thumbnail of Prospects of Mankind with Eleanor Roosevelt; 109; Future of Democracy Abroad
Hide -
This transcript was received from a third party and/or generated by a computer. Its accuracy has not been verified. If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+.
Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt today discusses the future of democracy abroad with Adlai Stevenson Mohamed Ha-Ha and Henry Kissinger on prospects of mankind. Recorded on the campus of Brandeis University in Waltham Massachusetts. National Educational Television presenter. The WGBH TV production. This Eleanor Roosevelt. PROSPECTS. Of mankind. Like. What is a democracy. Is it a nation's system of government the way that elected leaders. Or is it a body of law guaranteeing certain inalienable rights. The right to a fair trial by jury. The right of people to assemble peacefully. The US democratic tradition in its simplest form is manifested in the power meeting
for individual viewpoints expressed. Yet all abide by the majority vote. American democracy also provides for machinery to protect the minority. To allow its expression and political parties. And to give voice to it's just that. Important this free education available to all. And a free press. And a right to worship each in his own way. Around the world democracy where many guys and a parrot in a variety of parliamentary system. A constitutional monarchy would fall into being cried on for size by many people. In the newly independent nations of Africa. Not only its external symbols but the institution themselves. Strong words. Prague and the cornerstone of gómez nationhood. We prefer self-government with danger to servitude and transfer of. Strong men to. Get powerful leadership contains the perils as well as the sinews of fledgling democracy. In Latin America and the Middle East.
Many nations are seeing a return to military rule. With the need to organize new nations and build them up rapidly. For my marginal living standard. Right which we consider a necessary condition of democracy are bypassed. Indonesia faces serious problems of minority dissent and rebellion in Thailand and Pakistan director elections and parliamentary government have been postponed indefinitely until the citizens are ready. But to be ready for free elections people must be educated. At present only a small fraction of the world's children can afford to attend school. Only a small fraction of nations can afford to provide free education for all. The crippling restraints of poverty are witnessed by a seasoned American observer of the world scene. Industrialization is often an important step toward overcoming poverty. On the road brought democracy the value of freedom can be gained by the sacrifices that human beings are willing to make for.
Sacrifice exemplified by refugees springing from communist China into Hong Kong. But democracy must offer more than an escape from power and composure. Democracy must meet the challenge of today with an ability to Noori the bodies and spirits of those who will wait no longer for a future of freedom and dignity for their children. Today Mrs Roosevelt and her guests discussed the threats that assail the long term spread and survival of democracy in the world. Our guests are at least Stevenson twice Democratic candidate for president and recently a traveler in Africa Asia and Latin America. Bill Hemmer puffa former prime minister and vice president of Indonesia is the architect of Indonesian independence. Mr. How does interpreter is George coming. And Kissinger is associate director of the Center for International Affairs at Harvard University and author of the best seller nuclear weapons and foreign policy
Savile's Davis managing editor of The Christian Science Monitor is a regular guest on these program. Now here is Mrs. Roosevelt. I welcome you all to this program and I hope to find it very interesting. I'm glad to be able to begin by asking the students in the first question not too long ago you came back from South America and before that you've traveled extensively in Asia. And in Africa. I wonder if you could tell us what your impression was as to whether the process of democracy gained in the areas or whether we will see.
I think that we we are gaining in South America. I exclude Of course the areas of Cuba of Santo Domingo Nicaragua or places where dictatorships still persist in the Caribbean and in Central America but in South America with the exception of Paraguayans some uncertainty as to the future maybe in Bolivia democracies and trial. After a long period of dictatorship in many of these countries. So I would say that while we might have some reservations as to what kind of democracy that at least in political democracy in the sense that I believe we understand it. Has is only in the ascendancy in South America. I wish it were elsewhere in the world. That means that we should not. Q I think this to have to to tell us a little about how you feel about Asiad and I can't say much about democracy
but I can tell you something about democracy Indonesia. The idea of democracy was born during the struggle for independence. And if he's dead it's democracy. We did it. Western democracy. And unfortunately we don't. He did not see in our country zix excess of democracy as we learn that from the development of democracy in Western Europe. Now that is interesting because that leads to the question I think and perhaps Professor Kissinger would like about this. Can we have the type of Western democracy which we have in the United States in countries of new countries of Asia and South.
Africa perhaps now that that's the case. Well that has been in the past few years evidence that it's exceedingly difficult to have democracy on the western model in some of the new countries on the other hand it would seem to me that it is absolutely essential that we ask ourselves if our institutions do not precisely in these countries and they cannot be expected to what kind of democratic institutions would work. That we do not accept the defeatist attitude about the future of democracy in the new country simply because the foods determined to copy precisely some of the institutions familiar to us didn't succeed as we hope we are inevitably finding ourselves in the problem of agreeing at least in general on what we mean by democracy.
Perhaps that's the real clue to what you're saying. I wonder what some of us round the table here feel is is the key to democracy as it applies to these new nations. Are we talking about the whole of the American Bill of Rights for example. Yes. These are essential conditions in a democracy. So I don't think there are very many democracies bad experience in western democracies because I thought it was exercised by people who call themselves democratic people. And so we doubted that then if western democracy is a little too weak to do that in our country if we started it if we find out that Western democracy say that all it is political democracy but we also that democracy also well on the economic side got what you're saying is that you must have freedom from one. The fact is I think what you're saying is you must have freedom from want
yes freedom from the one on the other hand Mrs. Roosevelt as a longtime defender of the rights of the individual and the position of the minorities in society. You wouldn't be too happy about taking a position that until people had all they needed to eat we could suspend those. Elements of the Democratic spirit or at least which which try to help people on the political side. One says that I would not want to suspend it but I'm afraid that that's what happens is that people who do not have enough the real thing very little about the other demographic. Right. First of all Actually that's practical. I think what you are saying is thing we have to be fine with this democracy. If we define democracy literally then that means the bottom line is people
think democracy means government by the government in order to get the best possible bottom line and then to reach the best possible prosperity for the population. I wonder if you're not making a distinction then between the institutions of democracy on the one hand which we are apt to mention almost first in the west things like the law courts and the police and the parliamentary systems and the parties and so forth. And on the other hand what you might call the spirit of democracy which is the which is the question of whether or not a government is really interested in its people and trying to help them or is trying to protect special privilege against the people. Do you feel that is the spirit perhaps could be applied more easily than the institutions. Yes it's been it may have just been it must be our guidance but this idea of democracy to and to practice the idea of the government by the government has gone from government
by the consent of the governed. That's what we mean it is and it is application. The difficult thing is how to translate that into practice saying that freedom from want cannot be achieved by democratic methods. This certainly is a conscience among the population. So the market that you have to educate people to understand democracy in order to realize the best possible government and the best the great ospital prosperity. Are you talking about technical institutions about technical education at least about having people will now operate trade systems and build up of critical educated. And so I found that you do find these in the country is to educate people and to understand the real need.
But what about the very difficult problem to have a clue. Who chooses the government and what happens if a government gets in power and starts out apparently by being interested in the people. But then later on is challenged by an opposition and decides that it really wants to stay in power. And under those circumstances it suppresses the opposition. How do we cope with that kind of a problem. The idea is that to implement democracies that the people it has to do a government if one has to choose the parties who really are a member of parliament for example with Lagos then you feel that somehow the will of the people by one of the many means available to people will will end by working its way through to the government. Yes you have a basic democracy in the villages in Indonesia don't you. In the villages there's a lot this hour and a guy comes in. But the difficult thing is how to bring this village
to the highest level. Do you mean by any of the methods available to the people or are there some specific methods peculiar to democracy. After all Castro claims that he represents the true kind of democracy and sees the regime in its modern version as a form of popular mass democracy. So there must be something more than simply a popular expression in order to conform to our notion of democracy. But we had genius in your area who they say is going to be the prime minister of tengah on one of these programs and he claimed that you could have a one party system and that if there were men of reasonable goodwill running the one party system they would allow an opposition to develop and if necessary allow it to take over. You think that that is a reasonable reliance let's say on goodwill under these circumstances.
My task would be what happens to do that if the if dissent is possible with then they fear to lose one party. I would suppose that as an NGO we would have hoped we might have something that could be called democracy. On the other hand if one had a. Lip to a trickle one party system like like the communist system where the mere fact of dissent is considered. Reasonable then I think you can have a general popular consent and still not have democracy. Aren't you really saying that it depends upon the leader. Now India has been successful because it had a leader like and that he was trying to get the people to express himself and to give him the chance for expression. I think one of the things that is most important in a democracy particularly a new democracy where. Perhaps there is a
difficulty of finding a people able to govern this is the choice of a leader and the development of leaders. And I'm wondering whether much doesn't depend on what a leader should be in a a new and young democracy a pitch you are trying to bring into being ready for me there's a very real dilemma that the leader who put students power in these conditions is likely to be somebody who can get things done at the same time. You ought to be somebody who can teach self-restraint tolerance and the eventual emergence of democracy and how to combine a respect for human dignity a sense of tolerance with the more administrative
and simply powers. So it really is a very subtle and difficult thing isn't it. I think democracy and democracy can be imposed to the police but they can be handy cannot cannot be cannot be blamed. But the leader of the task of democratically is to educate people to understand democracy and to sense democracy is the government by the government. Those who are gone is the government and the the. There must be no country transition period. Indonesia is the type of democracy as it's called a fact of government which is what the so-called president said about him and something like a government in the United States that was for example at the beginning but most of our political leaders have found that that is not
democratic enough because the government is not responsible to the parliament our leaders trained us in bringing democracy. They found that the Western European market is just more Democratic than what you have. And you wonder if we're beginning to approach something that we might agree on as a general definition at least that governments have special privilege which are trying to defend their own special interests obviously are outside the pale so far as any definition that we might agree on with would be that when you cross the divide and you have governments which are genuinely interested in their people and helping them then you have at least the spirit of democracy start them the institutions have to come as fast as they can come in whatever order they can best come. Would we accept that kind. Of a graduated definition of how one would apply democracy to these. I think we've got a little 10. We tend to confuse here with the concept of democracy. Democracy is a political institution with the objectives of
democracy which are in the newly emerging and the newly independent countries which are the improvement of the standard of living of the people. Clearly this is the basic objective of government everywhere is the welfare of the people in these countries and the newly emerging countries of Africa and Asia the objective everywhere is the improvement of the standard of living of the people and the contest everywhere is whether that can best be done by authoritarian methods or by Democratic by the type of democratic methods that you describe as government by consent of the governed by thinkers. Isn't that really aren't those two different subjects. One how the government achieve its objectives whether by or attempted methods or whether by Democratic I don't really think that the economic objective of government has very much to do with the political form. Now if I make that clear meaning. But really what we're all talking about must be the
same thing we're talking about. Government by consent of the governed. And that's about as simple a definition as you get a democracy when you begin with a country. However it's very difficult for the government to express their consent and you almost have to start out with literacy. I believe you use symbols don't you on the ballot stuck to high in your country for people to mock because they're not literate enough as yet to. I mean our inquiry is to what extent is government by consent of the governed governing the fairing. How is it faring. Yes. Yes well I think minister. Could Tell us a good deal as to whether a government by consent of the governed governed is faring well in Asia or whether it is I said that I thought it was in South America better than it has and recently when we have had dictatorships you know and so many of the South American Republics Latterly we have been disturbed I'm sure by the emergence of military authoritarian governments in Pakistan and various places in Asia and the Middle
East. Government by consent of the people seems to have been on the decline. And that seems to have been replaced in many places by authoritarian governments by strongman. So it would look to me on the whole as though as though democracy was not very well in Asia and then the Middle East. And of course we know in Africa that there are very few pure true genuine democracies in the sense that we're talking about a merger. So I on the whole a little bit pessimistic about the progress of democracy. Play in other places whether it's us in Africa I think you have to take into consideration that nearly all the new governments will have comparatively few educated people to take their positions in government and that they will need. Either from the U.N. or from sources that they choose themselves for first time at least. People
will be willing to see in minor government positions. But we do know something about administration and financial questions that will emerge and so forth for the simple reason that some of these countries actually will have to establish for the first time universal to pay for the children. And when you realize that in India it's only been a short time that they had universal elementary education. That didn't that first ballot. They voted by coloureds States and this means I think that we have to be prepared for a certain amount of not what we would call democracy at all and many of these Actually that's exactly the principles for my judgment that we can expect that you can build democracy on the basis of
literacy want in the home. Now first you have to improve the basic education of the people then you have to educate and elite a small group who can administer who could run the country and to despair of these countries evolution because they haven't jumped from the stone age into a democracy overnight or from the Oxcart to the steel mill overnight night would seem to me a great mistake. Well I would feel that same way but I feel that we haven't thoroughly well understood that you could not have what most of us consider democracy. I think we have many problems in democracy here in our own country where we've known democracy a long. And if we stopped I think we sometimes find things not exactly democratic. And so I wouldn't say that we were still evolving and developing. And why are we not prepared to help in the development but not to despair because
we will see I think some of what we would call autocracy. So Mr. Roosevelt I wanted to raise two questions too neither of which I know the answer. One is Mr. Stevenson is common that democracy is concerned about the government. This bothers me a little bit because it seems to me that the essence of modern dictatorship the totalitarian dictatorship is probably that it has the consent of the government though it generates this concern. So there must be something more than merely consent. I would suppose that in Nazi Germany the majority were for the dictatorship and opposing Cuba today the majority would be for Castro. This is Doctor have his definitions for it. The question is how is idea. That
democracy is one of those who brought them in and deciding how to proceed and in practice and certainly this is the objective is objective for democracy to have the best possible government in our population. Of course again we do have the best how to create the best possible prosperity for our population of course. Doctor how does definition moralist presuppose didn't it that the government in power had a broad aim of the welfare of its people which is a little different. Certainly by our definitions from what either the Nazis or the Communists are aiming at. So the labor now agreed that they would never agree to that. Let me tell you that that what they were reneging at. In fact I have had the I've had Mr. Prosek tell me that he was primarily interested in the well-being of people and I'm sure you have
to get what you really need is the objection of Asian leaders against Western democracies because President Obama is limited to political democracy. What we want to. And not just idea to economic democracy to also realize democracy because our idea of democracy is India Indonesia and was influenced by that problem in Western Europe in 19 century. The doctor had economic democracy is also something which the communists and the fascists aimed at wasn't it. So we haven't really got a definition yet which distinguishes what we're aiming at from the fascists and then our democracy is imposed on the fundamentalism is not democracy. It's not the content of what really isn't needed to impose also on behind other words your definition reject it as something that
was going to end the ruler of the government must be responsible to the population and therefore we have the election. I must be some elemental rights of people which are respected by the government and the freedom from one must be respected. Freedom of Religion respect freedom from want and freedom from fear and this element of things has to be to be expected. It was nearly as we approach a limited definition of democracy here. I wonder if it doesn't seem quite evident then that what we are discussing in the new nations particularly the under developed area is not so much whether democracy applies. We seem to be more or less agreed that that in a broad general way it doesn't immediately apply but that we're discussing the preconditions of democracy where discussing those those processes
and situations which build up toward democracy and what should be done best to do to help countries evolve in the direction of the better orders of democracy. Should we just give up trying to define it and see what it means. Admiral idea but it seems to me that we shouldn't tell ourselves that democracy doesn't fly until you have satisfied the economic need because this is a long process. History indicates that very often industrialisation confirms which ever system brings it about. And it may be that in this manner but to achieve economic development and really defines the means of preventing democracy from ever developing now it is quite clear that many of the Western institutions do not work in the new country. I would draw from this the conclusion that we ought to ask ourselves
very seriously what kind of what the relevance of democratic institutions is. Even while one is going through the process of developing the other otherwise it would seem to me to be a form of resignation with respect to something very basic. You mean for example should you start out with the Constitution and the parliament should you try to set up the courts which will protect individuals even in the early stage of development of a country. Yes I would like and I don't know the answer to this but I would like to have us ask also what. Together with the new nations what the relevance of democratic ideals is to their particular condition and not to say we will wait until you have reached a certain economic but also because it is very possible. In fact I would say likely that if we do not and so the political questions in the early stages that then the process of industrialisation may concern the system that brings it about.
Well Dr. Howard I would agree to that probably wouldn't be because you started off with the Constitution and you set up many of the forms. I think the idea of democracy and then no countries in the east that is your vision is do not separate the Constitution and the objective of democracy and objectif of democracy and the only real able to do. Do you realize that if democracy why don't we switch off in another direction and see if we can get any better success by sneaking up on the topic from Doha. Let's talk about one. Let's approach it from one point of view and that is what democracy is as well as what it is Doctor had. I think in traveling in Asia in many of these newly emerging countries where they're trying to modernize the economies very rapidly they think that we in the United States equate democracy with free enterprise or with capitalist
and that this is unfortunate because free enterprise and capitalism is impossible in countries where there is no capital so that. When we come to them and tell them that we are more concerned with their economic reforms and we are with their with their political freedom. It obviously impairs our prospects for leadership. But we have to realize I think in our country at least is that democracy is possible in socialism as it is as it is in capitalist democratic socialism is still democracy just as we think that democratic capitalism is the purest form of democracy and this means that we have a lot to learn about democracy to go on. I think it does. I think that a great many people in this country have always felt that our economy was tied to ride se not realizing that we don't have to type the code political
beliefs or political activities that they are two separate things because we happen to have done very well with private enterprise and the capitalistic system because of our resources. There are many pedophiles. Possibly they haven't thought or thought they couldn't possibly do. It's very common to hear people say in this country we shouldn't do anything to help socialism abroad. Well what if these countries don't have any capital. They have no choice except socialism to develop. Let's ask Dr. Hunter whether he thinks that socialism or democratic socialism as we might hope is one of the main trends in Asia at the present time and whether he thinks that it's likely to succeed as such as democratic socialism with ideas in the book of Asian people because under the liberal democracy
in the past as colonial people the the the people who rule the country they can be democratic people. So they don't believe that that is really a true democracy. So they're seeking to unbaptised democracy. They found that social democracy is much better for our country than the liberal democracy. On the other hand this is far from communist's concept of socialism isn't it. Yes those are the communist ones not. I remember talking to your colleague Dr. Drew on that in Jakarta and having him say that he felt that Indonesia already was trending away from just that central a pure centralization and pure socialist bureaucracy and was trying to do to have those things which were properly the matter of democratic socialism handled by the government and then to set up a private sector
where the rest of industry could operate reasonably free of restraint. As to Indonesia Zambelli how to create to democratic socialism. I want to play that and how to help the country. But the the the Indians and was how to develop democracy. And so as to social democracy or socialism we have according to the existing commission the right to defend our country for example Number two is the government has to create. They can do half the industry heavy industry on the bottom. And the result of this we intend to develop a model among the population.
And then meantime also to educate the Center for Democracy. Since we're talking about practical measures now and ways to improve the situation I wonder if we could add to cooperatives one or two others. How about the effort of the United Nations to help train public servants and to build civil services and to show people in countries in new nations how to run a country is that one of the cures perhaps that's up to me because the economy and the developed countries have got the best of breed. Perhaps except India India had the past. Well good for them. But as a nation I think the second is that under colonial rule. You had capitalism in many cases. It is not the capitalism of which
we in this country now have. It was very often not the kind of capitalism when you had an unfortunate experience with the way capitalism was administered and you Van. Felt that you must find new ways to help get people to economic freedom which is what they really are looking for. I don't think they they are looking for the kind of freedom that will allow everybody to move forward as an individual. They are looking for a general level of living. Then there will be time for certain abilities to come up. But to begin them they are looking for that. Level for everybody. And to develop. That form of government in which the people take part isn't that pretty much. But
I don't know to promote just information on prosperity. I mean reasonable president of the population. What kind of restraints does it have to have to. I've heard that Governor Stevenson would talk about the difficulties that we have even in this country with and with that with the unchecked abuses that still exist in the private enterprise system. If we are having difficulties of that kind then how is it going to be possible to avoid those abuses that come with an early stage of economic development with many man saying we have to do this is a problem in its historical development and the rest for example one individual on the forefront could develop everything. So one came to this so-called free trade and the free enterprise but the free trade free enterprise had developed
and split. And so say the people who owned the engines of production and people mision was asked unless it's only. And so that it creates a so-called class struggle in the state. And we find this so if you can't afford it because we can afford it because we're not going to be trying to get a point you're trying to avoid it. Right. Right. Because we need to make a balance of power and that is not the same quality as in the developing countries. The Colonial is not going to pick up idealism but I think capitalism you have to say if you have to stop the steady the development of democracy and the east and present the Eastern countries we have to start because
of this problem. Is also the ideal of democracy in Indonesia. And yet every time and that's a condition which prevailed at that time and in those countries. And so there's a first half objection against Western democracy and that is only with the emphasis on the political side. But we need that also in that context that there is a democracy. I wonder if this raises another question I hope I'm not talking too much as usual. I haven't had a feeling that. The liberal democracy meaning everybody for himself is very incompatible to many Asians who feel that austerity the discipline that a sense of common commitment to the objectives of the
state to the improvement of the standard of living that these are incompatible and that that's one reason why why the solitary insistence of government communism have for example have a more sometimes greater attraction for other peoples in these in these countries do you think that's true because of capitalism and an invasion for the individuals rather than the other end of communism. The problem is the physical condition the steeples and we didn't have that in Washington before we had Jefferson didn't we in this country that is we went through a period of national. Pulling ourselves together and I won't say more authoritative rule but in a way it was more a strong central government under Washington and Hamilton's concept of things and it took us how many years before Jefferson
came in before we felt we've reached the point where we could afford the luxury of the human values that Jefferson was emphasizing. I'd like to raise another point if I might which is this because I cut you. A break for everybody. It was just. Something you wanted to throw you off the track. Still I did not want to do. I wanted to hear from Mandarin. Well. I was just going to suggest that we might raise the question of whether or not the very difficult democratic development that we're talking about here can really take place in a Cold War world under the conditions of today with military alliances and the pressures of the Cold War and the big power world and the tendency to polarize politics and drive them to extremes in between countries. Is it going to be possible for us to progress in the right direction under this kind of atmosphere. Henry I think you might have something to say
but I would think that the Cold War is one of the factors which make it even more difficult because it forces governments which sometimes have difficult. Difficult time enough running the affairs of their own countries to make themselves responsible also for international issues which are distracting which seem to get them either or answered in this respect the great deal will depend on the compassion we show for their concern and not to be involved. But again I would say since the Cold War is not likely to end immediately this would I would consider this an additional handicap but not an insuperable obstacle except perhaps in those countries like South Korea where which are very immediately under the fear of
foreign military pressure. And rather than the fear of communism sometimes in other countries the fear of the West creates such a mobilize ocean of natural resources and such a concern with foreign policy that democracy becomes very difficult. But just there we had a remarkable success recently haven't we as much as I thought this was very encouraging but we seem to have agreed that democracy is very difficult. It is not great and I would like to say. That. Finding no dissent to that proposition that we have to recognize likewise that in these underdeveloped countries the condition preceding to a successful democracy is one education both the mass education of the people and the I don't think 20 percent of the children of maybe 80 million people of West Africa are in school until we can improve education at the mass level and also at the level of the elite who can govern.
This is Roosevelt's administrative skills. You haven't got the conditions preceding to a successful democracy. And therefore we have to try to get make progress towards this economic improvement through probably methods that are distasteful to us because of our allegiances not the respect for the democratic system. We just have to face this and the question then becomes how can we accelerate the process. You said how can you bring about democracy. Well I think we're going to have to aid the education and the economic development of these because just went on to promote democracy and to this country to promote economic development. Well what Mr. Stevenson said was that his belief is that we will have to aid education and economic development. Isn't this then putting some of our aid we've been putting rather a good deal of emphasis on military aid.
I have wondered very often how much bandwidth that military aid really had to the development of these different countries. And I have wondered whether we would not have more real success in the underlying development and understanding of democracy if we gave more understanding to that in both an economic and apolitical way. How do you feel about. Well I'm sure that this is one of the areas in which we can make great improvement planning techniques and also insistence on much more regional approach to economic development than we have in the past certainly in West Africa is a good example. What is it 20 16 countries there hardly any of them viable in themselves will have to read chapters.
But I'm getting I've used the privilege of talking. To be on the military versus economic aid. The basic question that would be it is that we should ask ourselves is whether that which these nations feel is the real world if they are going to develop military forces anyway then it becomes almost a practical question. But if we give aid economic aid or military aid I'm being told that the Indian military budget tends to rise in some proportion to the economic growth that the West furnishes it. Now what would be unfortunate is if we pressured countries that do not feel any particular commitment to do foreign policy would not feel particularly threatened to divert resources into a military program that
I think would be an unfortunate relationship. In other respects it would seem to me to depend somewhat on what the recipient country feels it's its need to some extent where we perhaps agree on saying that we have to continue as long as we're up against the formidable problems that we're up against with the communist bloc to give a minimum basic amount of military assistance and to help them to be ready to defend themselves but that we should be careful not to go beyond that amount. And as Mr. Fulbright has said let the military budget eat up the economic aid budget which is what's been happening. So I think it's very dangerous if a country like South Korea maintains 21 divisions this must unbalance the entire life and not just the military sector. And in this respect it would not be it would be bad. In fact that we take another approach to the problem for a moment we talked about the institutions
we talked about countries we've talked about. The practical problems we haven't said too much about that intangible thing the spirit of democracy and the concept of democracy. I wonder if we've been playing it down. I wonder if there are signs in today's world that there is a spirit in man and that is the spirit of freedom. Yes. And that in surprising places where we've had instances in Korea and in Turkey right close to the problems of the Cold War. We've had cases in Burma where there's been a government of generals and the generals have laid down their power and given it back to New Who was the prime minister. I wonder if there isn't if we're not underestimating what from the governed are capable of doing a day's work and underestimate the fact that all people everywhere start with the with the we have the advantage that all people everywhere would prefer. To have a voice in their government. In other words democracy is the most attractive form of government where we also
find that it's the most difficult form of government. And now we have it in a contest with authoritarianism to see which can modernize society most rapidly. This is never to say that our most precious export is the devotion to democracy and our. And our achievements here at home with democracy and that our objective is all over the world should be to make the world safe for democracy. But how do you do it. I think the question has raised repeatedly and I must say I don't know how you do it. If it requires both economic freedom and also education until you have laid the base for it and this is going to require a strong government. How about the quality of our own role as a as as a setting an example as providing a working method of how this thing began. I think that the difficult question now how would you we'd like to get that down to both of them.
Yes. What about the possibility. What about the problem of the United States setting an example and providing a working model of democracy not trying to force it on other people but doing the best that we can to make our democracy work so well that other people will feel drawn to it. Are we doing this efficiently in the United States. No one has been trained to understand the idea of all this people what kind of democracy and what is the idea of democracy. Certainly not the same. What you think our performance of democracy is irrelevant to these other countries do. I don't understand the idea of democracy in Indonesia in India and this can you feel it. Our democracy here is so different from some of the forums that you have. Our role is not really important in the way of setting an example. Do you think that that might look at history but would have to say that the domestic performance of the
Western countries does seem to me to have furnished a model to many of the new nation. After all many of the nations that they were for consciously patting themselves on the west despite all the systems that the West had committed in these areas and this seems to me at least in part due to the fact that the performance of the West during that period was the most dynamic one in the world. And secondly I hope to the inherent attraction of the of the principles of freedom which which we profess and that we have only a human being. And you've been summarized quite a bit in a few minutes. Wouldn't you summarize what you think this discussion has brought out. Well Ivan this is a very daring thing to do. I think we have
spent most of our time trying to define democracy and the universal and simplest sense of that word. I think we've probably come to the conclusion that it's not easily definable that we are talking certainly about government by consent of the governed that the people are governed not by. The rulers of their own choice and. And that they have. Frequent opportunities to express consent to this government or to reject it. I think the doctor has made it very clear that in these under developed countries that are now emerging and from long periods of colonialism or from authoritarian government of one kind or another that their role is particularly difficult as long as their economic standards of living are very low and their literacy increases until their economic well
being the increases that them that democracy is attainable only is not attainable in this false sense of this world. As however as their conditions do improve it becomes more attainable and then I suppose the crisis comes when you have the basis of democracy and yet don't have democracy. This is self perpetuating authoritarianism and tyranny of one kind or another. I don't know that he has indicated that that condition has risen in his country or by any means in all of Asia. Next I think we've also given some reason most of that is pointed out that the administrative structure is defective that most of these countries unless they've inherited the civil service from their colonial period that they did this likewise has to be restored it has to be developed has to be improved and I haven't tried to point out that
we should we in this country have a good deal to learn about them and what democracy means to them because often we have confused capitalism with. An economic form with a political form of capitalism with democracy whereas they are not in a position to practice western capitalism as we do. Having a deficiency of capital and therefore they are obliged to do to bring their societies forward to modern industrial. Communities and improve the standard of living of their people by. By methods that we would call socialist. I think perhaps in addition to all of this Mr. Silva Daviss put his finger on the most important point of all and that's the spirit of democracy which to my way of thinking is the most important export this country has. And yet it isn't always relevant. Sorry. Now I'm sorry to say that some rate was very good. What has happened to it. I have to say to the audience
that this is the end of this program and this series that we look forward to meeting with you again in the in the autumn. And I want to thank you Governor Stevenson for being with us because you've come a long way and we're very appreciative. And I also want to thank everybody else because it was very kind of you to be with us today. And now I say a lot the next. Democratic candidate for the current. Doctor the former prime minister and vice president of Indonesia. Mr. Kiffin era of the associate director of the Center for International Affairs at Harvard University.
Mr. Davis is managing editor of The Christian Science Monitor. Photograph by arrangement with. People often asked what they personally can do about world affairs. For a list of agencies concerned with individual participation in international issues. Right. To her car 345 46 Street New York 17 in New York. This program was recorded Sunday June 5th 1968. Still the prospect that mankind programs are available for film service
Indiana University Bloomington Ind.. Her. What with the prospects of mankind series in the fall. This is National Educational Television
Prospects of Mankind with Eleanor Roosevelt
Episode Number
Future of Democracy Abroad
Producing Organization
WGBH Educational Foundation
Contributing Organization
WGBH (Boston, Massachusetts)
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/15-21ghxcpv).
Episode Description
In this episode, Mrs. Roosevelt and her guests will consider the threats that assail the long-term spread and survival of democracy in the West and the underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America and their implications for US policy are explored. Mrs. Roosevelt's guests are: Adlai Stevenson: Governor of Illinois (1949-1953), two-time Democratic presidential candidate, American representative to the United Nations. Dr. Mohammed Hatta: Former Prime Minister and former Vice-President of Indonesia. Henry Kissinger: Secretary of State (1973-1977), and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize (1973). Saville Davis: Managing editor of The Christian Science Monitor. As you know, Mr. Stevenson has not made too many television appearances and this episode marks one of his rare meetings with Mrs. Roosevelt in an hour-long telecast. The program is being recorded by WGBH-TV (Boston) form the Brandeis University campus on Sunday, June 5, 1960. This episode is the last of the 1959-1960 series of "Prospects of Mankind" the 1960-1961 series of ten episode will begin October. (Description adapted from documents in the NET Microfiche)
Series Description
"Prospects of Mankind is a talk show hosted by Eleanor Roosevelt featuring roundtable discussion of foreign and domestic affairs with leading political, academic, and journalistic experts. It was filmed on location at Brandeis University."
Series Description
This is a monthly series of nine one-hour television episodes featuring Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt. The former first lady serves as the host and moderator. On each episode she will be joined by three guests: 1) A key foreign figure such as a visiting prime minister, a United Nations representative or a man or woman of prominence representing his country unofficially. 2) An important American in public life or a person of equal consequence from the academic world. 3) A distinguished representative from the press or other mass media who will focus the discussion on the relevant issues and controversies at stake. On each episode Mrs. Roosevelt and her guests will discuss a current international problem of major importance in which the United States is involved. The program is made up as two 29-minute episodes with a station break between the two portions. "Prospects of Mankind" is a television series designed to provide a wide public with those facts and opinions important to an understating of the underlying fabric of current international problems. It derives its inspiration from the ideals and endeavors of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt. On each episode Mrs. Roosevelt joins three distinguished guests who through their position of authority or expression of opinion have a significant influence on the denervation or interpretation of current issues. Saville Davis and Erwin D. Canham, editors of The Christian Science Monitor, at times assist in moderating the discussions. This program is produced for National Educational Television by WGBH-TV in cooperation with Brandeis University. In addition to the audience of educational stations throughout the country they have been seen in the key areas of New York and Washington, DC, through the facilities of the Metropolitan Broadcasting Corporation.
Broadcast Date
Asset type
Talk Show
Social Issues
Global Affairs
Politics and Government
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Host: Roosevelt, Eleanor
Producing Organization: WGBH Educational Foundation
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Identifier: 308268 (WGBH Barcode)
Format: Digital Betacam
Generation: Master
Duration: 00:59:02
Identifier: 20247 (WGBH Barcode)
Format: VHS
Generation: Copy: Access
Identifier: 25412 (WGBH Barcode)
Format: Betacam
Generation: Master
Duration: 00:59:02
Identifier: 109599 (WGBH Barcode)
Format: D3
Generation: Master
Library of Congress
Identifier: 2411972-1 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 16mm film
Generation: Copy: Access
Color: B&W
Indiana University Libraries Moving Image Archive
Identifier: [request film based on title] (Indiana University)
Format: 16mm film
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Prospects of Mankind with Eleanor Roosevelt; 109; Future of Democracy Abroad,” 1960-06-05, WGBH, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 21, 2024,
MLA: “Prospects of Mankind with Eleanor Roosevelt; 109; Future of Democracy Abroad.” 1960-06-05. WGBH, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 21, 2024. <>.
APA: Prospects of Mankind with Eleanor Roosevelt; 109; Future of Democracy Abroad. Boston, MA: WGBH, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from