Ukrainian media should add to their armory the practice of public debate held by Foundation for Effective Governance 

The Foundation for Effective Governance was established in 2007 to assist reforming Ukraine’s economy. A public debate is among projects realized by the Foundation. Though the majority of the debate topics is directly related to the economic agenda, the project itself goes beyond the economic aspect into the level of communications.

For example, over the last year our public has been offering its arguments for and against such motions as “The economic crisis is the best time to introduce major economic reforms”, “The state should stop subsiding enterprises during the crisis”, “Decentralization will boost regions’ competitiveness”.

Certain provocative nature of a motion is one of the rules in the public debate. This nature has also been revealed in this year debates, including “Ukraine universities are failing their students” and “Ukraine will not overcome the economic crisis without Russia”.
Along with focusing on the pressing issues, the project works to develop a culture of public dialogue much undermined in Ukraine by many reasons, including socio-political talk shows. However, according to the Managing Director of the Foundation for Effective Governance Nataliya Izosimova, “a new quality of debate triggers a new quality of thinking”. This refers not only to the debate participants. Thanks to cooperation with media, a “virus” of new quality can propagate to the whole society. In fact, this was the initial plan of the Foundation: to bring the debate to the mainstream audience. Unfortunately, Ukrainian media turned out to be unready (although they state it’s the society that doesn’t want to hear clever thoughts).

Neverthelles, the Foundation has already reached the media level, which appeared to be wider and more serious than expected. As the Den has already reported, the next debate to be held on 15 June will be broadcast by BBC World News in 225 countries to a 76 million audience.
The Den talked to the Managing Director of the Foundation for Effective Governance Nataliya IZOSIMOVA about the culture of public debate as a way to change a tone and content of the public dialogue.
________________________________________
— One of the projects of the Foundation for Effective Governance is the public debates on development of economy and business in Ukraine. A debate is an important phenomenon in any modern society. The culture and tone set in the nation-wide Ukrainian discussion (by the media among other factors) leave much to be desired. How, in your view, can this tone be influenced? After all, development of a society depends to a large extent on ability to find a common language and speak it in a civilized way.

— In today’s world almost all political, governmental and business decisions are made collectively. The authoritarian governance known to us from the Soviet time is gone. A discussion is an important democratic principle. It’s highly important to ensure a top-down movement, which means the leaders of a country should clearly state their position and ensure consistency of actions. Yet, the opposite process – a bottom-up movement, from a society to leaders - is not less important. I think the synchronization of these two vectors is one of the key objectives. If we want the society to participate in making state decisions, we have to ensure a wide discussion. The level, nature and depth of this discussion are important, since the quality of a decision depends on how issues are discussed.
In my view, any discussion meets three objectives.
First, it brings arguments to the forefront.
Second, the discussion contributes to searching for a compromise or at least an understanding between opponents.
And third, it give a chance to the audience (not everybody has an opportunity to participate in the discussion, there are people who watch it, which, in fact, is a form of discussion) to form its own position.
To meet these objectives effectively, a discussion process should be organized in a proper way. It’s just what the Foundation tries to do: to organize the process in a proper way.
Of course, this can not be done overnight. For example, a tanker sailing in one direction cannot be turned into the opposite direction at a snap. Such turn will consume a lot of time, efforts and patience.

— Apparently, mass media play an important role in synchronization of top-down and bottom-up processes...
— Yes, they do, among others.

— But have Ukrainian media realized this mission? It becomes clear if we follow a level of debates, in particular, during talk shows... Do you think it’s possible to reboot the information space so that there is a discussion on air encouraging development of the society, not only helping the political forces in electioneering?
— I’m not a specialist in the mass media. I’m their reader and spectator. I can just express my opinion. If mass media are professional and responsible, if journalists have good knowledge and skills and pursue high ethic and professional codes (given they do not work in an authoritarian regime), politicians will regard them and the society will trust them. It’s not fair to blame only factors lying outside the media. The journalists should be primarily driven by professionalism and the code of honor.

— Back on topic. The Foundation cooperates with Intelligence Squared specializing in organization of public debates in Great Britain, Australia and the USA. Do you apply its expertise? How have you adjusted it to Ukrainian realities?
— In our view, the expertise of Intelligence Squared is very valuable for Ukraine. It is based on an in-depth and longstanding democratic tradition. We all understand that involvement of Ukrainian society in the public debate is very high. At the same time, there is hardly any culture of conducting debates. Intelligence Squared’s expertise is valuable as it helps structure the interest in discussion and give it a new quality.
British technology of conducting a public debate is based on four major factors.
First, it’s a wisely and somewhat provocatively stated topic allowing for opposite viewpoints.
Second, it’s good speakers. A debate is not a scientific conference. Every speaker has 5-7 minutes to express his arguments supported with interesting examples, respective rhetoric, and high vigor.
The third important factor is the audience. Discussion supposes an interaction with live audience. We thoroughly select our audience. It should be smart, interested in a debate topic, dynamic and modern. Many students attend our debates as we try to develop a new culture of conducting discussion in the society. That’s why we start doing it with the young people. They should see some alternative way of conducting a dialogue. After all, a new quality of discussion triggers a new quality of thinking.
Finally, the fourth element is a good moderator responsible for keeping “the temperature of debate” and a balance between parties as well as ensuring a live discussion.

— Using your example of the tanker, it’s hard to speak about effectiveness of such project as a public debate. Anyway, how do you see effects of and public reaction to the debates you are holding?
— We see full house. Mass media actively write about us, despite the fact that a debate is not classically a newsworthy information for the media. The political community also shows great interest in us. Finally, it’s a level of the debates itself. Every time it’s getting better and better. It’s a good sign that politicians participating in our discussions express their opinion in an unusual manner for them. They understand that it’s not a platform for campaigning, quarrelling or denouncing.When they are in the environment of constructive debate, they instantly change to fit it.
When Great Britain holds a public debate on any important state topic, every member of the Cabinet of Ministers is present there. Because this is a chance for them to hear all arguments, understand what the society thinks and shape its opinion.
Politicians and representatives of ministries and regions attend our debates. But we have to realize that the attendance of decision-makers does not guarantee instant changes in the political course.

— It would be fantastic to have this discussion on our TV! In fact, BBC World News is introducing this practice. Moreover, on 15 June this channel with many-million audience will broadcast the debate Free Market Economy Has Failed the Former Soviet States organized by the Foundation in Kiev. How did you manage to get such a global support?
— Only part of the credit belongs to the Foundation. Mostly, this is the achievement of that Ukrainian society, which participates in our debates. BBC have appreciated the quality of speakers, the quality of the audience, who takes an active part in the discussion, and took interest in us. The media corporation asked if we could gather the same audience but with people speaking English. We said we could.

— The debate topic does sound somewhat provocative. Was it approved after you had agreed with the BBC about broadcasting?
— Simultaneously, I’d say. When the proposal on making a joint project was made, the topic issues immediately emerged as well. It goes about the global broadcasting, you see, and the topic must be interesting for 76 million people in 220 countries. It must not be narrow; however, as we hold debate in Ukraine, it must relate to our country and be on the edge of the modern global concerns.

— Is any cooperation with Ukrainian channels coming up? Such discussions are important for our society, aren’t they?
Covering the debate involves a certain rating risks for the Ukrainian channels. However, we certainly seek to take our debates on television. Moreover, this was our initial plan and we didn’t even hope to start with the BBC... We will move forward gradually. At first we need to understand our audience, build it and make interested, and only then we can take our product to the mass level – firstly, on alternative media and niche channels.

— Until our TV is ripe enough for this product, maintaining a lively environment not only in the capital but also in the regions is highly important. Do you intend to hold public debate in other Ukrainian cities?
— We do, but the project is relatively young, just over a year, and requires many resources. We will go to the regions when we feel fully confident.
By the way, we hold big international conferences two or three times a year in partnership with high-profile international editions: Vedomosti newspaper in Moscow, The Hill in Washington and the Financial Times in New York. In November we plan a conference in London in partnership with The Economist. We try to apply the debate format everywhere.

— The website of Intelligence Squared shows that the subjects of public debate are absolutely different: from foreign policy of President Obama to football. Is it possible and needed to organize debate in Ukraine on, say, not the most serious issues?
— The more issues are discussed on the high-quality level, the better. One point is significant, though. Intelligence Squared is a business. You need to buy a quite expensive ticket to get to the debate it organizes. The people buying a ticket spend money not on a rock-concert or a football game but they do it to go and listen to an intelligent talk. For this reason, Intelligence Squared includes any topic to its subject list.
As to the Foundation, we’ve focused on our mission of contributing to the economic growth of Ukraine by promoting the economic reform. That is why we choose only the subjects related to this area.

— Speaking about your Foundation from a global perspective, its activities could be defined as contributing to modernization. What is, in your view, Ukrainian modernization?
— There is a concept of failеd states. A lot of countries that had good chances for development ended as failed states because they had not taken advantage of their window of opportunities. If Ukraine does not develop properly with full understanding of this process, it runs the same risk too. Modernization can be interpreted differently, for example, as big investment in new equipment and modern technologies. It requires significant resources and proper state policies. You can build a silicon valley, remake production processes and develop nanotechnologies... But what would you choose? What is the priority? I think this is the main question and to answer it you need to determine our main competitive advantage against other nations. With the answer to the question, developing an intelligent policy to modernize the country will be much easier.

— This is, probably, what you call effective governance. Why is Ukraine unlucky with that?
— That’s a tough question deeply rooted in our history and culture including politics. But I will tell you about the tip of the iceberg. I mean the capability of different political parties to cooperate. I believe this is the key thing. The Foundation has the International Advisory Board consisting of the world-class politicians with a strong record. They say that with exception of pre-election campaigns the European politicians from different parties can sit at a table to make joint decisions to the benefit of the society. They forget about ratings and speak mostly the constructive language. I think the ability of politicians to make decisions that are good for the country instead of interfering with each other would be a big breakthrough for Ukrainian economy and the entire country.

— You said that the mission of the Foundation is to contribute to the economic growth of the country. Two years ago the Foundation designed the Ukraine Economic Development Agenda. In addition, your Foundation took an active part in developing the programme of economic reforms presented recently. How viable is it?
— The Foundation is thankful to the Committee for Economic Reforms, which invited us to the work as this is the area, where we can be useful. They invited us probably because we know how to engage the best global practices and adjust it to the Ukrainian reality through discussions in task groups.

The approach applied by the Committee for Economic Reforms has every reason to believe that the breakthrough is real. The programme was developed by the task groups comprising national and international state officials, businessmen and experts. These people will deal with introducing it. For this reason, the programme is realistic and coordinated. This is a very wise approach.