Check against delivery

Disagreement drives democracy

Thank you for the invitation!
 
Good to be in Lillehammer, a city of winter sports and literature, a centre for freedom of expression and democracy – in beautiful Gudbrandsdalen – close to where Norwegian Nobel Laureate Sigrid Undset wrote her historical novels – a strong Norwegian voice of expression – touching on emotional and existential living conditions of Norwegians – long before we had anything so beautiful and complex as a democracy!
 
A particular welcome to another Nobel Laureate – this time for peace – Maria A. Ressa.
 
Let me, at the outset reiterate how much I admire her tireless effort for principled democracy, human rights and freedom of expression.
 
As a member of Parliament back then, I had the privilege to nominate her for the Nobel Peace Prize of 2021.
 
That she was awarded the prize that year, was a strong sense of the Nobel Committee's sound judgement – a recognition of what editors, journalists and free speech means for truth, democracy and ultimately for peace.

Maria Ressa lifts the struggle – at personal high risk – to another level than most of us would ever dare to do.
 
I made the appeal of inviting her to this conference after I heard her speak at the UN General Assembly in New York last September – and I am so happy that she accepted our invitation.

Maria said to world leaders from the UN rostrum back in September, in a very clear language; “Without facts, there is no truth. Without truth, there is no trust. Without these three, we have no shared reality, we can’t have journalism, we can’t have democracy”.

It is perhaps the best sum-up of realities that we face today – and a clarion call for understanding and then taking action, as best as we can.

She is demonstrating and illustrating what is at stake – with the technological changes driving societal change – with social media offering opportunities but also occupying hearts and minds in almost all spheres.

And what does that do to democracy? Human rights? Freedom of expression? Ownership to public goods?

Facts. Truth. And trust.

Here we are – and we will listen to Maria Ressa in a while.

Let me continue and refer to another inspirational and strong voice that has meant a lot to my own thinking – Professor Timothy Snyder and his writings – on what threatens democracy – the need to stand up against totalitarian and authoritarian rule, what politics can do about it – and key in this context – what you and I can do as individuals.

I will – as I often do – highlight his book “On Tyranny. Twenty Lessons From the 20th Century” from 2017; let me share four of these lessons:

His first lesson is this: “Don’t obey in advance” – and he explains: “A citizen who adapted (to authoritarian tendencies) is teaching power what it can do”.

I believe that Maria Ressa is a living example of someone following this advice, she is not obeying – and shame is giving her dire warning about what follows if we do.

Snyder’s second lesson in his book is this one: “Defend institutions”, and he explains: “It is institutions that help us to preserve decency. They need our help as well. Institutions do not protect themselves. So, choose an institution you care about—a court, a newspaper, a law, a labour union—and take its side”.

In short: Defend democratic institutions! Defend free speech! That’s why we are here.

Let me then refer to two more of his lessons – precisely because they address us as individuals – which is so important. We cannot stand at the side-lines and think that only the big structures will do. 

Lesson number 12: “Make eye contact and small talk” – and Snyder argues: “This is not just polite. It is part of being a citizen and a responsible member of society”.

So right – think about that for the rest of the conference when you take your coffee – see and talk to people that you never met before!

Just think about it for a moment – where are we looking when we are out walking, reading a bus, waiting in a line? We look at our smartphone with our ears filled with air pods.

And let me also quote his final lesson, number 20: “Be as courageous as you can” – with the final line: “If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die under tyranny”.

Again – it makes me think of Maria Ressa – and her inspiration to all of us.

Friends,
The scope of the conference – “The Freedom to disagree” – is vast. And this session’s title is “Disagreement drives democracy”.

I will primarily focus on two themes in this context:

Firstly, in many countries today, democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression are at stake.

From my vantage point as Prime Minister, I will reflect on Norway’s democracy. – And our building blocks, strengths, and the challenges coming from the technological development. And our flaws, we have a few – let us not shy away from them.

Secondly, I will comment on how we can meet the threats and the opportunities today – concerning freedom of expression – from technology, including AI, and social media. And – a clarion warning: How does hate speech and extremism weaken democracy?

Democracy’s building blocks

So – friends, my first main point, on democracy; how to keep, support and strengthen it.

A key conference at the University of Oslo addressed this a few weeks ago, taking the temperature on how we fare as a democracy.

Again, we progress – with some flaws – but also with a high degree of resilience. – With resilience comes room for disagreements. Disagreement drives democracy.

At the same time, I would add that healthy disagreement needs trust between people, and also respect shown between opponents. As I often like to quote; in Norway we have political opponents – not enemies. – People who trust enough to make eye contact.

The V-Dem Institute shows how democracy struggles globally, and that authoritarianism is on the rise. These are very worrying trends.

Liberal democracies are the least common regime type in the world. Nearly 3 out of 4 persons live in autocracies.

At the same time, Norway is doing quite well. Democracy is strong. – And I believe that we are ready to defend our institutions.

The challenge, however, as Maria Ressa has written about: Modern threats may come at unknown fronts – and make damage without us seeing and understanding how – especially from a new media, social media, as all the algorithms operating on the world wide web penetrating all the fibres of our democracy – while we look in another direction.

So: What are the components of democracy –that we should not take for granted?

One obvious quality, and we do not always think about it: That all politics is local.

A great strength of the Norwegian democracy is our local democracy – with roots almost 200 years back in time. The local democracy became a ‘democracy school’ in our nation’s history.

Today, we have a solid, democratic municipal sector in Norway. – In charge of delivering key services in our welfare state.

A large number of people participate in governance at local level. They learn to disagree, and to find compromises. They learn that politics – that democracy – has to deliver.

My point is this: Democratic resilience is not built just in one sector or at one level alone.

Local democracy is near you – and it builds trust.

And the local media is a watch-dog, as they should be.

Trust

Another component of Norway’s democracy is that we have a high level of trust.

It is worthwhile recalling, that all the while the focus in the media is on disagreements and shortcomings; still 7 out of 10 have a high level of trust in other people.

People also have a high level of trust in institutions like the Parliament, Government, the Judiciary and the media.

A high level of trust is an important part of keeping the population resilient – in times of crisis – as our National Security Strategy says: “A strong democracy” is one of Norway’s fundamental security interests.

Trust is also the most important component of what is called social capital – the glue of society. And more valuable than financial capital.

Trust is when we let our children play outdoor alone with other children. Trust is shown when fences with locked gates are rarely seen at our schools.

But a warning here: I sometimes ask myself if the mobile phone and the air-pods make us shy away from making eye contact – remember Snyder’s key lessons. 

For us in government it is – of course – our prime job to earn trust: If we do not deliver, trust weakens.

Then, in order to earn trust – we, politicians, the democracy – must deliver. We must create real change in people’s lives. On jobs, decent salaries, schools, healthcare, etc.

What has happened in America in the last decades: Democracy has not delivered for ordinary people. Why should they trust the system? – People want a good life. And that the progress of society is shared fairly.

Now, even though trust in democratic institutions is high, even though electoral turnout is almost 80%, we should ask ourselves:

Who are these remaining 20 %? Why are they outside?

This is key to me: The biggest danger to any individuals is to end up concluding: I am outside. I don’t belong.

We see it from all statistics; the young adolescents that end up committing crime, they come predominantly from vulnerable and resource weak families and communities. We fail to offer them community that reassures, inspires and includes.

The key of course is prevention, which is so much better than cure. Perhaps the most important – and complex task of a government – to reach and include all.

Another building-block of Norway’s democracy is the flora of political parties, their central role, and the public engagement also in other organizations.

The political parties have traditionally been a ‘sandpit’ for future politicians. – Where people interested in politics have received training.

The parties’ local branches are important when seats in the Parliament are to be won.

And the fact that ordinary people’s involvement is strong, is another building-block of our democratic institutions, and the democratic resilience. Because: Engagement fuels democracy.

With small and large, local and national, we have over 62,000 (!) civil society organizations in Norway. Engagement fuels social capital.

It means that people take their share of responsibility; participating in society, mobilizing a cause.

Challenges

So – well then, is everything perfect in Norway? Of course not. Some of our challenges are:

How to reach those who rarely or never vote in elections – as I mentioned – but more than that – the ones, and particularly the young who risk fall on the outside, they may formally have a freedom of expression – but they don’t find it meaningful to use it.

How to resist all the driving forces towards more equality? Because, as we all know: Growing economic inequalities create distrust in political institutions.

How to deal with unwanted election influence? Norway – as other countries – is a target for foreign intelligence services.

How do deal with disinformation and fake news – creating confusion, distrust and weaken democratic processes?

Looking into the larger, international context – the challenge picture is bigger:

We see increasing polarization and deep, hostile divisions between parties and social groups. Norway is not immune to these phenomena either.

And we see populist rhetoric which undermines democratic norms and the rule of law. Reducing trust among ourselves and in our democratic institutions are – as I mentioned – are threats to our national security.

Global tech companies

This leads to the second of my two main points – and closely linked to the state of the democracy:

On how technology – including AI – and social media – have an impact on freedom of expression, and also on hate speech and threats.

Today, the conditions for public debate are changing, also in Norway: Artificial intelligence, social media and powerful algorithms shape the new landscape. – And affects journalism.

And right now, when the tech giants scoop up knowledge from the whole array of human experience, everything any journalist has ever written or delivered – putting it into their chat boots – something profound may be happening.

A small number of global tech companies have great influence on what people see, what spreads, and what societies pay attention to.

The whole economic eco-system of our media is changing with the big tech companies scooping in vast parts of the ads that used to fund traditional media.

And as we all know – the digital platforms are designed to maximize attention. This in turn rewards polarization and conflict – rather than reflection and dialogue.

I am also very concerned with the growing trend of young adults becoming radicalized. Digital platforms serve as their primary arena for information and recruitment.

We had a horrible encounter with extremism with the terror attacks in Norway on 22 July 2011 – where a young man shot and killed government workers in Oslo and the youth at a summer camp at Utøya – a young Norwegian and fuelled by a radicalized community on the internet.

I remember – and some of us thought: This will be an eye-opener, we will be more aware, we will limit this – everybody will understand the threat. But the opposite has happened.

Last Friday, I visited the Norwegian Police Headquarters and saw how they venture into the internet to fight the cover of modern crime – in all the dark corners of the net – from petty crime to violence promotion and political extremism.

This is extremely dangerous and worrying.

We are establishing a Centre for the study of Extremism. We will do the hard work and learn from the darkest chapters – in order to be better at prevention.

Last year, my government presented a White Paper on Prevention of Extremism, introducing a number of measures. Now, we follow up.

They range from more information-sharing across public sectors – like police, schools, health institutions – to building stronger democratic resilience. – Freedom of expression cannot mean freedom from responsibility.

I asked Maria Ressa recently; we cannot dis-invent technology, tech giants or new internet connections. What can we do?

Maria’s answer was this: You must regulate.

And yes – democratic societies do have the right and responsibility to regulate digital environments that affect public safety, democratic resilience, and the wellbeing of children and young people.

And we will. But we learn that as much as the internet is global and without borders, our measures must be cross border in the widest sense. It is obvious.

But at the same time so complex – to even imagine the US and China take responsibility together. And so on.

But also: Tech companies must take greater responsibility for the consequences of the digital systems they create.

Platforms must be more transparent about how algorithms work.

They must be more accountable for harmful manipulation – and the protection of children.

We need firmer regulatory approach.

My government will therefore implement into Norwegian Law: The EU’s Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act and the AI Act.

These acts will establish stronger democratic oversight.

They will increase transparency and improve protection against harmful, illegal content.

They will also place clearer obligations on the companies shaping the digital public sphere.

It is high time – and let me make one remark directly aimed at the tech companies: You must behave as responsible citizens.

I acknowledge that you see yourself as global citizens – free from national boundaries and regulations.

But still; let me make a reference: If you run a restaurant here in Lillehammer, you have some key responsibilities. You need to secure the place against fires; there are regulations as to the serving of alcohol and there are age regulations.

And if you should discover that someone does something illegal inside your facilities, you are obliged to inform the police.

Within these regulations, we are free to enter and enjoy your hospitality – each in our own way.

How is this on the internet – at the different social media locations that invite us in – all the way to the darker corners?

I find the contrast to the obligations we expect from the restaurant owner to be illustrative.

We have a full enough picture to state that very illegal things are offered, pushed and exchanged on the internet.

In the US, the biggest tech companies are facing lawsuits, charging their responsibilities for young peoples’ deaths and injuries after mass explosion to their internet connections.

All too often they respond; “we only offer the access and the services; then is up to people to behave” – and they even have the guts to say: “This is purely freedom of expression!”

You could never open a restaurant in Lillehammer with that attitude. Police would come and close your place.

Today, my message is this:
We need to unite – governments, civil societies, decent media – and hold the tech companies responsible. Full stop.

It must be an international effort. The G7 countries could play an important role – first chance is at their summit in France in a couple of weeks.

It will take courage. It will take thousands of ‘Maria Ressas’ to drive this effort. – Let us all stand up and be counted!

Friends,

Talking about AI: Should we be worried? Some obvious challenges are:

AI lowers the costs and increases the speed of producing so-called political content, including fake articles or election disinformation campaigns.

Only large tech companies can make advanced AI systems. – Which again leads to concentration of power – normally not a good thing for a vibrant democracy.

Furthermore, AI-driven recommendation systems optimize for engagement – which means more echo chambers, polarization, and distrust.

If AI systems are capable of targeting people’s behaviour, we may ask: Are citizens freely forming opinions? Will people withdraw from online debates?

AI also provides opportunities. By all means.

Wider access to information, translation and accessibility tools, support for civic participation, and improved government services.

Now, one of the most urgent digital challenges we face, in general, is the impact of social media on children.

I have visited many families and schools in Norway expressing their concern. In my government’s Plan for Norway; we have lifted securing our young and adolescents as a priority in our work.

Children grow up in digital environments designed by the world’s most powerful companies, aiming at maximizing children’s screen dependency.

It is not a fair battle between a 10-years old brain and thousands of the world’s most advanced tech brains aim at creating life-lasting dependencies to the tech platforms.

Parents and schools cannot carry this responsibility alone either.

In Norway, we have taken mobile phones and smart phones out of schools.

Some said it could not be done, but it has gone very well, even without formal legislation – and one of my biggest joys is meeting 14-year-olds who say that a day at school without their mobile is just fine.

Now, we’ll go one step further, into far more complex terrain: We propose a minimum age limit of 16 years for the use of certain social media platforms. Norway is not the only country –I hope more will follow.

Societies have always accepted that children need particular safeguards in environments that may affect their health, development and safety.

The same principle should apply in the digital world.

Hate speech

Friends, let me end on a specific issue of concern, closely related issue: namely hate speech.

One thing is the democratic right to disagree – and even the necessity of disagreement.

However, hate speech, incitements and threats are a completely different matter.

In recent weeks, there have been discussions after Labour Youth leader, Gaute Skjervø, received hateful messages. And other youth politicians are also subject to threats and harassments.

And, I just made reference to what we now see – direct violence promotion aimed at our very young. – Unacceptable and dangerous!

So let me say this clearly: Threats and incitements to violence are completely unacceptable.

It is intolerable when politicians, especially young ones, experience threats in their daily lives.

Democracy is weakened if voices choose to stay silent – out of fear. Or if politicians avoid certain topics.

I am reacting strongly to this. The government has a number of measures in place, including;
- the police are strengthening their efforts on hate crime,
- increased funding to movements like Stop Hate Speech, and the 22 July Centre, and other peace and human rights centres,
- more research and knowledge,
- we follow-up on our action plans against various forms of racism and discrimination,
- and schools are strengthening attitude-building, as well as on developing good digital skills.

And, as I said, we must hold social media accountable and raise our demands on them.

Dear friends – in conclusion,

‘Reporters Without Borders’ recently ranked Norway No. 1 on World Press Freedom Index for the 10th consecutive year.

It should not make us complacent. Still – it is a rank worth protecting. 

It should not make us forget that there are challenges, like threats and harassment against journalists, particularly those with minority backgrounds. Maria Ressa knows this all too well.

In the end, supporting journalism is supporting democracy itself.

If the foundations of public discourse erode – through weakened media or weakened trust – we risk the very conditions that make a democratic government possible.

We need to trust that;
- the elections are legitimate,
- the public debate is authentic,
- that evidence matters,
- that the institutions are held accountable,
and that fellow citizens are real participants in good faith.  

In other words: “Without facts, there is no truth. Without truth, there is no trust. Without these three, we have no shared reality”, as Maria Ressa said.

And all of this is linked to one underlying democratic requirement: trust.

Thank you.

 

More information on the conference: