 |
| PHÎÒÎ: A. HUDZENKO |
On June 15 Ukraine-based Foundation for Effective Governance will hold a traditional Oxford-style debate “Free market Capitalism has failed in the Former Soviet States” at the Ivan Franko Drama Theater. BBC World News will broadcast the debate in 225 countries to an estimated audience of 76 million all over the world. Nick Pisani from Intelligence Squared, a partner of the debate project, told Kyiv Weekly why discussing capitalism becomes topical in Ukraine again
KW: Please explain why did Foundation for Effective Governance, Intelligence Squared and BBC World News choose this motion for a debate in Ukraine?
N.P.: The main reason is the forthcoming 20th anniversary of the end of the Soviet Union. Twenty years ago the West said to NIS: capitalism is your salvation. The next reason is the global economic crisis. During this recession countries like Ukraine in particular were really suffering. At the same time in some former Soviet states capitalism has worked quite well. Kazakhstan is a good example. Russia developed its own form of capitalism. Here in Ukraine some industries have done very well but there are a lot of sclerotic Soviet styled businesses too. And also the expectations of the people, the living standards – security, health, pensions, employment – were changed. So we thought it would be a very good idea to do a debate here. Firstly, it is just an original idea: no one will expect debate in English from Kyiv, in Ukraine, on BBC World News. And we can take this issue to viewers in 225 countries (about 76 million audience)
KW: Intelligence Squared and BBC World News do debates on various topics in many countries around the world. Obviously, you could not manage to deal with such variety without experts or advisors. What is the mechanism of defining topics for debates?
N.P.: There are different levels of the process. As for this debate we started from a motion that must be accepted by Foundation for Effective Governnance, Intelligence Squared, and BBC World News. Then we talked to leading experts on finances, banking, commerce, economy based in West and East to formulate a motion we thought would be best. Each of them has seen excesses of free market capitalism recently. A lot of people have seen a hardship that some former Soviet states in economic transition have experienced. So they generally outlined the subject: the Old versus the New, the Future versus the Past.
KW: In the case of Ukraine, who were the experts?
N.P.: Among them were such influential figures as Kim Campbell, former Prime-Minister of Canada and Head of the International Advisory Board of the Foundation for Effective Governance, and experts from BBC, IFC, World Bank and other Ukrainian and international institutions
KW: So, they see Ukraine as the more typical example of capitalism frustrated hopes than other Post-Soviet states?
N.P.: No, the subject of this debate is not just about Ukraine. It is about whether free market capitalism of the Western economic model has delivered results to the former Soviet states. When the global crisis happened in 2008 Ukraine suffered very badly. GDP went down by 15% here, living standards collapsed. It is a good example of whether or not the hopes promised by capitalism failed.
KW: Did you consider a possibility to run a debate on Post-Soviet capitalism failures for example in Russia or Latvia?
N.P.: We have a great partner in Ukraine, the Foundation for Effective Governance. So this is a place to do, no question. Moreover, we did a similar debate in Moscow some years ago when I worked as Editor of the BBC popular political show Questions Time. We had a range of speakers on different economic and political subjects.
KW: One of the two ‘for’ speakers at Kyiv debate is Irina Khakamada. You know that many in Ukraine now see her mainly as a business trainer, not as an economic expert?
N.P.: This is not a debate being carried on a business channel. This is a broad-brush debate on whether or not free market capitalism has failed in the former Soviet states. The debate needs to be accessible, lively and engaging for people who see BBC World News. To make the debate understandable for people in India, New Zealand or South Africa you do not need a dry economist that speaks a language that a viewer does not necessarily understand. Any debate is education, information and entertainment.
You need to have people who have got knowledge, opinions, experience, commentary, background. All of our speakers have these things. Kateryna Yuschenko, a former first lady of Ukraine, is a distinguished economist. Another speaker David Aaronovitch in his youth was a president of a young communist group in Britain. Now he is one of the best newspaper, radio and TV broadcaster on economic and social matters. Andriy Shevchenko, member of the Parliament of Ukraine, politician and journalist. I think we have a good panel of four people who would be able to bring to life the issues we are going to discuss.
KW: You know the current political situation in Ukraine: new President, new Government and new rapprochement with Russia. In this connection the discussion of problems common for all Post-Soviet countries just in the capital of Orange revolution one can treat as a sign of reintegration processes within the former Soviet region.
N.P.: The great thing about the debate is that it takes place in the existing political climate. On the other hand, 99% of people who watch BBC World News have got no idea what’s going on in a country like Ukraine. And all the issues regarding economic and political development in Ukraine and Russia will be raised by speakers on the panel and speakers on the floor and thus will be heard by BBC World News viewers.
Printable version
