ROUND TABLE TOLERANCE: FACING SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CHALLENGES

Introduction:

The attractiveness of culture and the wealth of the Western World seem incontestable. They remain unbothered by faltering economies and finances. Yet, this attractiveness challenges the Western World with a cultural trial, which derives from economic expansion, demographic structure and intensifying migration. Living next door to “the Other” proves to be a mutual test and a moment of critical cultural choice both on an individual and a group level.

What will the future look like? Will the increasing social, economic and financial tensions in the Western World destroy already weak rules of co-existence of cultural models and values on the continent? Or will the real change come only in economic confrontation with other than Western cultures, leading to cultural metamorphoses and emergence of new forms of society based on respect and far-reaching tolerance?

Key note speech: Limits of Tolerance and Democracy

László Rájk

Moderators: Krzysztof Bobiński, Danuta Glondys, Wojciech Przybylski

Participants:

Kareem Amer, blogger, Egypt

Krzysztof Bobiński, President of Unia&Polska Foundation

Danielle Buschinger, Professor, Université de Picardie Jules-Verne, France

Larissa Cain, physician and historian, France

Riccardo Campa, professor, Jagiellonian University, Poland

Alexis Chatahtinsky, Consul General of France in Krakow

André Crepin, Professor, Institut de France, France

Michael Daxner, Professor, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

Paweł Dybel, Professor, University of Warsaw, Poland

Ustün Ergüder, Professor, Istanbul Policy Center, Sabanci University, Turkey

Christel Hartmann-Fritsch, Director of the Genshagen Foundation, Germany

Danuta Glondys, Ph.D. in Cultural Studies, Director of the Villa Decius Association, Poland

Jarosław Górniak, Professor, Jagiellonian University, Poland

HE Staffan Herrström, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Sweden to Poland

Hywel Ceri Jones, former Director General of the European Commission, United Kingdom

Dominika Kasprowicz, Ph.D. in Political Science, Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland

Aleksander Koj, Professor, former Rector of Jagiellonian University, Chair of the Villa Decius Association, Poland

Małgorzata Kossowska, Profesor, Jagiellonian University, Poland

Michel Henri Kowalewicz, Professor, Jagiellonian University, Poland

Anna Kukułka-Wojtasik, Professor, University of Warsaw, Poland

Jan Piekło, Director of the Polish-Ukrainian Cooperation Foundation, Poland

Wojciech Przybylski, Editor-in-chief of Res Publica Nowa, Poland

Helmut Pulte, Professor, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany

Sister Raphael (Urszula Nałęcz), Franciscan, missionary, Rwanda-Poland

László Rájk, Professor, Színház- és Filmművészeti (University of Theatre and Film Arts), Hungary

Josep Ramoneda, Professor, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain

Magdalena Revue, Professor, Ecoles Saint-Cyr Coëtquidan, France

Peter Ripken, Chair of the Board of the International Cities of Refuge Network, Norway

Roy Rosenstein, Professor, Université Américaine de Paris, France

Nawal el Saadawi, Professor, human rights defender, Egypt

Gunter Scholtz, Professor, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany

Isabelle Weill, Professor, Universite Paris-Nanterre, France

Unni Wikan, Professor, Universitetet i Oslo, Norway

Martine Yvernault, Professor, Université de Limoges, France

Beginning the discussions the Director of the Villa Decius Association introduced László Rájk to the floor. Mr. László Rájk began his opening lecture by addressing the pertinent topics of Tolerance and In-Tolerance. In particular, he addressed the Limits of Tolerance and Democracy, starting from his historical times, but focusing in particular on events that occurred since the culmination of the 19^th Century.

He outlined three case studies from different time periods (present – distant past) that would emphasise the issues of Tolerance that challenge the world today. The first case study referenced a case in London whereby a person who had maintained his composure throughout the day, saw a work of art and destroyed it through graffiti. The other two cases, once again focused on the degradation of art works. They again illustrated the lack of tolerance that exists throughout the course of history, in a somewhat vulgar manner. He explained each case in a well-documented and precise manner that allowed all present to visualize each specific case.

Moving on from this informative background, he moved his lecture onto the case of Hungary. As Mr. László Rájk is native Hungarian this case held particular meaning for him. He outlined in quite a precise manner the serious of decisions taken by the current Hungarian government that have impacted negativity upon the rights and values of ordinary Hungarian citizens. The list of non-democratic acts that have been orchestrated by this current administration was described in graphic detail. He pointed out that as Hungary is now a fully-fledged member of the European Union, the Union was faced with little alternative but to initiate proceeding against the present government. Questioning the future intentions of a government which currently holds a two-thirds majority, he spoke passionately about the disregard this government has frequently underlined their indifference to the wishes of the masses and therefore, the currently underscore one of the fundamental political examples of in-tolerance that faces society today.

Following on from this, Mr. Rájk listed three paradoxes of tolerance that he felt needed further examination. They were: Tolerant Races, Moral Tolerance and Drawing-defining the limits of Tolerance. All of these paradoxes were examined in a manner that allowed all present to truly comprehend the different complexities that exist behind tolerance in society today. Continuing his discussion of the paradoxes, he cited the legislative operations of government as a critical element in overcoming the issue of tolerance. Concluding his fascinating remarks, he expressed his profound hope that Hungary would find itself in a situation that would rid itself of its present government and move to a more democratic system.

Discussion: The first issue raised by (Hywel Ceri Jones) was the role that the European Union has played in to so-called Hungarian crisis. The previous speaker cited the Lisbon Treaty as being of the upmost importance to perhaps solving this crisis. He stated that this may be the first time the E.U. actually comes into conflict with a member state over their actions within their own member state.

The discussion continued to remain focused on the E.U. with the previous question laying the framework for a more in-depth question by the European with a particular emphasis on the E.U. Lisbon treaty and the different frameworks it has created. Answering the question of whether there is actually a civic society, the Director of the Villa Decius questioned the actual reality of whether there is a civic society in Europe today.

Mr. Rájk subsequently referred to the European question by stating quite emphatically that he is a Federalist. He questioned the likelihood of Hungary ever being permitted to entering such a union, but cited Poland and Slovakia as two countries that could enter such a union due to their leadership. Subsequent to this he returned to the question of civic society, he cited the successes of civic society during the 1980s and 1990s in Eastern Europe. He questioned whether the people today would be able to replicate the courageous colleagues of the past and once again take an extreme and sustained stance against the incumbent leadership.

Next speaker was Mr. Peter Ripken who cited three examples where in-tolerance has been practiced to a worryingly degree. He initially cited the USA as an example of this unwelcome change, whereby in politics that mud-slinging has become an omnipresent within American society. His second example was India, where he added that the wave of religious conflict and violence between Hindus and Muslims has caused many innocents to lose their lives. The final example he cited was Nigeria. Citing a group of young people who are participating in a strategy that has only one primary object, he claimed their sole objective is killing Christians. The class and economic divide was named as a possible reason for their behaviours, but the issue of tolerance is facing such profound challenges that those in power need to make some fundamental decisions to halt this worrying occurrence.

Next to speak was moderator Wojciech Przybylski who asked all in attendance how people could practice tolerance if people are so indifferent within society today, Mr. Rájk stated that tolerance has always exist, but the instances in which this has materialised has changed dramatically throughout time. He examined the three cases brought before the panel earlier and attempted to put each case in perspective of the times we live in.

Following on from this Mr. Josep Ramoneda offered his own take on this pressing problem. He questioned the role of the police in regard to some cases of tolerance and outlined his belief that on occasion they contribute to the rise of in-tolerance. Legality was cited as something that needs to be properly addressed if tolerance is to find it’s through place in society today. Europe in particular has a responsibility to illustrate its willing to be a tolerant Union and avoid falling into the traps that have befell nations such as Hungary. If they do not solve this problem shortly then the outcome could be catastrophic!

The next speaker from France, spoke passionately about the need for people to work together to exhibit the courage and conviction to tackled this particular problem. The indifference of people needs to be resolved for society to be truly tolerant today.

As everyone drew breath for a moment the next speaker was our French blogger who questioned the legality of the actions of European powerbrokers. He cited the French people’s refusal to initially vote the European constitution into law. He referenced the Lisbon Treaty as an example of Europe not abiding by the wishes of its citizens. He warned that Nationalism will continue to pose a problem if these disparities are not resolved.

The next speaker Jarosław Górniak spoke about the need for people to accept willingly that they possess several different and contrasting identities. Social mobilisation was cited as important in the whole question of tolerance. He referenced the growth of groups during the 1980s from Hungary to Poland where solidarity and freedom were loudly proclaimed. He warned of the economic situation that currently engulfs the world, but Europe in particular as perhaps the greatest threat to tolerance today. However, not wishing to confine his thoughts to be overly negative he expressed his hope that Europeans will be able to adapt to the current situation and remerge stronger.

Mr. Rájk returned and begun by accepting that he had failed to address the question of in-tolerance. Using Eastern Europe as an example he cited some of the revolutions within this region and also Latin America as examples of non-violent revolutions. Citing Havel’s influence in this regard, he questioned whether these instances would be the blueprint for revolutions in fifty years’ time. He once again warned about the current divide that is rearing its head in America, focusing particular on the confrontational approach of the ‘’Tea Party’’.

The next speaker a visiting university scholar queried the idea of ‘’we’’ and ‘’them’’. She focused on America and its history of confronting we vs. them. She explained in detail that America has throughout the course of its history; America has continued to operate in this framework.

Ms Glondys once again retuned to the floor where she posed a fascinating question about whether people in reality have settled for what they now have.

Attempting to answer this question Mr. Ripken utilised German writers as an example of their silence. He explained their reluctance to write and question events that are currently dominating society. He defended their stance by simply stressed they were pragmatists!

Mr. Rájk also weighed in on this topic, by claiming he is and will always be an advocate of free speech. He accepted that certain terminology needed to be addressed, but he would not support the censorship of any action. He referenced the burning of flags on the internet in America, stating that although controversial the Supreme Court did not ban this action.

Helmut Pulte was the next man to speak disagreeing with one of the previous speakers. He cited the German’s writer’s courage and conviction to question Israel’s objectives and role in relation to Palestine. He accepted that in Germany references to the past are sometimes kept silent which is accepted. Moving on from this and speaking about Human Rights within China where he said last week in Frankfurt an activist was honoured there. He promptly went onto state his displeasure at peoples own appreciation and understanding of tolerance. He sought to confront misconceptions of this term and therefore rose several points that left all around the table with much to ponder. Questioning in-tolerance creations such as the ‘’Tea Party’’ group in America, he argued passionately that the state must bring such groups into accepting the legality and vitality of other political organisations. He closed his remarks by questioning the different frameworks for both tolerance and in-tolerance.

Mr. Rájk returned and admitted that while tolerance on occasion can be forced upon people, it is nevertheless accepted once this occurs. Accepting many of the previous speakers points, he once again returned to the 1980s and Eastern Europe.

Next to express his opinion was Michel Henri Kowalewicz questioned where are the Limits of Tolerance in Germany, France and Spain?

Mr. Helmut Pulte admitted this is a complex question with many different levels and expectations. He cited the Greek case as an example of where the majority have suffered due to the actions of the minority. Returning to the questions at hand, he said that while Germany and Holland are assisting the crisis at the moment it would be unwise to continue the process if this process fails. He cited an identity crisis of the European community. However, he proclaimed that if Europe can unite and come together it will create a new and bountiful sense of unity. He lamented the current British policy and hoped they will adapt to the current situation.

Michel Henri Kowalewicz lauded the sense of Europe coming together to assist in the rescue of the Greek economy.

Mr. Ripken, admitted that while a small minority are against assistance to Greece, the political parties are ignoring the wishes of the mass population due to their actions. Hence they are losing support while electoral turnout has fallen steadily over recent times. He claimed that the population of Europe have not had their say on the current crisis and this is something that is not to be applauded. Alienation has evolved between the political class and everyone else.

Magdalena Revue spoke next that there are many possibilities that could come about from the current crisis. She stated quite emphatically that she hoped it would lead to the establishment of a new European identity that could benefit all across Europe. She did admit however, that this may not be feasible, but the optimist inside her hopes it will be.

Next to address the discussion was Josep Ramoneda who continued to extol the idea of Europe as a beacon of light if a new identity is formed. However, he admitted that the destructive nature of the last number of years has transformed the landscape across Europe and not in a positive manner.

Wojciech Przybylski was the next speaker on the floor. He brought up the idea of tolerance and he referenced a conversation he held with two students on the opening day of the conference that had their own unique on the meaning of tolerance. He also questioned the role of European nations in the downfall of Greece.

Mr. Helmut Pulte that Europe played a role in the current suffering endured by the population within Greece, but he made it abundantly clear that the principle cause of their suffering is on the hands of the Greek people. Moving on from this he admitted that Germans while not in favour of continuing to bailout Greece acknowledge that they benefit enormously from membership of the European Community. He admitted that there is a growing alienation between people and political parties; he stated that the change in the makeup of society has arguably led to this occurrence. ‘’Fixed loyalties to political parties do no longer exist’’.

Jarosław Górniak spoke next about economic tendencies and forces in relation to tolerance. He examined the differing spheres of economics, concluding that economics has many different and unique models that impact upon tolerance on a broader scale.

Next to speak Henri Kowalewicz alluded to the monetary issues that currently dominate European debates as something that need urgent action. He stressed that until the issue of monetary policy is finally concluded will these problems begin to subside.

Michel Henri Kowalewicz spoke next and expressed his belief that in-tolerance is still a problem that dominates French society today.

Hywel Ceri Jones next to speak stated that he was Chairman of the European Commission for years and even then they realised that Greece was in a mess. He admitted a large part of the Greek problem is of their making, but there are other fundamental factors that have to be considered also. Jobs and growth were reiterated as two things that are among the most debated topics across Europe today. He stated that while he agreed with the steps Ms Merkel has taken, he criticised the time it has taken for these steps to be completed. He asked the questions ‘’where do the problems come from? He admitted he is quite fearful that as the majority of people come to disregard political parties, referendums need to be constructed in a different manner. He stated passionately that we have to have mainstream political parties that need to express and share our solidarity together.

Ms Glondys raised a question regarding the Greek people raising debts in a previous currency and paying the debt in a different currency.

Jarosław Górniak stated that the Greek people never factored this into the equation during their years of reckless borrowing overspending. He explained that in terms of exports, this adversely impacted upon the Greek economy to a dramatic degree. He stated quite emphatically that jobs are the purpose not a discussion! He also raised the issue regarding that nowadays there is less multicultural activities across Europe. We have no functional definition of intelligentsia was another comment made by the speaker that particularly resonated with all in attendance.

Mr.Rájk spoke next that Germany had already tackled its problems before the rest of Europe fell victim to this crisis. He criticised the populist idea of politicians of promising people the world which is both irresponsible and frankly misguided. He went on to examine how guilty everyone was in terms of the current predicament we now find ourselves in. He claimed it may be now time to re-examine our attitudes as those in the past have done.

Next to speak Roy Rosenstein admitted that while the divide and polarization of American politics is quite obvious the same can now unfortunately be said of Europe. He stated that willingness for dialogue in America has complexly disintegrated.

Next to speak was Riccardo Campa who reminded everyone that the crisis that has dominated much of the day began in America in 2007! He claimed that people are becoming more and more Fascist across Europe which is undoubtedly a worrying trend. He went onto criticize the European Central Bank, but questioned the removal of Berlusconi in Italy and the so-called ‘’democratic manner’’ in which his ousting took place. He stated he would like to know who the stockholders of the ECB are, and why they are essentially running the policies of all nations within Europe.

Helmut Pulte spoke again about the role of the European Community in Europe over the last 60 years. He stated that the aims of the group were political, but the means were economical. He stated that over the last 20 years society has become defined by a growing divide (rich & poor). He cited history as a clear example of the failings of current European policy. He adopted his talk to include the European banking crisis, mentioning several countries that would like to see more regulation in the Banking system. Moving onto the U.S. he questioned religious fundamentalism and money in the make of the American society. He reiterated his stance on regulation, stating that the E.U. cannot act alone, and stated the position must not tolerate the intolerant.

The next speaker from France referenced tolerance and in-tolerance in terms of education. She commented on the organised decline of education and whether it is something worth noting.

Speaking next Dominika Kasprowicz, the talk moved towards a sociological take on the idea of tolerance. It was agreed that prejudice is something that has arguably been to the forefront in fostering a sense of in-tolerance within society today. She revealed that there have been many empirical studies carried out that have thus far failed to make any recommendation regarding the whole issue of tolerance and in-tolerance.

Concluding the debate Hywel Ceri Jones spoke about Europe and gave a fascinating account of many different characteristics of European identity in a manner that had all in attendance in fits of laughter.