hour after hour after hour because at last they had the chance to exercise their vote. At last, they had the chance to be part of the democratic process. At last, they had the chance to make their voices heard.
In a democracy, we should ensure that all people's voices are heard, that everybody has that freedom to choose. One of the things I have been pleased to see here at Yale is a genuine commitment to the values of democracy and the values that underpin democracy. And I say to all of you here, for all our futures, please share those values. Share that belief in democracy. Share that belief that everybody should have the freedom to choose who is governing them, and everybody should have the freedom to change that choice at the next election. Politicians don't like it when we get kicked out of government. I know I spent 13 years in opposition. I was kind of had to resign from Number 10. Uh, and my party suffered very badly at the, uh, last election and has been dramatically told by the British people that they didn't want us in government. But that is what democracy is about. It's about the people making that choice. So let's go out from here. Let's share those values. Let's believe in democracy. Let's believe in the freedom of the individual to make those choices. And let's ensure that the absolutists, that the populists, that those who polarize cannot damage our democracy, and that our democracy will reign supreme. Thank you.
Well, thank you. Thank you very, very much indeed. Um, are people able to hear me clearly? Very good. Um, so Baroness May and I will have a conversation for about 15 minutes, and then we will open up to you. Uh, any questions or directions you want to go in? Um, I guess the first question, thank you very much, is, why, um, why are people tending towards the populists? What's gone wrong with the old democratic model? What's, what's failing? What's given the opportunity for the populists to come through?
Well, I think first of all, I think there are, um, a lot of this actually comes down to economies. Uh, what I said about generations feeling they're going to be better off than, uh, be better off than the last generation is about the economy. There have been lots of shocks that have taken place in recent years that have meant that, I mean, the economy is doing rather better here in the United States than it is in the UK. Um, but that sense of, of the politicians and the democ, if you like, democracy failing to deliver for people, I think is, is one of the elements that's there. And if you are in a situation like that, where you feel that the politicians haven't delivered what they've promised, that things, or that things are coming more slowly than you expected, um, the populist who has the easy answer, who says, "Well, all you've got to do is that, and it'll work," um, appears to be appealing, um, as, as you and I both know, Rory, because you've been in government as well. Government can sometimes take time. It is harder than that. There isn't an easy answer.
And do, do you think, Prime Minister, that, um, in some ways, delivery has become more difficult now than it was 40, 50 years ago? That we have more regulation, s, more processes, more legal constraints, and that, uh, there was, despite, yes, minister, and all of this, that there was a bit more freedom of action, and that one of the things that the public's picking up is that governments feel, liberal democratic governments often feel as though they're saying, "We'd like to do this, but we can't really do this for X, Y, and Z."
Uh, I think there may be an element in what you're suggesting. Uh, but I think that if we look at why some of those processes have been put in place, um, they've been put in place to increase accountability, often, um, sometimes to increase transparency. Uh, sort of, so the old days of everybody trusted those in authority because they were in authority, uh, have, have gone. I mean, I've, you know, I can cite cases where the state has actually failed the people who it was there to protect and serve. And when people see examples of that, then they expect the state to be more explicit in its accountability and transparency. And that can lead, so it's something that starts from a positive reason. Well, I mean, there was a negative, then people felt that could be dealt with, balanced by a positive of more accountability and transparency, and that sometimes ends up with longer processes which do lead to the time constraints.
And I, I think this has been a big theme in your own work. So, um, Baroness, as Mayor, as Prime Minister, and as Home Secretary, was dealing with a whole series of issues in which the state had failed. So, um, and, and I'm going to turn to Baroness May just to talk about what it felt like to try to hold institutions accountable. And as a Conservative who was proud of the police, uh, believed in the government, believed in processes, finding that things were going wrong. Um, and I, I wonder whether we, we could for the audience, maybe, uh, begin with, uh, Hillsborough. And I'm going to give a very, very brief description of Hillsborough for American and other international listeners, which, uh, Baroness May doubtless, uh, correct me on. Um, but, uh, this was a football match in which, um, very sadly, because in those days there were high fences around the stadium, uh, part of the audience, part of the the the crowd was crushed against, uh, the fence, and dozens of people were killed. And the allegation made by the police and by many of the newspapers afterwards, and indeed by members of Parliament, was that it had been their fault, that they were drunk and violent and out of control. And the families were traumatized. They'd lost their loved ones. And an inquiry was started which landed on Baroness May's desk. And, um, I'd love it if you could just talk a little bit about that, what you did, what it was like.
Yes. Well, the, the, just to give a bit of, uh, time context, the, uh, match took place in 1989, April 1989. The inquiry through an independent panel was started in 2010. So that's the first point. Uh, just before the election. So when I came in as Home Secretary, I had to decide whether to continue with the inquiry. And, um, I had Conservative colleagues because the incident had happened under a Conservative government. Uh, it related to the police, and as Conservatives, we believe in law and order. We have traditionally been seen as a party that, that, you know, stands by the the police. But I met some of the families. And, and there was pressure from some of my cabinet colleagues not to go ahead with the inquiry, but to stop it and just say, "This is, this happened years ago. No point. Let's forget it." And I met some of the families. And from that, I thought, no, there's a, there's a chance here that this was not, uh, it wasn't the fans' fault, that there is a, that justice has not been found, and that we need to investigate this and get to the truth. Uh, and coming forward, uh, after the inquiry reported, and then an further inquest was set up into the, what became 97 deaths, uh, it was determined by the coroner that every single one of those 97 had been unlawfully killed, and that was at the hands of the state.
And if I just explain what, um, some of the organs of the state had done. South Yorkshire Police, who were, it was in their area. South Yorkshire Police altered over 100 witness statements to be more favorable to the police. So this was going on. There were issues around how the ambulance crews responded. There were issues around the emergency services generally. Um, but this was an injustice. Uh, and it was right that the families finally have that verdict that it wasn't the fault of their, you know, the, the, at the time, they'd even tested a 10-year-old attending the match, uh, to see if he was drunk, to see if there was alcohol in his bloodstream. So there was this atmosphere. The state said, "Right, we know who to blame. We're going to blame them, and that's it." The media went along with it. Uh, and it was only those many years later that the truth finally came out.
You also, um, became interested in behavior in the House of Commons and the values of MPs and the way that they behave towards staff, and the way that staff behave towards staff. Um, can you tell us a little about the work that you did there? What you found, uh, and why that too, presumably, like challenging the police as Home Secretary, challenging fellow members of Parliament as a member of Parliament, must have also involved some, some tough decisions?
Yes. I mean, one of this is about the fact that there had been, sadly, too many examples of abuse by MPs on members of staff, um, sexual abuse, bullying. Sometimes it was staff on staff, but I think the, the key issue that first came to me was members of Parliament behaving in this way. And there was a sense of entitlement from some of those, from those members of Parliament, a sense that they were in an elected office and therefore they had the power to do this. And so it was perfectly okay. And of course, for the victims, they were working in a, what was considered a venerable institution, Parliament. They often found, found it difficult to report on their employer because they would undoubtedly lose their job. But also, there was a sense from them often that the reputation of Parliament mattered, and they didn't want to rock the boat. They didn't want to challenge, you know, do anything that might make Parliament look bad. Um, and yes, I mean, we, as a result of decisions I, I took, and I put, asked somebody to, the Leader of the House of Commons at the time, to put in place proper grievance procedures, proper ability for people to blow the whistle, um, and for members of Parliament to be dealt with accordingly. But there were a lot of members of Parliament who didn't like it, who thought that somehow they were different and in a position of power they could behave in any way they liked.
So I, I, I suppose there's a, there's a theme, and I'm very interested in, in what, what this suggests about you. So, um, it would have been easier, uh, as a Conservative Home Secretary, not to challenge the police. It would have been easier as a Conservative not to challenge The Sun and The Daily Mail that were leading, uh, supporters of the Conservative Party. It would have been easy. I felt this as a member of Parliament that you, you don't get much popularity with colleagues stirring up struggle, trouble, or looking too closely into the behavior of other members of Parliament. Um, and actually, you've, you've done this throughout your career. Um, what do you think it is, um, about somebody who, on the surface, uh, is, is, is quite modest and seems quite understated, that, uh, you do occasionally feel that you are going to stand up for something and pick quite a difficult fight? That, um, if you were just giving you advice on the easiest route to be Prime Minister, mightn't have been the easiest route to be Prime Minister?
Um, yes. I mean, I think the, I'm tempted to say the easiest route to Prime, if you follow the easiest route to be Prime Minister, you're probably not going to be a very good Prime Minister. Um, the, but, uh, what, what is it about? I think it's just a sense that I feel very much that when you're in elected office, you are there to serve the public. You're not there to serve yourself and your own interests. Um, it is a position of public service, and the words are very simple. It's, you, you should do what it says on the tin, which is serve the public. And I think that is, that is hugely important. And when you see, and, and there were other examples of inquiries I set up, when you see people who have been fighting the state for years, in the case of Hillsborough, for decades, just to get to the truth, to know what really happened when their loved ones were killed, um, and, uh, you know, that they've been accused by the state. But was that actually the case? Um, I think it, it, there's a sense there that you should stand up for justice, and that, that the just thing to do is to enable that inquiry to take place.
You talked about, um, challenges about members of Parliament and the public's trust in Parliament and the public's trust in government. Um, are there things that we can do structurally in terms of the way that, uh, politicians are selected, politicians are promoted, or the way in which Parliament operates to make it more likely that we have slightly better behavior, slightly more honorable behavior? I mean, I, I observed as a member of Parliament that there were different problems. Sometimes it felt as though some people should never have been in the House of Commons in the first place. Sometimes it felt as though they were people who might have been perfectly reasonable individuals before they came in, but somehow being in the institution warped them, and they turned down to worse versions of themselves. And I kept wondering, is there something we can do with the system and the structure, uh, which produces a slightly better result?
Well, I think it is incumbent on political parties, um, to be very careful in their selection of candidates. And, uh, certainly to, I mean, obviously the process I know best is my own party's, and the party you represented, Rory's, um, selection processes. But I think the, uh, it's important not to, not to try to select people who just stereotypes of the sort of people you've always had, but actually to reach out. I mean, you yourself came into Parliament as a result of work that David Cameron did, and I was part of the group looking at that selection process that said, "We need a greater, uh, diversity of candidates. We need people from different backgrounds. We need people who have different things to offer Parliament." Um, and so political parties have a role to play in how they select candidates. There is an issue in the House of Commons, and I'm sorry because this is going to get very House of Commonsy, but, um, you know, each political party has, political parties here have whips. We have whips who are, you know, making sure that everybody's voting in the right way, um, and, uh, so on and so forth. But there's no real HR function for members of Parliament. You know, if you're in a company, working in a company, there's an HR function. There's somebody making sure, looking at behaviors, making sure, you know, that doesn't happen in the House of Commons. And I think there is something there that could be done structurally to try to ensure. I mean, I'd like to see whips' offices being more of a, a sort of have an HR function as well as a, "You're going to vote this way" function.
Final question for me before I open up. Um, to move out of the, as you say, us being too focused in the House of Commons, which, uh, international leader intrigued you most, struck you most, either positively or negatively, during your, your time as Prime Minister?
Well, no, wait, wait for it. Um, the person who, uh, I always said the Head of State I always said who was most impressive was actually the late Queen Elizabeth.
And that's true. Okay. Having, um, now we're going to, we're going to, having, having jumped, jumped past you. I'd imagine the part of the joke here, of course, is that Prime Minister May did an enormous amount with President Trump. But, um, let's, let's, uh, now bring in questions. Um, let us begin, perhaps with, yes, lady in the front row. Yeah. Somebody's coming, coming running down with a.
I'm so sorry, we left the microphone at the top. They'll be coming.
Thank you so much. Um, and thank you for joining us, Baroness May. Um, many of the problems that are plaguing our world today are international, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational. Um, so climate change, AI, disinformation, human trafficking. I'm wondering if our government is prepared to deal with those problems, especially given the fact that this year was the 30th anniversary of the UN, um, conference for climate change in Brazil. And it seems that there is a very great deal that we have not yet been able to do for many of these issues, um, that cross our borders.
I think the first thing I would say is that one of the challenges is that all governments tend to operate in silos. Um, they will have, you know, a department of energy, and we've got a department of energy and net zero. They'll, there'll be a department of, of, uh, Home Affairs, a department of Foreign, you know, every department tends to work in its own isolated silo. And one of the big challenges for the person at the top, certainly for the Prime Minister in the UK, is finding a way of ensuring that those departments are working together on these issues which do cut across. So if you look at an issue like climate change, it's not just about, um, you know, use of fossil fuels, use of renewables. It's also about planning policy. It's about the environment department, uh, and how we're, uh, halting the degradation of our environment. There's a whole range of issues that that come into into that. So there's a natural problem, I think, with governments because they tend to look in very siloed ways at, at what they're doing, and finding a way of getting that into connection is important. But one of my, you mentioned the human trafficking, because I chair the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, and one of the things we've been looking at is precisely this issue, that if governments actually recognize the interaction between climate change, uh, slavery and trafficking, mass displacement of people, conflict, actually, they need to recognize that dealing with the, any one of these helps us to deal with the other. So if we deal with climate change, we will certainly be able to reduce the vulnerability to modern slavery and human trafficking, potentially reduce the vulnerability to mass displacement of people in some parts of the world, and potentially reduce what could become, uh, a, a subject that leads to significant conflict in different parts of the world.
Thank you. Um, so, yeah.
Thank you again for coming, Baroness May. I really appreciate it. Um, I would like to ask you about a counter-counterargument that we seem to always be bludgeoned with, that the reason the youth are turning away from democracy is, is an accusation of hypocrisy, that they see that Western nations like France banning Marine Le Pen from running, Kalin Gesco in Romania being banned for running, um, Boss Salvini, AFD, etc., etc. How do you rebut this argument, especially nowadays, as you mentioned, it's rampant on Twitter, on social media? How do you deal with that argument? Thank you.
Well, you, I mean, you cited a number of countries and, and the circumstances in which various decisions have been taken in those countries, uh, are different in relation to, you know, what's happened in the election in Romania, for example, the court case against Marine Le Pen in, in France. Um, but I think in, in overall terms, it is one of, again, one of the challenges for governments is this sense of, "Well, you're telling us that we can't do this, but you've, you've done exactly the same over here." Um, and governments have to try and resist, uh, uh, being in that position in the first place. That's the way that you can deal with the challenge that you're being hypocritical is not to be appearing to do things that look as if they are, um, hypocritical. Now, sometimes in foreign affairs, um, this can be, this can be difficult. Um, foreign affairs is not, um, an absolutist world. It can be quite a, um, sometimes quite a gray world. It's not just black and white. It can be quite gray in some of the decisions that, that people are taking. Um, but I think it's, it's about the behavior of politicians.
Um, let's, let's go to the back a little bit more. So, there's a lady in pink at the back and by some miracle, near the microphone. Yeah.
Thank you for coming. Um, I just wanted to ask, what do you recommend young people like students, maybe like ourselves, do, um, to renew, like, trust in democracy?
Well, I would say one of the first things is get involved. Actually, uh, I think young people participating in politics is hugely important. Um, get involved and ensure that your voices are heard, and be a good example as you're involved. Be a good example of what politics can deliver, uh, for people. So, please get involved.
Um, okay. Uh, we have, I'm going to jump over here. Uh, so, a lady with her hand up there in a red, red top. That's you. Yep.
Hi, thank you so much for coming. I was wondering, would you say that the EU, generalized the EU, and the US are moving in fundamentally different directions when it comes to upholding democratic values? And if so, what do you think could be some concrete risks in a divergence in global leadership for democratic values? Thank you.
Well, I'm, I'm not sure that there's a, a great divergence. As you say, I mean, there are, um, in the UK, we have that, uh, challenge of, uh, an extreme party on the, the right, uh, that is the, the sort of more populist party, uh, shaking up things up, if you like, in, in that sense. I will be doing my best to make sure that we restore, um, that the Conservative Party is restored to a position where we, we see the sort of two major parties again, um, being able to be, uh, uh, not more equal, but, but that, that being able to represent the center, center-left and center-right of politics, because that's where most people are in terms of their, in terms of their own politics. Um, I think that we, what we do have to do is to make sure that we are very clear about upholding the rule of law. I think, as I say, that is absolutely fundamental to, uh, to our democracies. Um, and I think we, we do have to look at a, a world where, um, the question now is, in a sense, uh, are we looking at a world which is going to be based more on, on sort of spheres of influence of power, um, rather than the global, more, you know, the world is globalized. I mean, that's a, you know, ridiculous thing to say in one sense, but, um, globalization, I think, has overall been a benefit, um, and, uh, but we've failed, failed to show people what that benefit is, and so people are becoming more isolated and protectionist in terms of their own states. I think the pandemic encouraged that, um, and I think the UK has a role to play in encouraging that greater understanding of the importance of the multilateral, um, uh, institutions around the world, the importance of, I'm going to say it, open and free trade, um, and, uh, uh, the importance of showing the benefits of democracy to those around the world who currently do not have that benefit.
Um, okay. Yeah. A gentleman in the black there with a sort of, Oh, and, uh, yeah, there we are. That's you in a black hoodie. It's a sort of university top. Yeah.
Uh, thank you very much for the talk. Um, I really resonated with what you said about social media influencing the way democracies function. I work in both AI and medicine, and in AI, obviously, we see the change in not just the way that knowledge is communicated, but also the way it's produced. And in medicine, with psychiatry, we think a lot about, uh, reality and how people perceive their reality. When you talked about world views changing, I was wondering, do you feel that it's just people share a basic understanding of what reality is, but their views differ on how we should proceed with that reality? Or do you think that maybe reality itself is somewhat splintering in social media, that people are fundamentally have different views about what the world is like, and therefore are polarized about that? Thank you.
Gosh, I think, I think probably we could take an entire class over an entire semester to, uh, uh, unpick that. I mean, I think that, that the problem is what, what we are seeing is, if you like, the social media gives people the ability to create a reality and to promote that reality, reality in quotes. Um, and people who find themselves sort of, um, responding to that, actually, it does affect mental health. I, I didn't mention it. One of my concerns when I was PM, we put significant more resource into mental health in our health service. Um, one of my concerns is the growth of, of mental health issues, particularly among younger people. That's what certainly what we see in the UK. And I think you have this ability within social media to create something that is not a reality, but gives the appearance of a reality. And people get caught up in that. And then if you're caught up in that, managing actually how you live in the real world, in the world of the, if you like, true reality, can be challenging and very difficult, uh, in that. And so this is one of the, one of the, the, the things, and and finally explored this with my class, was this whole question of how you, is it about education to make sure that people can recognize when they're being sucked into that sort of environment? Um, is it, how do we teach people resilience? Uh, how do we teach them to challenge, to query, not simply to accept what is said across social media to them? Um, so I think there are all those, those questions. But the other thing I would, would say is, of course, AI is going to have huge positives as well as the negatives, and for governments, the challenge is being able to balance the positives and the negatives and finding a way to try to reduce the negatives while amplifying the positives.
Um, sir, um, in the stripey top, yeah.
Thank you, Baroness, for being here. Um, while I agree with you that, um, demagogues and populists, uh, often take advantage of chaotic situations for their own political endeavors, uh, I do think history has shown that in, uh, periods of transitions for many societies, um, they opt for a leviathan, uh, as opposed to more openness, um, uh, to address, um, uh, their chaos and to bring more order in their lives. Uh, this was seen, uh, in the post-medieval, uh, UK with the Steuart monarchy, uh, in the opening of China, and, uh, more authoritarianism. So I guess, how can, um, how can democracy compete with the fact that, um, people prefer stability as opposed to more openness?
Um, well, people prefer it. It. I'm reminded of, of the, the, uh, the question that I heard that had been posed here after a talk about, uh, a certain country around the world, of, "Do you want to live in a, in a democracy or a democracy-fledged democracy, if you like, or a democracy where the trains run on time?" And, you know, there, there is that sense of people wanting things to work and wanting that stability. But actually, the, what underpins a question that asks me of about democracy and stability is a suggestion that democracy doesn't deliver stability. But democracy can deliver that stability. Um, it, and it is important from the politicians who are the elected representatives to recognize, not that stability is, um, not to be authoritarian about stability, but to recognize that people actually do want the trains to run on time. Um, and a fully, fully elected democratic government can make sure the trains run on time, as well as the authoritarian one. But it has other advantages to be have that freedom.
Right. Uh, we're going to go right to the back. Can I see a gentleman in a baseball cap, maybe in the center? Yeah, that's you. Very good. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Um, so I sit personally in a very interesting position. My parents immigrated to the US, uh, several decades ago, and I've been the beneficiary of, um, their sacrifice, their, their commitment to coming to America. At the same time, I still have family who's back in Africa, and I think I would love to sort of get your opinion on their perspective. So for many of my family members and relatives, friends, I think part of the curiosity that they have about alternative, uh, government structures or, or, or governments comes from a deep disillusionment, uh, around democracy. There are a lot of, in historical sense, there are a lot of leaders who, uh, ran their governments as democracies, but it was really masked as a, as a dictatorship. So that's one side. And I think the other part of the disillusionment comes from this sense that at times, early in the histories of these, of these countries, where leaders were elected, there was collusion. There was things that happened that deposed the leaders that were elected. And so I think there are some individuals, some people from, um, those places that are, are really skeptical that even if we do pursue true democracy, that the leaders who are raised will not necessarily be those who are approved by Western powers. Um, and I'd be remiss by not communicating that. But I do generally would love to get your perspective on that as well.
Yes. Well, I, I, I slightly worry about the phrase you use there about leaders who will be approved or, or not by Western powers, because the point of democracy is not that you're electing somebody in order for them to be approved by some other, um, uh, government around the, around the world. But I can see, I mean, there is a skepticism that people will have, um, about democracy if they see leaders being elected who, and there are examples of this around the world, who then proceed in a way which benefits themselves, uh, rather than actually being there to serve the public. And the issue, obviously, I'm thinking about in some, as we've seen in some examples around the world, are issues of corruption around, around some governments that lead to, um, monies that are raised being used in a way that benefits the individuals rather than benefiting the public. Um, this has been, I mean, it's one of the challenges, Rory, you, Secretary of State for International Development, it's always been one of the challenges in that sort of aid world is how you ensure that money is being spent to the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of the leaders. So I can see that if you're in a circumstance where you have seen the leaders simply, um, uh, making life better for themselves and not for most people, uh, but democratically, in quotes, democratically elected leaders, then that is, that is, uh, that can lead to that skepticism. Um, of course, the challenge in that circumstance is for those who truly want
...to see, uh, the de democracy delivering for people, actually, to in a sense to get involved. Um, but having said that, in some circumstances, I know that is, uh, easier said than done with all the challenges that that can bring to, uh, for people.
Okay. Well, um, I I can see there's another 11 questions, and I'm afraid we can only take a last one. So, I'm going to take the the lady in in white here, with many apologies to everybody who... and then I'll make a very brief final remark and then hand back.
Thank you, Professor, and thank you very for being with us. I'd like to return to your idea of compromise and democracy, and originally being a part of the Remain bloc prior to Brexit. Um, I would love to hear more about your perspective and your experience in the democratic process, maybe not going the way that you originally intended. The British people voted for Brexit, and you had to execute it as it dominated your premiership. So, I'd be curious to see how you were able to compromise and come to the table with something that you may not disagree or may not agree with personally. Thank you.
Well, the reason that, um, when I became Prime Minister after the Brexit referendum, despite the fact that I'd voted Remain and campaigned for Remain, the reason that I felt it was right to deliver Brexit was precisely because that was a democratic choice of the people.
Um, I have doubts about referendums. I'm, I'm, I think it's a s a referendum gives a simple question, but often people aren't answering it as a simple question. And I think what actually lay behind the Brexit vote was was an element for a lot of people that the politicians weren't working for them. Something had to change.
But people had voted for Brexit, and my view was, because they'd voted for it, it should be delivered. But because the vote was so close: 52% to leave, 48% to stay. Um, my view was that we should deliver it in a way that recognized the concerns of the 48%, if you like. That was the an attempt at compromise there.
Um, but sadly, what happened in the House of Commons, and partly I called a snap general election. It didn't result in the result that I'd expected, um, or hoped for. Um, it meant that the numbers in the House of Commons were such that it was possible for both sides to take a more extreme view of their position and not be willing to compromise, uh, and come to a... so, you know, I think I and my team negotiated a deal that would have given that, uh, that ability to leave, but in a way that recognized the issues that the Remainers had were raising. Um, but sadly, the the two sides in the House of Commons decided they didn't want to go down that route; they wanted to be absolutist in their positions.
Um, well, this has been a a talk on democracy, but I I think for for students and and other members of the Yale community here, it it is also important to understand that what we've seen this evening is an instantiation of democracy. So, uh, Theresa May is not just a sort of theorist. She's not simply an analyst of democracy. She's somebody who spent, uh, decades at the front line, and her experience, particularly as Prime Minister, was an very, very difficult experience in which she had to navigate Britain through the Brexit referendum, probably the most consequential vote in Britain since the Second World War, at enormous personal cost, which she is very modest about.
Um, but I think, in a way, uh, one of the things I would take away from this, and maybe to to reflect on as people go home, is that what what we've seen this evening is a sense in which she represents, uh, a vision of liberal democracy. We've heard, firstly, about delivery and her very strong conviction that democracy is about getting things done: making the trains run on time, worrying about the fact that the future of younger people should be better than that of their parents.
Secondly, a sense that democracy is about communication. We heard about social media. We heard about persuasion. We heard about compromise. This is about the interaction between human beings.
But I think perhaps the most important final thing that Baroness May represented, and I very much felt this working for her, is a sense for moral vision, and she articulates it in different ways. She talks about public service, which is very important to her. She talks about her relationship to her constituents. But for me, at least, I think the way in which it was represented most strongly is exactly in those things with which we began: her ability to challenge institutions, to stand up and make herself unpopular by asking very difficult questions about what have the police done? What are members of Parliament doing? And then, patiently and in a very understated way, but with a great deal of courage, to fix them.
And Aristotle, a great theorist of democracy, talks about logos, which is this fact of delivery; talks about pathos, which is this fact of communication; but above all, he talks about ethos, talks about character. And I hope, like me, this evening, you felt something of the character of this very remarkable Prime Minister. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you.