Translator: omar idma Reviewer: Mirjana Čutura
When you think about politics,
you probably think of images of great debates,
of shocking statements, or of protesters who demonstrate.
Unlikely to come to mind are images of public consultations,
of government reports,
or of expert meetings in a room without decorations.
The politics we show you is the one that entertains.
You are not shown the politics that works.
Why?
As a public policy specialist,
this is a question I've been asking myself for more than 20 years.
I am convinced that politics works better than we think
and that the cynicism about it is exaggerated.
But we cannot count on the media to make us understand this.
Almost exactly 28 years ago,
I was glued to the screen of my television,
like millions of viewers around the world,
watching images like this one,
showing the start of a war, the first Gulf War.
Thanks to the continuous news, which was in its very early stages,
we could see, live, the progress of this war
hour by hour.
The news then took a captivating turn.
After the war,
to keep their ratings, to keep your attention,
the media turned to the most spectacular aspects of politics:
to the controversies and conflicts of politicians
that are well illustrated by the first images that I showed you.
Today, the medias are forced to show you a politics that entertains.
The continuous news has transformed the media dynamic,
and social media has only accentuated the phenomenon.
Politicians, who need to be seen, and other political actors too
have adjusted to this new political context.
To be seen, they don't hesitate to shout their indignation.
And sometimes they scream very loud.
They put on a show.
If rather than showing you Donald Trump,
you were shown images of a rational discussion
on a serious subject of public policy -
the regulation of maritime transport for example,
a committee discussion much like what we see on the screen -
you would quickly go watch something else.
The politics that works is less entertaining.
It captivates the public less.
When was the last time you visited a government website
to inform yourself about public policy?
The minimum wage policy for example or the food safety policy?
Information like this is easy to find.
Since the advent of the Internet,
governments have required themselves
to release a wealth of information about what they are doing.
Today, Western democracies are more transparent
than they have ever been.
But I suppose you are like me.
In the evening, when you get home after a long day at work,
you do not want to read the latest report from the Labor Department
on the threshold beyond which the minimum wage harms the economy
or that of the Department of Health on microbial contamination
in poultry slaughterhouses.
We prefer more entertaining content.
Besides, some time ago, I participated in a television program with journalists
during which I deplored a media coverage of politics
that I find too negative.
The present journalists were quick to remind me
that when they show positive news, people change channels.
So, there is a trap that is difficult to get out of.
We show you the politics that entertains
because if we showed you the politics that works,
you would look elsewhere.
The political conflicts that entertain you also fuel your cynicism.
They undermine your confidence in the political system.
So, your attitude towards politics becomes more and more negative.
When Canadians are asked which professions they see positively,
only 24% mention politics.
In contrast,
89% of the Canadian population mentions scientists.
And these results are not unique to Canada.
Similar results have been obtained in the United States and Europe.
Such cynicism about politics is dangerous.
It sets the table for politicians
who, like Donald Trump, want to tear the system apart.
And it would be a shame if they were to succeed
because politics has improved our lives considerably
since the end of the Second World War,
and it continues to do so.
How?
By working a bit like science, which obviously inspires confidence.
Scientists are often part of the politics that works.
We don't set health standards in slaughterhouses
without talking to microbiologists.
Nor do we set the minimum wage without talking to economists.
You should also know that the scientists who participate in the politics that works
often come from universities.
They, therefore, enjoy great independence.
And perhaps a little because of this independence,
their messages don't always suit politicians.
Indeed, scientists want their knowledge to be used to improve policy,
not to entertain an audience fond of conflicts.
They don't like to be part of a show.
When politicians and the media take too much interest in them,
they quickly return to the tranquility of their laboratories
and abandon any involvement in the political world.
In 2012, I participated in a conference in Boulder, Colorado,
which brought together great researchers on climate change,
some of whom were among the first to make us understand
the seriousness of this problem.
After hearing a few presentations,
I had a doubt,
wondering if I was attending a conference of climate skeptics instead.
Knowledge that I thought was solid was seriously questioned.
Everything was scrutinized:
the ways to estimate the temperature of the past,
the methods of measuring the current temperature,
and the validity of the simulations that are used to predict future changes.
Obviously, no cameras in the room.
I quickly understood I wasn't attending a climate skeptics conference.
What I saw was nothing other than the scientific method at work.
Science advances knowledge by constantly questioning it.
And scientists build their credibility by adopting this attitude.
Now imagine a politician you would elect
because you like his position on climate change.
Imagine him casting doubt,
not on the existence of climate change,
but on the relevance of a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
You should know that there are other policies that achieve this goal
and that the carbon tax is certainly not a superior option to these other policies.
Doubting would therefore be legitimate.
But in the context of the politics that entertains,
your politician would quickly be pilloried by his opponents.
They would say that he lacks conviction,
that he yields to pressure easily,
that he is weak,
and in the face of these criticisms,
perhaps you would yourself feel like you have been betrayed
by your politicians.
But in fact, he would only have behaved
like a scientist who questions his knowledge in view of improving it.
This is no doubt why scientists run away
when they are expected to participate in the politics that entertains.
The politics that entertains is a politics of conflicts.
Its participants must make exaggerated remarks about their adversaries
with absolute confidence.
Criticism, attacks are more about opponents
Doubting is not allowed.
Doubts are associated with weakness.
Anyone who doubts would immediately be called a flip flop.
In contrast,
science is a world of caution,
nuances,
questioning,
doubt,
and sometimes of opinion change.
Again,
scientists are improving their knowledge by constantly questioning it.
Scientists are often comfortable with the politics that works
because it has a lot in common with science.
The politics that works is open to diverse view points,
it is moderate,
it is centered on arguments,
and it allows everyone to doubt their opinions.
Now,
we should avoid opposing too much the politics that entertains
to the politics that works.
If politics works overall,
it's because people who participate in the politics that entertains
are also able to contribute to the politics that works.
For more than 10 years,
my research has focused on the policy of genetically modified organisms, GMOs,
in North America and Europe.
One day in Brussels,
I see a report in a newspaper on one of the famous anti-GMO operations
organized by Greenpeace,
much like the one we see on the screen.
In the report,
a representative of the industry reacted to the operation.
With great indignation,
he asserted that Greenpeace, basically, had only one goal:
not environmental protection,
but industry bankruptcy.
A few days later, I came across this same industry representative
at a meeting organized by the European Commission
on its regulation on the traceability of GMO seeds.
In addition to industry representatives,
the meeting included scientists,
consumer representatives,
farm groups,
and environmentalists, including Greenpeace.
At the meeting, no one accused anyone of anything.
The discussions focused on each other's arguments.
All participants were working to improve the regulation.
No wonder the meeting helped improve the regulation
and at least in my view, strengthened the credibility of the participants.
Meetings of this type take place daily in the capitals of Western democracies.
And they improve our lives.
The food we eat is safer than ever,
as are our means of transportation and our workplaces.
In many locations, crime has been decreasing steadily for years.
We are preserving our heritage better
and have more protected green spaces than before.
Air quality in our cities is better,
and access to health care, although imperfect,
has nothing to do with what it was 50 years ago.
Our life expectancy has never been longer.
Unfortunately,
we too rarely realize that this progress is due to public policy
because the politics that we are shown is the politics that entertains.
This politics also unduly increases our cynicism.
How to get out of the trap?
By being well aware that politics is more than what we see in the media.
Politics is not just the politicians we know.
It's also meetings of people you don't know.
In the evening, after a long day at work,
you can continue to watch politicians who fight on TV
rather than reading a government report on public policy.
The quarrels of politicians are much more entertaining.
I prefer to watch that too.
But be aware that alongside this exists a politics that is less visible,
much less glamorous,
but much more important.
A politics that engages people who do not necessarily seek notoriety,
but who have experience, expertise, and knowledge useful for public policy.
People who can doubt and reconsider their opinion
when the arguments of others justify it.
This politics works.
It improves our lives.
Like science, politics deserves our trust.
We should be less cynical.
Thank you.
(Applause)