Being in Davos is both enjoyable and very helpful to my work. I say that because I find myself in these comments talking about some of the more challenging aspects – -contention is usually more interesting than contentment– and I want to avoid the failing for which I criticize journalists, of overstressing the negative.

So now on to two complaints, noting that my overall experience here has been very positive. First, I want to register my strong objection to the practice of breaking down sessions into several small groups, with each group then reporting through one individual to the entire group. I find listening to these, rambling, disorganized, superficial efforts to sum up an hour’s thoughtful discussion of complex topics one of the greatest wastes of time which I am asked to endure. The value of these meetings lies in the discussions in full. Efforts to summarize them drain their real worth. The pretension that these summaries include "solutions" to difficult problems is a complete fiction.

Second, I am saddened by those who apologize for regimes that repress their people by dismissing "western democracy" as inapplicable to other cultures. This year it is defenders of the lack of democracy in the People’s Republic of China who are telling me that I am imposing "western concepts" and ignoring alternative forms of democracy. In response, I make clear that by democracy I mean two basic precepts: (i) peoples’ right to vote privately to choose those who govern them and (ii) freedom of expression. I reject the notion that these are rigid, culture-bound or "western". Indeed, several Asian nations embody these precepts – Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and India, for example.

In addition, I have asked at three sessions, when told I am ignoring alternative forms of democracy, for examples of what these alternative democracies look like. I have also asked for examples of the "Asian values" I am accused of ignoring by advocating democracy as I have described it. I am still waiting for answers.

– Congressman Barney Frank