This is the text of the speech held by the author at the Doha International Conference, organised in Qatar by Reset Dialogues on Civilizations on February 26th 2008.

I believe in non-violence, because violence is dialogue’s opposite. At times psychologists say that if one becomes violent one is no longer capable of speaking to others and listening to them. So, if we wish to improve, we must try and adopt non-violent strategies in politics. On the other hand, relations between the media and politics are delicate, and at times I even believe they should not be so close. On the basis of my experience as Minister of the Interior, an appointment I held in Germany for seven years, I can state that we politicians are both producers and consumers of news. As consumers we must rely in how information is presented and published by the media, and, although we are helped by experts, at times the media move faster than our own investigations. On other occasions we depend on the media, and that is another kind of danger. On other occasions we wish to influence the media and, finally, we are at times exploited. There have been many debates about the complexity of reality and of the world as a whole, but when a politician is asked to explain the Middle Eastern conflict in sixty seconds it obviously becomes very difficult to provide an exhaustive answer.

So, how can a politician use these means, with their restrictions imposed by space and time and by their speed? There is also the fact that we should not only concentrate on television, because the media mean a great deal more; we have the press, the internet, and the radio. At times people say that it is much better to hear than to see because one’s impressions are far more precise. What one sees does not remain impressed in the mind but rather in one’s feelings. When I take part in talk shows, at times a friend of mine paid me a compliment telling me I did a really good job, and yet whenever I ask what the person appreciated most, the answer is: “Oh, well, I am not sure. But you were great”. This means that what mattered was not what I said but how I behaved, how I moved and presented myself. The complexity of reality is a problem per se. The great German philosopher Hegel said that “what is real is inside”. This means that if all one has available is part of the truth, of reality; one ignores the variety it consists in. Perhaps there is a dilemma here in need of a solution. How do we fit together the mosaic of different perceptions and perspectives? This is dialogue’s problem and the questions politicians must try and answer.

One aspect that needs serious consideration is that, within limits, there is a pre-fabrication of facts by the media; how images are chosen, which news is broadcast first. What makes the headlines or is announced first on TV. In other words, there is an unavoidable selection, a prejudgment. Secondly, there will never be media without tendencies. In Germany, for example, state radio and television is excellent, as are regional TV stations, but there is a trend, and at times the programmes become boring due to the need to respect internal regulations that impose balance. However, it is better to be boring than misleading. In a free society, freedom of the press is one of a democracy’s founding principles. But the complexity of reality is a given with which one must deal. I believe one should begin by educating people about the media, adding media studies to school and university curricula. We must ensure that the public is capable of dealing directly with the media, of judging and understanding the mechanisms. This – I believe – is one of the key issues, because this kind of education would influence the media too.

Do images speak more than words? Yes they do. One must repeat this again and again. But perhaps images have more to say to our emotions than to our minds. This is why greater responsibility is required when news is provided using images more than words, because words are easier to correct. It is true that the media is used as a weapon, but one should add that in the current situation there is a new front, a new form of warfare where there is a battle for the hearts and minds of people. I am not a follower of Carl Schmitt, who believed that politics consist in the definition of an enemy. But I do believe there is some truth in his words, because we define what we want, what we are searching for, our objectives. I believe in the diversity that is a European and Mediterranean legacy. I am also convinced we should not forget that, beyond diversity, there are universal values, such as respect for life and the dignity of each human being.

Even when there is a mingling of politics and religion, and misunderstandings arise, precisely because religious support absolute truths, we should not stop talking to one another. Respect means having high esteem of the opinion of others without fearing a debate. We should all be actively committed to dialogue, perhaps even with exchanges ensuring that politicians, journalists, and economists, learn the points of view of their peers in other contexts. Who knows, perhaps one day we will have a new radio and television system capable of merging the various points of views and perspectives, thereby significantly improving the dialogue between cultures.

Otto Schily is a German lawyer and politician. From October 1998 to November 2005, he was the Minister of the Interior in the government led by Gerhard Schröder.