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