Vital Interests: Thank you for participating in the Vital Interest forum. At a time of intense political polarization and government dysfunction, you have published a new  book The Broken Contract: Making our Democracies Accountable, Representative, and Less Wasteful. I assume the “broken” contract of the title refers to the social contract which is the basis for all democracies?

Saqib Qureshi: Yes, the title The Broken Contract does refer to a social contract a government has with its citizens.  When we talk about democracy in the West, in the U.S., Canada, UK, and other places, in reality, what we are talking about is not just the act of voting, but rather the fundamental social contract that defines life in a democratic society.

It's a straightforward intention that we, the citizens of a democracy, want our government to be accountable. We want it to be representative, and we want the government to be efficient and prudent with the use of our tax dollars. That's really the essence of what we mean by democracy, it's not so much the act of voting.

It really is a social-cultural contract between citizens and their state. I just feel that's broken. It's bound to be broken given contemporary events and we are becoming more aware of it being broken. What's important going forward is that unless we fix it, our economic and political frustrations will devolve into something way more sinister than what we've seen on the lunatic fringes.

VI: The ideals of democracy have always been aspirational. People participate in democracies to achieve  a certain quality of life, but also for abstract notions like freedom, liberty, and protection of rights. Much of this is based on mythologies about what democracies can actually provide. How does that factor into today's idea of what people expect from governments?

Saqib Qureshi: I'm not sure that this word democracy is used consistently worldwide. North Korea claims it is a democracy. Sweden claims it is a democracy, the Congo as well. The way I understand democracy is really in the most simplistic and crude sense - democracy means people-power. Power belonging to ordinary people. The way we have chosen in the West to take that concept forward is if you said, "Look, we don't want direct democracy where we are gathered around in a big chamber and every day legislate as a citizen mass.”

What we've decided today is we're going to have representative democracy. Democracy, then, isn't really about the end result, it is really about a process,  about people coming around saying, "We want to remain sovereign, we want to remain politically in charge. We want the political system to revolve around us. We want the state to do what we as citizens want." To make that effective, we've got this social contract, we've got this emphasis on accountability and representation and efficiency. Those are the three key pieces.

It is not so much what democracy will deliver for us because that almost implies a sense of knowing what the people want at all times, every time. I don't really think that's the case. I do think what they want is a process and a sense of ownership of state. We contribute taxes, we abide by the laws and regulations and in return, we want those three bits and pieces to come through. That is the contract, that is the psychological, emotional, and cultural contract.

That actually points to the reason why democracy in the West is so, so different from democracy in many parts of Africa and Asia - because our democracy has evolved with us here. What you see often in Asia and Africa is democracy that did not really indigenously evolve. It's actually culturally quite alien. That’s part of the reason why it's even more anemic than what we have to deal with over here.

VI: There are differences between the types of democratic governance in the United States, Canada, or Europe, which focuses on individual rights, with the application of democratic principles in Asian societies or African cultures where the focus would be on group rights - the tribe, the religious sect, or ethnic affinity. Wouldn’t the social contract of a government with its citizens be equally valid in either case?

Saqib Qureshi: The core actor in the U.S., in Canada, or in Europe would be the individual which is rather ironic because I'm not really sure that our political system in reality ever treats those individual citizens as being at the center of their attention. I actually think that the citizen body is treated as something of a marginal nuisance way too often - to be played around with on the basis of immediate vote numbers. This is not really people-power. 

VI: Governments shape the ideas and control the behavior of their people through messaging - it can be called public speech or in a more pejorative sense, propaganda. Is this manipulation or accountability? 

Saqib Qureshi: I think we certainly deserve a government which is more than soundbites. 

VI: Hasn’t this always been the case? That governments, even in model democracies, put positive spins on information for public consumption. Isn’t the challenge today that information is coming at us from multiple directions - official sources, through presidential tweets, social media sites, “unofficial” leaks to the media, and whatever blogs one visits?

Saqib Qureshi: It is ironic that we are living more closely connected or aligned with democracy than citizens were living 50, 100, or 200 years ago. In that sense we have more accountability today, we have better representation, and we actually have more prudent use of our tax dollars today than was the case in the past. What is different now is that we are able to identify the failures very, very quickly,  just about instantly - social media and the internet has really blossomed.

Even 20-30 years ago if I wanted to find out what my member of parliament, my senator, or my congressman was voting on during the calendar year, you would have to make a serious effort. You would have to find reliable sources, drive somewhere, perhaps to a local library. Today, in less than 30 minutes, from the comfort of your home, you can type an inquiry on your keyboard and have this immediate access to information.

Not only that but then you can start coalescing with other people. You can unite with a bunch of people who think your congressman's responses and votes have been inadequate and not aligned, you can do that within a matter of seconds. What changed is actually the communications that ordinary citizens now have access to is deep and it's fast and because of that, our democracy is under a much greater threat than in a long time.

We are now at a point where public levels of satisfaction with democracy have collapsed, it's been an absolute nightmare. In 1964 for instance, 77% of Americans trusted the federal government. This is after the Kennedy assassination which was quite unnerving. Today, only around 17% have any confidence in the government. 

That is a complete collapse. Whether people in government want to see the writing on the wall or not, either the wall is going to fall on them, or they're going to have to start rebuilding confidence because 17% trust in the federal government can’t sustain a viable democracy. Given that this same government is taking 40% of our income.

VI: Let’s look at that 17% trust in government. Isn’t it low because people feel insecure?   Nevermind external threats like terrorism, climate change, and now  Covid-19. People are worried about putting food on the table and paying their medical bills. How does this impact trust in the social contract?

Saqib Qureshi: I think you're onto something here which is that you've got today an abundance of social-economic insecurities. You've got the fact that for the last 30 to 40 years, the middle classes have barely seen any growth in their real income. You've got a rate of societal change which is unprecedented through the internet, through globalization. There are many things happening with no government guidance. There is no doubt that these manifest themselves into political frustrations and hence, the rise of radical fringes, critical of all government policies. That having been said, I still think that our view of our political institutions - in terms of do we think they are good and proper, can we trust them - has collapsed.

In Canada, 80% of people surveyed felt that political institutions are out of touch with ordinary citizens, and this was in 2017 - I am fairly certain that number has risen.  It's not simply a question of feeling safe in your society, therefore, I don't trust my government. I do think there is a relationship but that loss of trust in government needs to be treated as a bespoke independent piece if we are to solve it.

VI: Citizens engage with government entities on many levels -  their local municipality, the state or provincial representatives, and then national government. Do you think this dissatisfaction with government performance is on all levels? 

Saqib Qureshi: It's across the entire fabric. I don't really think it's at one particular level. Let's say we have an election campaign, three candidates running for a particular office, one gets in. The winning candidate has articulated a bunch of promises and commitments, raising expectations through the roof. When he or she enters office, the reality is they have no resources, they have no funds, they have almost no legislative power to do anything. They're at the mercy of the party leaders. 

They go into office having committed to many things without the ability to get those things done and then, for the period of their term, they disappear. We have no idea what that elected person does except that we know that they've got big paychecks, we know they've got lots of handshakes because social media keeps pummeling us with that information and then they come back when it is time for reelection for more. Now just think about how much of that we as a society are prepared to take.

Would you ever have a business where you hire somebody who made a bunch of vague promises?  Promises which in reality that person couldn't even begin to fulfill once they got the job? They get the job, go away four years, come back and claim a bunch of successes? At the end of the day, that is the system that we now have and we are cognizant of this, we are aware of the cycle. Politicians meet us in abundance on election day and during election time, but then they go away for four years, and we don't know what they do.

What we do know is that elected officials lie to us. We know that they'll spin the truth, that there is a well-established social awareness that if you're a politician, you are not to be trusted.  Donald Trump, according to groups that do fact checking, lies 8.7 times a day - and he is the President of the United States of America! The current British prime minister has been fired twice from former jobs for lying.

What does that mean? We know this. It’s not hidden. It's not like one of those things where in the past the majority of the population could be kept quiet. We know this instantly and to pretend that we can unwind the clock on this,  it's not going to happen. I think we now have a very serious trust deficit, which the government is completely ignoring. For them it is head-in-the-sand time, trying not to see reality.

They don't really want to address it or have conversations about democracy reform. It's ironic that reform efforts are given such minimal attention. There's no real interest in putting ordinary people back into the driver's seat. It's not unexpected because you've got to bear in mind that the people who have earned our votes - and they are great at getting votes - have a vested interest in the system.

They spent years, in many cases, decades, as part of the system. To expect them to suddenly put their hand up and say, "Yes, you know what? The system sucks because you do have an abundance of politicians who just make stuff up, who will spin stuff knowing full well that they've got no idea what they're talking about.” In many cases, this has a cumulative effect.

VI: Isn’t it easier to play the blame game? “I tried to push my agenda but the public sector workers got in the way. Or the opposition party.” Things are so polarized, there’s no effort to compromise or collaborate which is at the core of democratic governance.

Saqib Qureshi: The vast majority of our elected representatives are amazingly qualified in one area - they are really brilliant at winning elections. However, their track record in achieving anything during office is pretty poor. Let's get that fact out there. The vast majority of elected politicians have an appallingly bad track record of achievement, they just don't know how to get things done other than knowing how to get elected. We fall for that trap.

It's not just the elected officials. It's the 99.5% of our democratic government which does not get elected - the large cadre of public civil servants who do not constitute a very impressive talent pool. If you look at the top universities anywhere in the West, very few of the graduates end up in public service. In the public sector, the low salaries don't compare well with similar positions in the private sector, so the performance ethic is missing, any sense of responsibility is lacking. You've got meetings for the sake of meetings.. You end up with a stifling bureaucracy.

It's not just elected representatives who don't have what it takes to get stuff done. It's actually the entire government ethos that needs to pivot to embrace and accept more of a private sector professional ethic. 

Now, that doesn't mean you need large scale privatization of government functions. I am not keen on that. There is, however, much to be said for performance ethics, results ethics, for the time-sensitivity of the private sector that can be integrated into the public sector. It is amazing that monopolies are frowned upon in the private sector as unhealthy for society while in the public sector government agencies often have a complete monopoly on everything they do. How is it that we have signed up to prevent monopolies in the private sector but we haven't even given five seconds thought to the impact of the monopoly in the public sector?

VI:You talk about bringing the efficiencies of the private sector into the public sector but doesn’t the private sector itself inflict inefficiencies on the functioning of government through powerful special interests? 

Saqib Qureshi: Definitely, it's not good. It's a lot worse in the U.S. than it is in Canada or in Europe. The U.S. system of special interests’ access is a prime example of the negative impact the private sector has on government functions. You really can't have a truly representative and accountable government when the campaigns of elected officials are paid for or by corporations.

I know the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that political donations are an essential free speech right. However, you've got to ask yourself, if money is really going to influence our political system so that the wealthiest are able to put in $10, $20, $30, $50 million at a time to campaigns in return for political favors, then what is the point of voting?

What is the point of a system of governance for the people if some lobby organization ends up pummeling a bunch of elected representatives? For that matter, even bureaucrats and civil servants get offers of fine dining, outings to golf clubs, nudge-nudge-wink-wink favors to the 20-year-old son who's looking for a job, the revolving door of government workers leaving to work in the industries they were supposed to regulate.

If I had my way, I would put a 12-year-cap on any elected representative's term of office. I’d say, "You know what, you've been in this 10 years, 12 years, that's it, time over. Go get a regular job, one that doesn't involve simply trying to persuade people to vote for you. You had your time, you have occupied this seat long enough, this is a government of the people, it's not a government for you, so time to move on." Even for civil servants, a 20 year limit should be imposed.

What's interesting is that it's not in the interest of those people who are already in office to put a cap on their time. Why? Because they have an advantage in fundraising for the next election. Anybody who's in office today, has, by definition, an advantage in fundraising for the next election campaign cycle.

Why would that person then go out on a limb and say, "Hey, you know what, let's put a cap on my advantage," in which case you have to always ask the question, who is advocating for the citizens here? If the elected representative isn't doing it because they're worrying about their own interest, what's the agency? What is the entity that is actually checking on our representatives' responsibility to the people? Unfortunately, we don't have that type of oversight.

We have that in the private sector because we have boards of directors, but even that quite light touch is not there. There's nobody in the system or there's nothing in the system that would protect ordinary citizens from the abuses of elected representatives.

VI: That brings me to one of the words in your subtitle, accountability. Where does accountability come from in a democratic society? Is it the responsibility of citizenry? Is it the responsibility of the media, of investigative reporters, to disclose the activities of elected officials and public sector employees? 

Saqib Qureshi: The media have a big part to play in it. The U.S. is different from other countries where very significant elements of mainstream media are essentially extensions of political parties. Certainly the relationship between Fox News and the Alt-right and Donald Trump is well known as is the liberal following of MSNBC. The principle network stations and news sources in the United State try to maintain an unbiased approach but the media cannot be the only monitor of government.

I would really encourage citizens to make a huge deal about the commitments and promises that elected representatives made at election time. So much so that I would preach those promises and commitments and executions are oaths that should be kept. These promises and commitments should be clearly articulated on a public website and say, "This particular senator has committed in the year 2020  to accomplish  A, B, C, & D. Okay now, let's verify whether A, B, C, & D was achieved without tolerating excuses." This is very much the same way accountability is measured and evaluated in the private sector.

It's for us citizens now to take advantage of the internet and social media to state unequivocally that the firm commitments, the promises, the expectations that were put out there by these representatives will be held to account. Without that, we're dead and buried. We have the means to realistically hold representatives to account. Now, unfortunately that kind of scrutiny does not extend into the vast majority of our government, which is the unelected 99.5% of the civil service.

I don't see any reason why every single public official can't have their agenda with their diary online for everybody to see. To be transparent about what your representative or public servant is doing and perhaps even go further, what did they achieve in this meeting? Who else was there? That's a form of accountability. It would be  great to be able to say "We have the technological means to know what you're doing, to know why, and with whom." 

VI: What you are recommending is citizen activists -  citizens that are paying attention to the political process, educating themselves on what their representatives stand for, the promises they made, the programs that they're supporting. Isn’t this presupposing a lot when only slightly over 60% of people vote for their president?

Saqib Qureshi: I think we have lost faith in the system. I don't think the people who are the custodians of our state are prepared to deal with this fact. They treat this as a minor thing. It's not necessarily a responsibility for them. We don't think the government is working for us. We don't trust it on so many levels. We don't trust the amount of special interest contributions that are influencing our elections. We don't trust lobbyists who are perverting the will of the people. We don't trust our politicians because they lie too much. We feel that we have no ownership of states.

It's amazing, many Americans are fed up with the amount of foreign aid their government has given to other countries, they see so many needs at home. They think that over 30% of all government spending goes into foreign aid. They're frustrated, they're upset. In reality, not even 1% of the federal budget goes to foreign aid, and of that 1%, a big chunk of it is designed purely for American exports. It's not designed in the interest of the recipient. It's designed to help businesses and jobs in the United States.

You've got to ask yourself why our ownership of government is so poor? Despite the fact that we're giving about 40% of our income to it, if our ownership is so poor that we can't even nail down the fact that less than a percent of our spending goes to foreign aid and not 30%, then we are fundamentally detached from our government. This is not a government of the people. Let's just be very clear. This is not. We are removed, we are detached, we are played by a system that has no vested interest in fixing things.

VI: In a democracy, leadership is important. We try to pick leaders who understand our needs, will advocate for our desires, and support the ideals for which we stand. Do you see new leadership coming on the scene that will move democracy forward? Is this a transformational time for people power?

Saqib Qureshi: Probably not because let's look at the incumbent leaders in the U.S. The Democratic candidate for the president's job is 70 plus, the incumbent is 70 plus. You may have expected something a bit different from somebody who is new to the political system as was Donald Trump. If you didn't know better, you might think, "Well, he's not been a politician and therefore he might make a difference." In fact, he was very different, he is different but it's just in a very crazy way, and Joe Biden has been part of the system for 50 years.

It's not going to happen with people who are currently in the driver's seat in U.S. federal politics. There's no chance of it. I don't understand how we don’t recognize that our democracy is not of the people when career politicians are now our norm. That was not the idea in the late 18th or early 19th century. We didn't have career politicians then. We had people who hung around for four or eight years and then went back to ordinary civilian life with a regular job or in a business or what have you. They got back in and that enabled a refresh, that enabled some more talent, some new blood, some wider ownership of democracy.

Now we have this kind of exclusive ownership of democracy which is tied to a very tight niche of people who are remarkably well-connected because of the networks, again, in many cases, because of fathers, mothers, aunts, and uncles, and in other cases because of phenomenal economic power. How are we going to see change? I'm confident that there are a lot of people out there who recognize that a government belongs to the people.

If it's going to be fixed, it's going to take activists in democracy who are saying, "You know what, I own this government. I own this state. I fund it with 40% of my earnings. If I'm funding something with 40% of my earnings, I need to be involved. I deserve to be involved. I need to have a seat at the table."

VI: We know the flaws that are besetting the American democracy, as you look around at other democracies throughout the world, are there examples where you think that progressive change is taking place, where people power is becoming part of the political process?

Saqib Qureshi: I'm a bit reluctant to go down this route of what management consultants talk about in terms of best practices. They love to throw best practices out there without giving much thinking to the reality that these things are culturally evolved. There's no way we can copy and paste from France, there's no way we can copy and paste from Switzerland or from other parts of the world. We've got to create indigenous checks and balances so that our democracy is our democracy, and there's no point looking at alternatives.

One of the distinguishing features of Western democracy is its emphasis on the individual, which is a point that you made earlier, the very strong emphasis. If that is at the cultural bedrock of our democracy, then let's go and build on that. As individuals, what can we do? We can be citizen activists. You really can begin to push back on this leviathan which seems to exist in no small measures for its own interests, and demand that accountability, really think about what accountability means, think about representation. We don't want a bunch of 60+-year-old white men dominating every single elected chair.

VI: What are some proposals for reforms that would help democratic governments live up to the ideals of accountability, representation, and less waste? What can incentivize this kind of change?

Saqib Qureshi: In the book, I've talked about, for instance, holding government responsible for project delays or cost overruns. Not just government agencies, but actively hold individuals responsible for that. When a project goes under budget or is delayed - which is actually synonymous with practically every single major public infrastructure project - let's hold the people accountable. Let's actually hold the people who signed off on this to account. Let's come back to them and say, "You know what, this project is budgeted at $1 billion of the taxpayers' money and is costing $4 billion.” We want to make sure they understand that even a homeless person in our society still has to pay taxes because there's sales tax on the milk that he buys - whatever he buys, he still pays tax. That person has contributed to your failure.

We should talk about the financial repercussions for this or maybe they should get fired. That doesn't happen. There are a bunch of things that we can do without having to reinvent the universe here, but we've never taken the time to think about what we can do to improve things. In my book there's some brainstorming on possible reform ideas.There's one where we cut 2% of public servants every single year, based on performance.  Every single year, the weakest based on performance, 2% of civil servants out of the door.

In Canada, it's amazing that 1 in 3,000 civil servants in the federal government gets fired per year for underperformance. In contrast, if you apply for the astronauts' program at NASA, you have a 1 in 1,300 chance of success, which means that if you are fired from the federal government in Canada for underperformance, you are so unique that you may want to start a podcast and get a following. It's a big deal. It is a big deal to get fired for underperformance. That shouldn't be the case.

VI: Aren’t you just advocating for more oversight? That there has to be transparency and corrective actions, be they sanctions or termination?

Saqib Qureshi: If I can interrupt there, because the oversight boards that we have, are pretty damn poor. They're run by accountants for accountants. If you've ever read a government accountability document, you will realize that it's written in a language which is impossible for 95% of people to understand and in a format which requires the magnifying glass at best. It's the kind of thing that a PWC or Deloitte partner might enjoy for their bedtime reading.

It's just not remotely aligned to accountability, as you or I understand it, in a medium or a communication format that we understand. I don't know why accountability boards or accountability organizations aren't putting their findings on social media. Why aren't they posting every day with 5 or 10 interesting bits and pieces about government projects for the public to see?  

Not all has to be negative. It could be positive. It could be, "This federal agency has just saved us $300 million, and here are their names and big high-fives to them. Well done." Or it could be, "Here's the guy who signed off on the construction of this naval vessel and it's five years late, and it's tripled the original budget." Why aren't those accountability organizations communicating to citizens instead of communicating to just the government itself? I've read a few of these documents and they are hard reading.

VI: So there needs to be new methodologies for this kind of accountability, which given technology and social media certainly seems possible?

Saqib Qureshi: Yes. It's very, very easy. What I'm trying to do in the book is actually ground some of these specific examples of what we can do without having to burn the house down and build it again. There a bunch of revolutionaries out there who are also keen on building the entire system up from scratch. I think, for a number of reasons, that's not going to happen and it could have very, very negative results.

What I'm trying to do is to say, "Look, let's tinker with some very small bits and pieces, which if achieved as a whole or in large parts will give us an incredibly enlightened and living democracy." There's a bunch of minor tweaks which if you put them together will be really quite something.

VI: We're coming to the end of our time. I hope many people pick up your book and see they need to become concerned and activist citizens. The old saying goes,”People get the government that they deserve,” but I think a lot of people deserve much better government than they are experiencing right now. Certainly, we're living in crisis times where we look to the government for answers to serious societal questions, As a result of not getting clear directives people are needlessly dying and societies are unraveling. I hope that your message can resonate and bring about some true change in democratic governance and give power back to the people.

Saqib Qureshi: Yes, I hope so too. Thank you, John, for taking the time.

Saqib IQbal Qureshi is a Fellow of the London School of Economics and Political Science, where he completed his undergraduate and PhD degrees. He has written for the Financial Times, the Independent, the Spectator, and the Wall Street Journal. He is also the author of Reconstructing Strategy: Dancing with the God of Objectivity. After decades of working in government, management consulting and investment banking ... and of experiencing the dysfunctionality of democracies, Saqib began a journey beyond the surface of our democracy.