Latest / The In-Between Tech and Trust Podcast / Rebuilding Trust: Tech, Politics, and Entrepreneurial Leadership - EP06

Transcript

Rebuilding Trust: Tech, Politics, and Entrepreneurial Leadership - EP06 · The In-Between Tech and Trust Podcast

0:07
Hey there and welcome to the In Between Trust podcast, the
0:11
podcast at the intersection of tech and trust.
0:15
In today's episode, I sit down with Youssef Lynch.
0:18
He is political entrepreneur, Co founder of Neos and Austria and
0:23
managing partner of the Innovation and Politics
0:26
Institute. Together we talk about what it
0:29
means to bring an entrepreneurial mindset into
0:31
politics, how you can design organizations, culture, and
0:36
processes consciously for future readiness, And User shares why
0:41
he sees trust as democracy score currency, and why political
0:46
leadership today must be more authentic, participatory, and
0:50
agile. At its heart, this conversation
0:53
is about trust as the glue between politics, technology and
0:57
society, and how we can foster it in times when it feels most
1:01
fragile. Hello Yousef.
1:05
Good morning. Welcome to the In Between Trust
1:07
podcast. Thank you very much.
1:08
You have a good morning. I'm so happy to have you and I'm
1:12
so curious about our conversation because you've
1:15
called yourself a political entrepreneur, and that's a term
1:19
that is yet used to seldomly and that I'm very curious to hear
1:23
more about. And I want to start with you to
1:26
talk about what does it mean for you personally and what drew you
1:30
to the space between politics, innovation and and thinking?
1:35
So to me, entrepreneurship is the pursuit of opportunity
1:39
beyond resources, control. That's a quote by Howard
1:42
Stephenson from the Avid Business School, and it's the
1:45
best quote and known entrepreneurship.
1:47
It's about leveraging things, resources, capital, contexts to
1:53
achieve something beyond your reach.
1:56
And in politics, of course, that means changing the political
2:00
landscape, changing structures, processes, which I did in the
2:05
past by Co founding Nails in Austria, which is a party that
2:09
is now in government. 12 years ago we started as a group of 40
2:13
people and now Nails is at the levels of political power.
2:18
So that that kind of leveraging and trying to achieve a systems
2:22
change, to me that is political entrepreneurship.
2:27
And how do you think we can make that more visible?
2:30
And also how can we incorporate it more into our like social
2:35
structures so that we live by it in the future?
2:39
I think it's becoming more visible.
2:41
If you saw, for example, about a year ago, the Stanford Social
2:46
Innovation Review had an issue that focused on this exact term
2:53
or this exact idea of political entrepreneurship.
2:56
So, and I think you know what succeed in academia, it is
2:59
getting mainstreamed more into into conversations that we have.
3:04
I'm speaking at lots of organizations and while five
3:09
years ago people didn't really know what to do with the term
3:13
and it felt uncomfortable, potentially, now I think people
3:16
understand better that over the last 30 years we had had lots of
3:21
social entrepreneurship which achieved great change around the
3:25
world when it comes to addressing issues of of social
3:28
justice and improving life conditions for many people
3:31
around the world. And I think what we can see now,
3:34
of course, in politics is that there are a lot of challenges
3:37
that need to be addressed. And so I think we are now moving
3:40
on from social entrepreneurship, which remains important, of
3:43
course, to the idea of political entrepreneurship, which takes a
3:47
lot of learnings and insights from the field of social
3:50
entrepreneurship. Totally understood about your
3:52
background in social entrepreneurship and the connect
3:55
that we can have. But when we think about current
3:59
moments and there's like a lot of talk about tech acceleration
4:03
and there is also like democratic fatigue and the
4:06
climate of mistrust. What value does trust have
4:10
currently for you? But also what do you see?
4:14
How will it be positioned in the next years to come?
4:18
I think trust is super super important.
4:20
Of course, I'm a psychologist by training and also a public
4:24
administrator. So I have the, the, the few of
4:27
the individual and I have the few of the, of the system.
4:32
And if we look at democracy, of course, for social cohesion,
4:37
for, for being together as a nation, as a, you know, as a
4:40
continent in, in Europe, trust is really essential.
4:43
Of course, from an economic point of view, also it reduces
4:47
transaction costs. So, you know, if, if we trust
4:49
each other, our transactions get, get, get cheaper.
4:53
But as we can see now, of course, there's a lot of
4:56
distrust and mistrust and some of that, of course it's due to,
5:00
to malicious actors. But, but generally I think there
5:03
is an issue with, with trust getting lower across the
5:09
society. So we need to find ways to to
5:13
fix this. Of course, in the past, if you
5:16
think back when I was still younger in the early 2000s, when
5:20
social media arrived, suddenly there was this kind of more, you
5:24
know, it felt like there was more generalized trust across
5:26
the world that social media. Like back in the day, Twitter
5:29
and Facebook helped to establish trust between, you know, people
5:34
who didn't know each other. So suddenly we went from this,
5:37
you know, socialized trust where you trust your family and you
5:40
trust your friends to, to this kind of parasocial trust where
5:44
you started to trust people that you never met in person.
5:47
So I think that that was really, really interesting.
5:49
And now, of course, we have those influencers that also
5:52
carry this this, you know, trust forward.
5:56
The problem being of course, that that some of them, some of
5:59
those actors are not necessarily trustful and also some of them
6:03
have an agenda that is problematic.
6:05
So we need to find ways of, of re establishing trust.
6:08
And of course technology, as much as it has contributed to
6:12
also sowing mistrust, can be one tool, of course not the silver
6:15
bullet, but it can be one tool also in the political world to
6:20
help re establish their lost trust.
6:23
There was one partner that you mentioned and it's that if we
6:26
trust each other, our transactions become cheaper.
6:31
Could you elaborate on that, on what it particularly means to
6:34
you and also how you connected to the use of technology if we
6:39
incorporate it into the transactional process?
6:43
Well, I think if you look at starting with border controls in
6:47
Europe, right, if we, if we trust each other and this is
6:50
what Schengen is about, we don't need border controls.
6:55
And, and therefore of course, you know, you don't need the
6:57
people watching the border, you don't need any kind of control.
7:00
And then of course, you know all of the costs.
7:02
And that's the same in the digital world.
7:04
If we don't trust each other, we need insurance, we need all
7:07
kinds of, of things that, that, you know, help us address the,
7:12
you know, if, if something goes wrong, then I, I'm, I'm
7:16
protected. Now, if I trust you, I probably
7:20
don't need or don't want the protection because there's this
7:22
trust bond between us. So this is what from an economic
7:25
point of view, trust does for us, apart of course from the
7:28
emotional, you know, safety aspect that, that I feel, you
7:34
know, you, you look after me, I look after you, at least in, in
7:37
principle in a democracy, right? You have my back.
7:39
I have your back. If I get old, you take care of
7:42
me. If, if you get hurt, I, I will
7:45
take care of you. Or at least indirectly.
7:47
All of that is, is, is part of that of the trust thing.
7:50
And if that unravels, then you know, we all feel of course less
7:55
protected, more more exposed. But again, you know, that also
7:58
has a financial consequence for for everyone that thinks get get
8:03
more expensive. You've now touched upon like the
8:06
structural aspects, but also the felt ones, and then also how
8:10
technology can either bridge or fasten both of those extremes.
8:15
And now that you're part of like political startups, and you've
8:19
written a lot about it, when you build up new political forces
8:23
and also include them in the environment of how we like as
8:27
citizens can engage with them, what role do you think trust
8:32
has? And how does it also feel to us
8:35
as citizens, alienated in particular?
8:39
Yeah, I mean trust for politics, of course, it's the currency,
8:41
right. If you, if you lose the trust of
8:45
of the people again, democracy starts to starts to unravel.
8:48
So trust has has many, many aspects.
8:52
Of course in politics, trust is about leadership very much.
8:56
Do we trust our leaders? Do a trust that particular in a
8:59
person, that particular role. And we've seen across, you know,
9:03
all democracies more or less that trust in political leaders
9:06
has has gone down and, and that is a problem.
9:09
But but of course, a trust also has, you know, a component of of
9:14
process. Do a trust the way decisions are
9:17
being made in democracies, Do I trust that democracy delivers
9:22
that you know, I actually form for the tax money I pay.
9:27
Do I get the value will will I get a pension at some point?
9:31
Right. All of those are trust questions
9:33
and, and of course, for a political start up, if you want
9:36
to start something new, but as much as you know, if you also
9:38
want to transform an existing political party, trust is a is a
9:43
huge issue. And, and of course, what we can
9:46
see when you think about political tech, which of course
9:49
I'm very interested in, then there are actually many, many
9:52
startups right now that are emerging that are trying to
9:56
address this issue. For example, we, you know, a lot
9:59
of people are saying to make democracy are more trusting
10:03
again, we should develop it into a more deliberative direction so
10:07
that at least in addition to parliaments and elected
10:12
representatives, we should also have more deliberation among
10:16
citizens. So that citizen councils and
10:19
assemblies and all of those formats that have been around
10:22
for a while. But now in the 21st century, we
10:25
can actually empower and enable them with tech to, you know, do
10:29
the the the note writing to to also do the some of the
10:32
facilitating with tech tools, for example, them brain or
10:37
deliberate are some of those tools.
10:40
Or also in Taiwan, you might have heard of Polis, which Audra
10:44
Tang has been involved with. So there are many, many of those
10:47
platforms and of those tools emerging that can help Dr.
10:52
democracy forward. And and, you know, once citizens
10:55
sit around the table and and deliberate, they discuss and are
10:58
more involved in decisions, the hypothesis is that they also get
11:03
more trusting because they understand how hard it is, but
11:07
also how those decision have been taken.
11:10
They have a bigger stake, they have more skin in the game then
11:14
as of now, where sometimes there's a sense of, you know,
11:17
alienation between the political class, so to say, and and the
11:20
citizenry. So, you know, again, tech not
11:23
being the silver bullet, but tech can definitely enable, if
11:26
there is a political will to transform democracy into
11:29
something that is more inclusive.
11:31
But at the same time, and I think this is what tech also can
11:34
do, becomes more agile and and also quicker, you know, because
11:38
there's the sense of that democracies are not as, as quick
11:42
and as agile as they should be and therefore cannot deliver
11:46
what the value that that citizens are expecting.
11:50
And the latter of what you just touched upon, that is also
11:53
something that you've written about in your book, right?
11:56
And so you were talking about this political entrepreneurship
12:00
and you were posing the questions, what if politics were
12:04
more like startups? And could you share with us like
12:08
3 major insights of how we can get that and how we can also
12:13
potentially continue that path downward of like, being more
12:17
inclusive, but also of including, like, the
12:20
technological infrastructure in a way that we as citizens and
12:25
feel included into the decision making of politics?
12:29
Yeah. So you know, to start with with
12:32
the first one, which is organization design.
12:35
Of course, in politics we have many, many organizations,
12:37
political parties, unions, associations, others that have
12:41
been around for, for quite some time, often sometimes for 100,
12:45
you know, 200 years even, and they have grown organically.
12:48
Now what you can do with a political start up, of course,
12:52
is you can start with a blank sheet of paper and you can start
12:55
designing the organization in a conscious way.
12:58
For example, with nails. Back in the day we said we want
13:01
everyone to be a member of the same party.
13:05
So what we did is we designed the, the organization the way
13:08
that there was only one legal entity, not, you know, one
13:11
federal party and then, you know, Austria, 9 state parties.
13:16
But there it was just one party and everyone is member of the
13:21
same party. That hasn't of course, a
13:23
consequence because suddenly you are all in the same boat.
13:26
It's not that, you know, there's this thief Dom and this thief
13:29
Dom and then it's it's the state against the states, against the
13:32
federal level, like in many federalist states, but it's
13:35
really just one entity. So that, for example, would be 1
13:38
learning you can consciously design organizations with
13:41
consequences also for the second thing, and that is culture.
13:46
I think the importance of of organizational culture is also
13:49
something that is often underestimated in in politics
13:53
and political organizations. One thing we did is we again
13:56
designed Co designed Co created core values.
14:00
We, we, we created a, a values universe with, with planets and
14:05
satellites. So for example, one of those
14:08
values was appreciative, being appreciative also of the
14:12
political opponent. Another one was sustainable.
14:14
We wanted to, to do sustainable politics, not just ecologically,
14:18
but also economically for future generations, so that those,
14:22
those values became really part of the DNA.
14:26
And, and you have, of course, not just to preach it, but, but
14:28
but to live it, you have to be a role model.
14:31
And then, and then finally, the thing I think which also was
14:34
important is that we, we had a hybrid nature of the
14:40
organization, which was about strong leadership.
14:42
And I already mentioned the importance of political
14:45
leadership, of a new political leadership in the 21st century
14:48
that is also tech enabled strong leadership, but also strong
14:51
participation. I think both aspects are, are
14:55
aspects that political organizations are struggling
14:57
with. Often they don't offer strong
15:00
participation, unfortunately. Still, there's a lot of, you
15:04
know, participation for the sake of it.
15:05
Where do consultation processes? But then you don't hear about
15:09
them. You don't, you know, they don't
15:10
get executed upon necessarily. But also they have a trouble
15:15
enacting strong political leadership internally as much as
15:18
externally. And both of those aspects lead
15:21
to the loss of trust. So those are just some aspects,
15:25
but of course there are many, many more in the book.
15:28
But I think you can, you can do a lot of stuff actually if you,
15:32
if you are open your mind from a entrepreneurial point of view
15:36
and try to leverage things for the better.
15:39
And you've now touched upon like the part that leadership takes
15:42
when it comes to also the increased engagement with, like
15:47
the political decision making, also forming values that there
15:52
are. And I was curious to hear your
15:55
opinion on how leaders these days can counter the loss of
16:00
trust and how do they also need to act and engage with their
16:06
citizens or communities in order for them to bring the
16:12
communities to the table and engage with them in a dialogue
16:16
that then forms more of a basis or also a joint way forward?
16:22
Yeah, I think of course leaders have to use the tools that are
16:26
available. And so when we speak about, you
16:29
know, influencers, for example, I mean, what we saw.
16:31
So with the US elections, what, what Trump did very
16:34
successfully, also what what Harris tried to do is to, to
16:39
deploy those influencers to, to go to podcasts, which are, of
16:42
course, as you know, a very important format these days.
16:46
But also go to places, speak to people and use those parasocial
16:53
relationships that have become so important, right?
16:56
In a way, it's the new TV these days, going to YouTube, going to
17:00
Spotify and wherever you find your audience.
17:04
But you know, in addition to the classic media, of course, in
17:08
addition to the interview on on public broadcast media and in
17:11
the newspapers. I think those tools, those kinds
17:15
of sources where you can reach your audiences and, and mobilize
17:19
them and activate them, I think have become more and more
17:22
important. I think what we also see is, of
17:25
course, in addition to that, you know, more and more canvassing,
17:28
more and more door to door campaigning leaders being, being
17:32
out there and, and being seen and being visible on all kinds
17:37
of channels, web weather audiences.
17:39
I think that's that's one thing I think in these days, you know,
17:43
where sometimes you don't even know what's real anymore.
17:47
Authenticity has, you know, is it has an extra premium on it.
17:52
I think it in a way that has become more important, not less
17:56
so, because now that's so much is, is artificially created in a
18:01
real human touch, real stories, real people are even more
18:08
important than than they were in, in the past.
18:11
And again, you know, don't underestimate the importance of
18:15
organization when it comes to, to leadership and, and to
18:19
delivery and to, to give people what, what they are expecting.
18:25
Authenticity is actually one of the cues that I always pick up
18:29
when we talk about AI because in the age of AI, authenticity is
18:34
something that really drives your perception as a brand, but
18:38
also as an organization that works together.
18:41
And but then being perceived as authentic creates also trust.
18:47
But on the other side, it's also lost so fast if you're act in a
18:51
way that it's not intiguer to the values that you might stand
18:55
for. And then from your point of
18:58
view, I was curious to hear how do you perceive like the use of
19:03
AI in a political communications aspect and also how it can be
19:08
used working at the intersection of politics and society, knowing
19:13
that there are some sort of interrelations with
19:16
authenticity, but also breaking reputation when the use might
19:20
not be intiguer or more in a positioning kind of way.
19:24
Yeah, I think right now we are experiencing the last elections
19:28
where we talk about AI because AI is right now being embedded
19:33
into, into everything. And of course that is ambivalent
19:36
and and you know, problematic because we we need to understand
19:40
how those algorithms work. They need to become better at
19:44
explaining themselves. We need to be able, you know, in
19:46
the end, there has to be a human in the loop and and there has to
19:49
be someone who says thumbs up or thumbs down, right?
19:52
We cannot have AI LED politics. I think what we will have and
19:58
what what I think is probably a good thing if we can control it.
20:01
And understand it is EI enable tech enabled politics.
20:05
This is where we're heading to. And, and so right now what we're
20:09
seeing is that politics, political actors are using AI
20:13
mostly to become quicker to become, you know, more agile to
20:17
to process information, better summarize, take notes, you know,
20:22
message. I think that all will scale
20:25
really, really quickly. It already does.
20:27
People are not talking about as much, but it's already
20:30
happening. There's a lot of explanation,
20:32
small scale still, but there is explanation going on.
20:36
And over the next 2-3 years that will be scaled to nation states,
20:40
to continents, to the world. So this is going to happen.
20:44
And again, I think while we have to be watchful, I think this can
20:48
be also a good thing in in personalizing, individualizing
20:54
messaging. This can be used, you know, as
20:56
much as it can be used to destroy trust, it also can be
20:59
used to re establish some of that trust.
21:02
So This is why I think we have to, you know, while we have to
21:06
be cautious, I think we have to experiment and I think we have
21:10
to tap into the opportunity and not just say, you know, let's,
21:14
let's just bend this or let's just not work with it because
21:17
there are, there will be people working with it anyway and there
21:20
will be a quicker and, and more agile thanks to it.
21:24
So, so we have to learn, we have to be pragmatic about it.
21:28
This is why also we, we have founded the Political Tech
21:31
Summit to actually explore that space and and of course be
21:35
responsible about it, but at the same time not be naive and say,
21:38
you know, let's just not go there because I think that would
21:41
be to the advantage of, of pro democratic actors.
21:45
I completely agree. And I guess that's also why
21:48
value the work that you do with the Political Tech Summit and
21:52
also like at working at the intersection of politics and
21:56
tech so much. And we've now looked into the
22:00
causality of politics and tech. But if we look into like the
22:05
other way around, the connection between tech and politics,
22:09
currently what we see are like a lot of so-called tech tycoons
22:13
that are quite voicing their opinions, but also be our
22:17
present in the media with their view on a political landscape.
22:23
And I was interested to hear your opinion on whether we will
22:27
see that more of or if we will also see like a different kind
22:32
of interaction between both of those spaces?
22:35
Yeah, I think we see at the moment 2 extreme beams or
22:39
polarities that to me constitute the false dichotomy. 1 is the,
22:45
you know, if you will detect pro version of, of democracy and the
22:50
state, which is, you know, there's a lot of things that
22:54
that don't, don't go as well as we'd like them to.
22:56
And there's a lot of money being wasted.
22:59
So, you know, let's disrupt the whole thing.
23:01
Let's just, you know, turn it off and turn it on again and
23:04
then let's see what happens. I think that is, you know, very
23:07
dangerous and I think it's short sighted.
23:10
But at the same time, I think the other extreme or polarity
23:13
being, you know, let's just keep things as they are and let's,
23:17
you know, let's just not touch institutions.
23:20
I think it's wrong as well because there are, you know,
23:23
things that don't go as we'd like, we'd like them to.
23:26
And I think everyone is experiencing every day that, you
23:30
know, the state is not working as well as, as, as, as we'd like
23:34
it to. So I think the, the, the, the
23:37
position in between is, yes, we need to transform democracy.
23:40
We need to transform the state in the 21st century.
23:43
And tech has a also positive, you know, pragmatic role to play
23:47
in it, just not, you know, that extreme version that, that we're
23:51
seeing right now because that hurts people.
23:53
But that does not mean that, that the analysis is 100% wrong,
23:58
right? That the, we need to, to do
24:01
something about it. Because otherwise, in the next 5
24:04
to 10 years, it's pretty obvious that we will get a big, big
24:08
problem due to loss of trust in the political system, in the
24:12
political organizations, in the political actors from the
24:15
population, certainly in quite a few European countries.
24:19
So this is what, what you know, this, this position, this third
24:23
position, I think is something that too few actors take at, at
24:29
this point in, in, in time. I think we see more and more
24:33
organizations looking into this, getting curious and also state
24:37
actors, which is great. I think again, the question is
24:40
not, is there change happening? Yes, we can see change
24:43
happening. We can see initiatives.
24:45
I think the question is, is it happening quick enough and, and,
24:48
and, you know, ultimately radical enough without, you
24:52
know, going to total disruption? But then again, like speed is
24:56
such a crucial aspect and all of it.
24:59
And, and when we look into the political landscape, like speed
25:03
is something that's often not followed through consequently
25:06
enough because there is heritage.
25:09
And then, you know, there are also those conglomerates of
25:12
organizations that have been developing over the past, I
25:16
mean, centuries, right? And so how do you think we can
25:20
make use of the necessity, but also the enablement of speed and
25:25
bringing it into the process and how do you think how ready are
25:32
we for that? Well, I, I think we are
25:35
certainly not fully ready. And, and of course, upskilling
25:39
people, upskilling, you know, state actors, upskilling
25:43
citizens when it comes to tech is, is certainly an important
25:47
aspect. I mean, if you look at, at
25:49
younger people, you know, trust is something completely
25:53
different for them. I mean, when, when my younger
25:55
son son plays chess online on a platform where he plays against
26:00
an Indian boy, he's well aware that this might not be an Indian
26:04
boy. It might not be even a human
26:06
that is interacting with. So he's, you know, already
26:09
conscious about all of those things.
26:11
One might say, unfortunately, because there's a lot of, you
26:14
know, predators and, and what have you online, but he's
26:17
already aware of that. And you know, in another way
26:20
that that I would be probably because I've not been socialized
26:24
that in, in that kind of mindset, he's, he already is
26:26
right. So, so I think there is already
26:30
change on the way because there are, there's a new generation on
26:33
the way, right? I'm approaching 50 now.
26:34
And of course, to me, you know, some of that is magic.
26:37
Whereas to the younger people, you know, that is basically, you
26:41
know, self-evident what's happening there.
26:43
So therefore, you know, I'm, I'm not that pessimistic that that
26:47
we can, we can handle that, but but certainly we're not, we're
26:50
not fully ready. Therefore training further
26:53
education, embedding that into, you know, education systems that
26:57
is so, so crucial. And again, you know, I think if
27:01
we think about the, the innovation of education, we need
27:05
to get better at that. We need to get quicker at that.
27:07
I think, you know, we're still teaching as we did more or less
27:11
30 years, 40 years ago. That cannot be right.
27:14
So therefore this all needs to be part of the of the whole
27:17
scale effort. I completely agree and at the
27:20
same time I was wondering now you also talking about the
27:23
declining trust also in those day-to-day interactions and then
27:27
about this information and polarization.
27:29
What aspects give you hope these days?
27:32
What gives me hope is that there's so many initiatives also
27:37
when it comes, for example, to addressing disinformation,
27:39
misinformation are emerging across Europe, right?
27:43
I mean, at the political tech summit, we had an organization
27:47
from Denmark that, you know, works with the city of Berlin
27:51
on, on mapping the, the digital city and, and really trying to
27:55
understand what's going on. We had, we worked with an
27:59
organization in France that is also trying to understand the
28:03
challenges when it comes to disinformation.
28:06
So, you know, what gives me hope is, first of all, those
28:09
initiatives are emerging. But what also gives me hope is
28:13
that in contrast to perhaps 5 or 10 years ago, we see that
28:18
there's more cross-border collaboration and cooperation so
28:22
that a German city works with a Danish organization or that a
28:26
German political party works with this English service, a
28:30
provider. So, you know, it's getting more
28:34
Europeanized. And I think this is great
28:36
because, you know, going back to the, the question of transaction
28:39
costs, if you have, you know, choice of, you know, 400, five,
28:43
100 million people, if they have a bigger market access, well, of
28:47
course, that means more efficiency.
28:49
And you could potentially work with, with better actors, with
28:53
better providers, better vendors then you might have in the
28:56
vicinity, You know, so that, that, that kind of market
29:00
perspective, that emerging market in, in Europe to me is
29:03
really exciting. And you know, from also from a
29:06
democracy point of view, I think it's the way to go because
29:09
Europe is still too fragmented. And one might argue it is
29:13
getting more fragmented in some aspects, but but when it comes
29:16
to political tech, we can definitely see a market emerging
29:20
and, and to me that's that's fantastic.
29:23
And then coming back to the concept of trust also from a
29:27
European, but then again from a political lens, do you think
29:30
it's like a shared asset already or do you think it has become a
29:35
partisan concept that is quite particular within like a certain
29:39
partisan community? Yeah.
29:42
I mean, the hyper partisanship of of our time is certainly one
29:47
of the challenges. The polarization also in the
29:50
political landscape, the loss of trust among political actors.
29:55
All of that is, is part of the problem.
29:58
That said, I think partisanship, taking a stance, you know,
30:01
having an attitude, having value, standing up for them, I
30:04
think that is more important than ever, right?
30:07
I think we need to take a stance.
30:09
We need to take certain sides, otherwise, you know, you, you
30:15
sometimes take the side of the oppressor in in conflict.
30:18
So I think that that is crucial in democracies, of course, you
30:23
know, so you still need to be able to talk to the other
30:25
person. You still need to be able to
30:26
look each other in the eye. I think we're talking about, you
30:29
know, opponents and not enemies. If we cross that line, you know,
30:33
then we cross that line of democracy into something else.
30:38
So I think yes, we need to be able to find ways to work each
30:43
other with each other to compromise.
30:46
And again, tech can be part of that.
30:50
I mentioned some tools already to be able to work together to
30:53
facilitate processes to, to find, you know, those kinds of
30:58
intersections for compromises. I think again, tech can be a
31:01
part of that. By, you know, creating ideas, I
31:04
mean everyone is working these days with, with agent, with,
31:08
with platforms like, you know, Gemini or Chechi BT or, or
31:12
Mistral or others for, for, for different things, idea creation
31:16
and, and other things that can help in conversations, in
31:20
debates, in negotiation processes to find that common
31:24
ground that we saw so severely need.
31:28
I couldn't agree more. But then again, I do also think
31:32
that it's one of the hardest parts to like take a stand being
31:36
visible with the values that you have because there are so many
31:40
like publicly countering that. And I'm curious to see if how
31:44
we're managing that in the future as well.
31:48
But now that we're coming to an end of the podcast, there are
31:51
some future moments that I would also wanna share with you or
31:55
so-called in between moments that might be quite personal.
32:00
But I'm gonna ask you like 4 questions that I'd love for you
32:04
to answer in like 1 word or ideally one sentence.
32:08
And so we get an impression of your like overview into that.
32:13
And the first one would be a public belief that you have that
32:17
radically needs to be rethought in your opinion.
32:21
Well, I think 1 belief that needs to be rethought is that
32:24
politics is a 0 sum game that you lose or you win, right?
32:30
And I think the best systems create more shared value, the
32:35
best systems create bigger pies for, for everyone.
32:39
And I think this is also part of the success story of, of
32:44
democracy, of capitalism. So I think that's what we need
32:47
to focus on, how we can create more value for everyone.
32:51
The second one would be a civic technology that impressed you
32:55
not by scale, but through integrity.
33:00
The technology that impressed me and they were also at the
33:03
political tech summit is Kayla app in Ukraine.
33:06
It's a, it's a small team, but of course, in very difficult
33:09
circumstances, they have managed to create a really great app
33:14
that can, you know, help digitally engage and mobilize
33:18
citizens. So I think that's amazing.
33:20
And and so This is why I've been very impressed with the work.
33:23
Interesting, I need a need to look it up.
33:26
The third one would be a political idea that you used to
33:29
believe but have since outgrown. I think in, in the past, I, I
33:34
might have thought more of that, you know, disruption is, is a
33:38
kind of an end in itself that, that it is enough.
33:41
But I've learnt that that institution building and also
33:44
rebuilding the transformation of existing organizations is just
33:48
as radical and and just as important.
33:51
And the last one would be a principle that's held you study
33:55
across your political entre and entrepreneurial work.
33:58
I think from an entrepreneurial point of view, a principle that
34:01
has guided me is built for the long game but ship in in short
34:08
cycles. I think that's that's what I've
34:11
managed to do with most of the organizations that I helped
34:15
found or helped develop. Most of them are still existing
34:18
today. But of course to keep people
34:21
happy, you also need to be in permanent better and and
34:25
permanently improve and learn and not be satisfied with the
34:28
status quo. And I think that's true for tech
34:31
as much as it is true for democracy.
34:34
Now finishing up, because you've touched up on this principle and
34:37
I do think it reflects so good back to trust and some as well,
34:42
because if trust is something that we built moment by moment
34:45
and not once and for all, but can also ship it like 1 after
34:49
another, what's 1 principle as well that you carry forward as
34:53
we shape the political and technological systems of
34:55
tomorrow? One one of my favorite quotes is
34:59
from from Buckminster Fuller. It's an American architect and
35:03
and visionary and inventant scientist and, and he said you
35:06
you never change things by fighting the existing reality to
35:10
change things. Build a better model that makes
35:13
the old model obsolete. And, and that has, you know, of
35:17
course, an, an ontological aspect to it, but it also has a
35:21
very practical aspect to it. Meaning if you want to, if you
35:25
want things to improve, you need to build them right.
35:28
You need to you, because people often have a, a difficult time
35:31
envisaging some kind of abstract future or they, you know, they
35:35
listen to it, but they don't believe it.
35:36
So you need to build those things, those apps, those tools,
35:40
those platforms, but also, you know, of democracy that work and
35:44
that ultimately deliver better, faster, more citizen centric
35:50
than the ones that we have now. I think it's possible.
35:52
I think tech can and should play a role in it.
35:55
And This is why I'm optimistic, and This is why I keep working
35:59
on political tech. Couldn't, couldn't have been a
36:02
better way to end this so insightful session and
36:05
conversation. Thank you so much, Joseph, for
36:08
joining us, joining me on the In Between Trust podcast and for
36:11
sharing all your valuable insights.
36:13
It's been a pleasure talking to you and I look forward to
36:16
continuing the conversation. Many thanks for having me Eva,
36:18
it's been my pleasure.