:00:01. > :00:10.demanding to know why they were not told earlier about the FBI
:00:10. > :00:14.investigation that revealed an extra-marital affair.
:00:14. > :00:17.Now on BBC News, it is time for HARDtalk. More than ten years ago
:00:17. > :00:24.he gave up almost all his possessions, only hanging onto a
:00:24. > :00:33.private jet. But he is more than just a bored, wealthy playboy, he
:00:33. > :00:35.spent millions trying to change the way that America is governed. He
:00:35. > :00:39.says that developed countries are in crisis because their leaders are
:00:39. > :00:49.too focused on trying to get re- elected. They should be taking
:00:49. > :01:14.
:01:14. > :01:24.We had a very recent example of US democracy in action. What was wrong
:01:24. > :01:34.
:01:34. > :01:38.with it? Let's start with what was right. It seems to work. Every four
:01:38. > :01:48.years. It engages people all across the country, it gives them a chance
:01:48. > :02:00.
:02:00. > :02:04.to cast a vote. That is very good. It works quite flawlessly. What is
:02:04. > :02:08.not so good about it, it polarises things between two parties in the
:02:08. > :02:10.US, and to have a system of a loser and a winner, and in a world that
:02:10. > :02:14.is much more global, much more competitive, you need countries,
:02:14. > :02:17.including the US, which used to be the dominant country, but now it
:02:17. > :02:20.has to compete against a lot of other countries that are rising,
:02:20. > :02:22.you need a country that comes together. This election, as we have
:02:22. > :02:30.seen, has been an election between two very different ideologies and
:02:30. > :02:33.in some ways, a failure to come to agreement in the last four years.
:02:33. > :02:40.The question is whether the next four years will be better or not.
:02:40. > :02:43.The same issues are there. The two parties are still quite polarised.
:02:43. > :02:53.An election every four years does not prepare citizens enough to be
:02:53. > :02:55.
:02:56. > :02:59.engaged. Does the winner get a mandate to govern for the country,
:02:59. > :03:09.or does he get a mandate from their party and the other party does not
:03:09. > :03:19.
:03:19. > :03:22.co-operate? The flaws are that in a very competitive environment, does
:03:22. > :03:24.the leader truly have the mandate of all the American citizens or
:03:24. > :03:27.not? And one election every four years...
:03:27. > :03:30.You think they should be held less frequently?
:03:30. > :03:40.There should be other ways for citizens to express their political
:03:40. > :03:44.
:03:45. > :03:54.or civic opinions and duties. Local elections. Citizens seem to
:03:55. > :03:57.
:03:57. > :04:07.care about their rights and their parties. They are partisan,
:04:07. > :04:10.
:04:10. > :04:13.ideological, and hugely expensive. The whole election cost $6 billion.
:04:13. > :04:16.President Obama in his victory speech makes the point that these
:04:16. > :04:20.arguments, that you are talking about, and it has been divisive in
:04:20. > :04:23.many ways, they say they are a mark of our liberty, we can never forget
:04:23. > :04:33.that people in destinations are risking their lives for the chance
:04:33. > :04:37.
:04:37. > :04:46.to argue about issues that matter. Symbolically it is very important.
:04:46. > :04:50.But does it really help the country in a collective way? Does it
:04:50. > :04:54.include the party and the people who voted on the other side? Maybe
:04:54. > :05:01.not enough. Isn't that the way democracy works,
:05:01. > :05:11.the majority get their way. It is what the people want, the majority
:05:11. > :05:19.
:05:19. > :05:23.of the people. True, but it is a thin majority.
:05:23. > :05:26.You have to make sure the systems, the institutions, have to carry out
:05:26. > :05:33.the will of the country as a whole. And if you have got one side
:05:33. > :05:35.winning and one side losing, it is polarising. The system,
:05:35. > :05:43.ideologically that Westerners believe in, and it has worked
:05:43. > :05:47.incredibly well, allowed us to progress. The question is, is it so
:05:47. > :05:56.polarising in the case of the US, that in the last four years, maybe
:05:56. > :05:59.less was achieved than could have been achieved?
:05:59. > :06:02.There is an argument that because President Obama has won his second
:06:02. > :06:07.term, he cannot stand for another, he is now free to do what he wants
:06:07. > :06:17.for the next four years. He has to bring the House of Representatives
:06:17. > :06:18.
:06:18. > :06:21.with him, but he is much freer. True, and in that sense, he has a
:06:21. > :06:31.mandate to lead the country again, and therefore he can hopefully get
:06:31. > :06:32.
:06:32. > :06:35.two things done. Get his party to agree to difficult decisions and
:06:36. > :06:39.get the opposing party to sense that he is going to be there for
:06:39. > :06:49.this term no matter what and that the country needs to progress. This
:06:49. > :06:53.
:06:53. > :07:00.mandate is an important mandate. You have written a book about this
:07:00. > :07:10.crisis in democracy. One of the things that you argue, you have
:07:10. > :07:11.
:07:11. > :07:13.described Singapore as one of the best-governed places in the planet.
:07:13. > :07:16.The book, which is called Intelligent Governance In The 21st
:07:16. > :07:26.Century, it is about looking at different systems of government,
:07:26. > :07:37.
:07:37. > :07:40.and when we compare the different systems, there is good and bad. We
:07:40. > :07:50.are not advocating one system or ideology being the only answer, or
:07:50. > :07:57.
:07:57. > :07:59.the answer. We are saying something quite different. We are saying that
:07:59. > :08:09.that popular elections, with respect to individual
:08:09. > :08:11.
:08:11. > :08:14.accountability, and some of the key factors that make democracies work.
:08:14. > :08:16.We are also saying that in the case of Singapore, the civil service
:08:17. > :08:19.capability that is tested, that is consensus-building, has long-term
:08:19. > :08:29.objectives, and that is something that can help government, and
:08:29. > :08:29.
:08:29. > :08:32.therefore there are examples both East and West.
:08:32. > :08:35.You point to Singapore as an example, but was does happen is
:08:35. > :08:38.that the opposition, who in the recent elections got 40% of the
:08:38. > :08:40.vote, only got six of the 86 parliamentary seats. It suggests
:08:41. > :08:49.the government, with its 60%, has an overwhelming legislative power.
:08:49. > :08:56.But it is hardly fair. The systems in the East are
:08:56. > :08:59.probably not representative enough of the voting population. On the
:08:59. > :09:03.other hand, they have been able to deliver a system which allows the
:09:03. > :09:07.government to have a very strong mandate.
:09:07. > :09:17.So we should give up a bit of democracy in the West, is that the
:09:17. > :09:20.
:09:20. > :09:23.thrust of your argument? A balance is needed. Once a
:09:23. > :09:29.government is elected, give that government the mandate to progress
:09:29. > :09:34.the state of the country. Let's look at what you have tried
:09:34. > :09:38.to do. You have gone for a vote in California. It has a system which
:09:38. > :09:48.allows you to try to put a ballot to the people. This is what you
:09:48. > :09:54.
:09:54. > :09:57.have done, with Proposition 31. It was overturned by the voters. It
:09:57. > :09:58.was trying to provide a balanced budget, give longer terms between
:09:58. > :10:05.budgets, and increase local accountability.
:10:06. > :10:13.Yes. California is a wonderful example. It continues to be
:10:13. > :10:16.successful in many areas, technology, media, agriculture. It
:10:16. > :10:26.also has very high unemployment by US standards so it does not work
:10:26. > :10:29.
:10:29. > :10:32.for everyone. That is one issue. Secondly, the infrastructure of
:10:32. > :10:34.California, which historically has been one of the best, intellectual
:10:34. > :10:39.infrastructure and physical infrastructure, no longer has the
:10:40. > :10:49.capacity to be financed. It has got structural issues. In the case of
:10:50. > :10:50.
:10:50. > :11:00.California, they are issues of governance. The Governor needs a
:11:00. > :11:03.
:11:03. > :11:05.two-thirds majority to get anything major done. It is difficult in the
:11:05. > :11:09.environment when you have Democrats and Republicans historically fairly
:11:09. > :11:17.close to each other. But this has changed today. So the Governor may
:11:17. > :11:19.have two thirds. So that is a big pass. But California, bizarrely
:11:19. > :11:29.enough, has resorted to direct democracy, which means referendums
:11:29. > :11:32.
:11:32. > :11:35.to get anything major done. And that has been good and bad. Every
:11:35. > :11:45.initiative, every referendum, is on somethng very precise, and often
:11:45. > :11:48.very narrow. On its own, it may be interesting, may be good, but it
:11:48. > :11:50.does not regard the effects on everything else. Citizens, who are
:11:50. > :11:53.self-interested and for good reasons, over the years, increase
:11:53. > :12:02.their entitlements, decrease their taxes. So there is no money to do
:12:02. > :12:07.any long-term investment. It is your beef with your voters.
:12:07. > :12:12.They say they are too egotistical. It is not their fault. Definitely
:12:12. > :12:22.not. Everybody acts in their own self interest.
:12:22. > :12:24.
:12:24. > :12:29.As a result, you think that power should be taken away from them.
:12:29. > :12:39.You need somebody who thinks of the next generation. Are they going to
:12:39. > :12:46.
:12:46. > :12:49.pay higher or lower car tax... What happened in California is that
:12:49. > :12:52.whenever there is a crisis or a fiscal crisis, the measures that
:12:52. > :13:01.were voted in this election, was an increase of taxes. It is there to
:13:01. > :13:11.fill the budget gap, that is good and very important. On the other
:13:11. > :13:14.
:13:14. > :13:19.hand, the tax does not fix the long-term issues. It needs long-
:13:19. > :13:23.term financing to remain competitive and make investments.
:13:23. > :13:26.What you have done there in a sense, you put an awful lot of money in
:13:26. > :13:32.that ballot trying to change the system. How much did you spend?
:13:32. > :13:42.There are reports of $2 million to $20 million.
:13:42. > :13:42.
:13:42. > :13:49.There is a committee for California. It is a bipartisan group. We spent
:13:49. > :13:59.more than a year meeting to come up and propose very long-term reforms.
:13:59. > :14:00.
:14:00. > :14:04.They are fiscal reforms, governance, constitutional reforms. We have not
:14:04. > :14:08.put those on the ballot on purpose and rightly so, because the big tax
:14:08. > :14:18.measure would have clashed with the other tax measures. We are looking
:14:18. > :14:19.
:14:19. > :14:26.to see if we are going to put it on for 2014. I supported one measure
:14:27. > :14:31.which is to make government more accountable, more effective.
:14:31. > :14:34.It is the principle. One of the criticisms of what you have done
:14:34. > :14:36.and what this panel has done, and it is a professor from the
:14:37. > :14:39.University of California, you assembled a blue ribbon panel of
:14:39. > :14:42.notable people to fix the system, and the suggestion that actually
:14:42. > :14:52.what Californian needs is a blue ribbon panel of notable individuals
:14:52. > :14:58.
:14:58. > :15:00.who can bypass the existing political process.
:15:01. > :15:10.It included labour leaders, it included people from the education
:15:10. > :15:13.sector and politicians, both left and right. They came up with deep
:15:13. > :15:23.long-term solutions, which if it had been an open forum, probably
:15:23. > :15:29.
:15:29. > :15:32.would not have got an agreement. It is the smoke-filled rooms that
:15:33. > :15:35.work, it is the behind-closed- doors...
:15:36. > :15:38.In some cases, you need a place where people think logically about
:15:38. > :15:41.the issues, come up with something that is frankly a compromise
:15:41. > :15:51.between two different ideologies. It would not have been possible
:15:51. > :15:52.
:15:52. > :16:01.outside. It did not pass in the end. Exclude the voters, close the doors.
:16:01. > :16:04.In the end, the voters still get the last word. The question is
:16:05. > :16:07.whether we have the capacity to put in front of the voters other ideas,
:16:07. > :16:17.ideas that are highly political. The voters should always get the
:16:17. > :16:22.
:16:22. > :16:27.Let me go back to why you are here and why you are doing this. It was
:16:27. > :16:37.a remarkable turnaround about 12 years ago. You gave up all your
:16:37. > :16:38.
:16:38. > :16:42.possessions, as one of the world's which his men, that is remarkable.
:16:42. > :16:46.That was a personal thing, it was a matter of focusing your time and
:16:46. > :16:52.energy and doing what you wanted. You got rid of the private island
:16:52. > :16:55.near Miami and sold many of your things. I shifted to my interests
:16:55. > :16:57.since I was a teenager, and other things like the function of
:16:58. > :17:07.governments, philosophy, things that I found more interesting and
:17:08. > :17:14.
:17:14. > :17:17.more challenging. If we can make changes and progress and debate
:17:17. > :17:21.certain issues, like government. You could study that in a house
:17:21. > :17:25.that's your own, but you chose to give up an apartment and you don't
:17:25. > :17:29.need anything and you had an art collection that you gave away. Is
:17:29. > :17:39.it that you thought you were owned by your possessions? In a way, one
:17:39. > :17:39.
:17:39. > :17:44.is. Think of yourself. You worry about the things you have. You need
:17:44. > :17:47.to replace them? You have things to worry about, in my case, I have a
:17:47. > :17:51.family, it takes so much energy to worry about the things that really
:17:51. > :18:01.matter and that's the best with that energy rather than things in
:18:01. > :18:03.
:18:03. > :18:08.life you miss about. It was liberating? In my case, yes. What
:18:08. > :18:14.did you get rid of? All the things you've mentioned. I read that you
:18:14. > :18:21.even got rid of your watch. Well, again, what are you left with? It's
:18:21. > :18:25.an unusual thing. The most important things in your life are
:18:25. > :18:33.your brain, the ability to connect and to make a contribution and to
:18:33. > :18:43.experience the extraordinary gift that has been given to us. That's
:18:43. > :18:46.
:18:46. > :18:49.the most important. Possessions that would fit into a paper bag?
:18:49. > :18:53.ambition ambition to have physical comfort,
:18:53. > :18:56.that's part of what makes society work. It's quite healthy, but
:18:56. > :19:06.everybody should do what is comfortable to them if they have
:19:06. > :19:07.
:19:07. > :19:17.the choice. I suppose that's easy and that's what many did. It's your
:19:17. > :19:24.
:19:24. > :19:28.choice. If you have a family things will change. The children, you need
:19:28. > :19:38.to pass on your possessions and wealth to them. But I want to give
:19:38. > :19:43.
:19:43. > :19:46.them the opportunities. People speak a lot about inequality.
:19:47. > :19:49.That's an important subject and one that's becoming bigger. The most
:19:49. > :19:52.important thing is inequality and opportunity. Children need
:19:52. > :19:54.opportunities to grow up happy and healthy. That means, a reasonable
:19:54. > :20:04.physical environment, and, importantly, an intellectual
:20:04. > :20:08.
:20:08. > :20:12.environment with education. It's a competitive world. The opportunity
:20:12. > :20:15.to be part of the world, that's the most important. I don't personally
:20:15. > :20:17.believe in passing on wealth from generation to generation. I don't
:20:18. > :20:25.think frankly that's a great incentive. Actually think it's the
:20:25. > :20:29.opposite. 100 % inheritance tax? Most of the world gets recycled,
:20:29. > :20:38.anyway, and when people die, not only what they have, in my mind, it
:20:38. > :20:41.will get recycled and regenerated in any case. But the best thing to
:20:41. > :20:45.give your children is an education? I think, at a minimum, allowing
:20:45. > :20:55.them to function and to be happy, but beyond that, they need to build
:20:55. > :20:55.
:20:55. > :20:58.their own lives. Speaking of building lives, you were given
:20:58. > :21:02.$150,000 from your father and you were phenomenally successful with
:21:02. > :21:08.your investment records, which are quite remarkable. You describe
:21:08. > :21:18.being bored making billions on stocks, is that still the case?
:21:18. > :21:28.
:21:29. > :21:32.it's a question of focusing. If you have only so much time and
:21:32. > :21:35.resources, at an intellectual level, and with physical things, what do
:21:35. > :21:39.you focus on? In my case, the political work is currently the one
:21:39. > :21:44.where all the time, if successful, it has the most impact. That's what
:21:44. > :21:47.I need to do. Your cause is for the common good. I like to speak about
:21:47. > :21:50.a particular company of yours, whose journalists, the Spanish
:21:50. > :21:53.newspaper El Pais', with a huge circulation, the biggest in Spain,
:21:53. > :21:57.the journalists are on strike because of the loss of jobs. They
:21:57. > :21:59.are worried about the cuts in salaries. They say this is not
:21:59. > :22:02.necessary. Do you feel uncomfortable or perhaps worse,
:22:02. > :22:12.about something like that happening in a company of yours that your
:22:12. > :22:22.
:22:22. > :22:25.own? There are two things. The first is no question. Any company
:22:25. > :22:27.that's been challenged, where the challenge means the workforce, it's
:22:27. > :22:37.very regrettable. Many of those journalists have spent years in
:22:37. > :22:43.
:22:43. > :22:52.that environment and it's like a family. In that sense, they would
:22:52. > :22:56.argue it's not necessary. The New York Times' has reported on you
:22:56. > :23:00.making a lot of money for that paper. That's right, but that's the
:23:00. > :23:03.way I feel. In this case, its owned by a large conglomerate and by the
:23:03. > :23:07.shareholders. I have no involvement in those decisions. I think the
:23:07. > :23:10.decisions by the management, sitting here at the BBC, as one of
:23:10. > :23:14.the surviving media companies in the world, but the newspapers in
:23:14. > :23:24.Spain, are being challenged to the point where there will not be many
:23:24. > :23:26.
:23:26. > :23:29.survivors for two reasons. The first is - media is changing
:23:29. > :23:39.enormously. The circulation of most newspapers in Spain, or any other
:23:39. > :23:40.
:23:40. > :23:44.country generally, as a whole, will slow down. Advertising is going
:23:44. > :23:47.down there. New forms of media are under enormous challenges. We only
:23:47. > :23:51.have a few more moments. I recognise the differences between
:23:51. > :23:54.the common good and the big picture, and that the smaller labels, and
:23:54. > :23:57.newspapers that are actually making money. Here, it's about to not make
:23:57. > :24:07.much money any more. It needs to restructure. It so happens, I've
:24:07. > :24:08.
:24:08. > :24:18.put money into the parent company so that it can survive. If I had
:24:18. > :24:21.not done that, it may not have been existing today. But, it has gone on