评论
打印
I want to talk about one of the big questions, perhaps the biggest question:
我想谈谈几个最大的问题之一，也许是最大的一个问题。
How should we live together? How should a group of people,
我们该如何共存？生活在同一城市的一群人，
who perhaps live in a city or in the continent or even the whole globe, share and manage common resources?
或是在同一大陆的人们，亦或是整个地球上的所有人，该如何分享和管理共同的资源？
How should we make the rules that govern us?
我们该如何制定用来约束我们的规则？
This has always been an important question.
这一直是个重要的问题。
And today, I think it's even more important than ever if we want to address rising inequality,
而今天，我认为这个问题甚至比以往任何时候都要重要，如果我们想要解决不平等的加剧，
climate change, the refugee crisis, just to name a few major issues. It's also a very old question.
气候变化和难民危机这些问题，当然这些只是一部分主要的问题，这也是一个很古老的问题。
Humans have been asking themselves this question ever since we lived in organized societies.
自从我们生活在一个有组织的社会，人类就一直在问自己这个问题。
Like this guy, Plato. He thought we needed benevolent guardians who could make decisions for the greater good of everyone.
比如说，柏拉图。他认为我们需要仁慈的监管者，能站在公众的角度做出明智的决策。
Kings and queens thought they could be those guardians, but during various revolutions, they tended to lose their heads.
国王和王后认为他们可以成为这样的监管者，但是在无数的革命中，他们往往成了遭到处决的对象。
And this guy, you probably know.
你可能认识这个人。
Here in Hungary, you lived for many years under one attempt to implement his answer of how to live together.
在这里，匈牙利，一个你生活过很多年的地方，正在尝试用他的答案来回答上面的问题。
His answer was brutal, cruel and inhumane.
而他的回答是野蛮的，残忍的，毫无人性的。
But a different answer, a different kind of answer,
但是一个不一样的回答，一种不一样的回答，
which went more or less into hibernation for 2,000 years, has had profound recent success.
沉睡了大约2000年，在最近有了卓越的成功。
That answer is, of course, democracy.
当然，这个回答就是，民主。
If we take a quick look at the modern history of democracy, it goes something like this.
如果我们快速地回顾一下现代民主的历史，就会发现它是这样的。
Along here, we're going to put the last 200 years.
这条横轴代表着近两百年的时间。
Up here, we're going to put the number of democracies.
这条纵轴代表着民主国家的数量。
And the graph does this, the important point of which, is this extraordinary increase over time,
那么图像就会是这样的，其中最重要的一点就是，在这段时间里民主国家的显著增长，
which is why the 20th century has been called the century of democracy's triumph,
这就是为什么20世纪被称为民主胜利的世纪，
and why, as Francis Fukuyama said in 1989, some believe that we have reached the end of history,
这也是为什么，如同弗朗西斯·福山所说，一些人认为我们已经抵达了历史的尽头，
that the question of how to live together has been answered, and that answer is liberal democracy.
我们该怎么生活在一起这个问题已经被回答了，答案就是自由民主制。
Let's explore that assertion, though. I want to find out what you think.
但是，让我们再审视一下这种说法。我想知道你是怎么想的。
So I'm going to ask you two questions, and I want you to put your hands up if you agree.
所以我要问你们两个问题，如果你表示同意请举起你的手。
The first question is: Who thinks living in a democracy is a good thing? Who likes democracy?
第一个问题是，你们认为生活在民主制的社会一是件好事吗？你们喜欢民主吗？
If you can think of a better system, keep your hands down.
如果你能想到一种更好的制度，请你不要举手。
Don't worry about those who didn't raise their hands, I'm sure they mean very well.
不要担心那些没有举手的人，我相信他们非常有想法。
The second question is: Who thinks our democracies are functioning well?
第二个问题是：你们认为我们的民主制运行得好吗？
Come on, there must be one politician in the audience somewhere.
快举手，你们当中肯定有一个是政治家。
No. But my point is, if liberal democracy is the end of history, then there's a massive paradox or contradiction here.
没有？好吧。但是我想说的是，如果自由民主制是历史的尽头，那么举手的情况肯定跟现场反差很大。
Why is that? Well, the first question is about the ideal of democracy, and all these qualities are very appealing.
为什么是这样？第一个问题是理想化的民主，它的特点都十分吸引人。
But in practice, it's not working. And that's the second question.
但是在现实中，它没什么作用。这就引出了第二个问题。
Our politics is broken, our politicians aren't trusted, and the political system is distorted by powerful vested interests.
我们的政治是有缺陷的，我们的政治家是不被相信的，我们的政治系统被既得利益所扭曲。
I think there's two ways to resolve this paradox.
我认为有两种方法来解决这样一个矛盾。
One is to give up on democracy; it doesn't work.
一个是我们放弃民主，因为它没有用。
Let's elect a populist demagogue who will ignore democratic norms, trample on liberal freedoms and just get things done.
让我们来选举一些民粹主义的煽动者，一些无视民主制度的人，来践踏自由，把这个问题赶快解决掉。
The other option, I think, is to fix this broken system,
另一个选择，我认为，是去修复这个有缺陷的民主，
to bring the practice closer to the ideal and put the diverse voices of society in our parliaments
让实际情况更加理想化，让社会不同的声音在议会中发声，
and get them to make considered, evidence-based laws for the long-term good of everyone.
让他们去制定深思熟虑的、循证的法律，站在长远的角度出发，使得每个人受益。
Which brings me to my epiphany, my moment of enlightenment. And I want you to get critical.
这种想法使我顿悟，使我得到了启迪。我想要你们用批判的思维。
I want you to ask yourselves, "Why wouldn't this work?"
我想要你们问问自己，接下来我要说的想法为什么不行？
And then come and talk to me afterwards about it.
然后来跟我探讨一下。
Its technical name is "sortition." But its common name is "random selection."
它的学名叫做“随机选择”。但通常我们叫它“抽签”。
And the idea is actually very simple: we randomly select people and put them in parliament.
这个过程其实非常的简单：我们随机从人群中选择我们的议员，由他们组成议会。
Let's think about that for a few more minutes, shall we?
我们不妨来思考一下。
Imagine we chose you and you and you and you and you down there and a bunch of other random people,
假设我们选择了你，你，你还有你，以及其他的一些被抽到的人，
and we put you in our parliament for the next couple of years.
然后我们在接下来的几年里，把你们加入议会。
Of course, we could stratify the selection to make sure that
当然我们会分阶级抽选，以确保
it matched the socioeconomic and demographic profile of the country and was a truly representative sample of people.
被抽到的人和我们国家的经济分布以及人口比例是匹配的，而且是一个代表所有人的样本。
Fifty percent of them would be women. Many of them would be young, some would be old,
其中一半的人是女性。他们当中很多人是年轻人，也有一些是老人，
a few would be rich, but most of them would be ordinary people like you and me.
极少的一部分是富人，但是绝大多数都是普通人，就像你和我一样。
This would be a microcosm of society.
这将会是整个社会的缩影。
And this microcosm would simulate how we would all think,
而且这个缩影会模拟我们所有人的想法，
if we had the time, the information and a good process to come to the moral crux of political decisions.
如果我们有时间、信息和良好的过程来解决政治决定的道德难题。
And although you may not be in that group, someone of your age, someone of your gender,
虽然你可能不是被抽到的人，但是跟你同年龄的某人，跟你同性别的某人，
someone from your location and someone with your background would be in that room.
跟你来自一个地方的某人，跟你有着相同背景的某人，将会被抽到。
The decisions made by these people would build on the wisdom of crowds.
这些人做出的决定是基于群体的智慧。
They would become more than the sum of their parts.
群体的智慧会超过他们个人智慧的总和。
They would become critical thinkers with access to experts, who would be on tap but not on top.
他们会是批判性的思考者，有着咨询专家的渠道，他们会是利国利民，而不是高高在上的。
And they could prove that diversity can trump ability when confronting the wide array of societal questions and problems.
当他们面对一系列广泛的社会问题的时候，能够证明多样性是可以胜过个人能力的。
It would not be government by public opinion poll. It would not be government by referendum.
这不是基于公众意见调查的政府，也不是基于全民公投的政府。
These informed, deliberating people would move beyond public opinion to the making of public judgments.
这些消息灵通、深思熟虑的人将会跨越公众意见的范畴，制定出更好的决定。
However, there would be one major side effect:
然而，最大的一个副作用就是：
if we replaced elections with sortition and made our parliament truly representative of society,
如果我们用抽签来取代选举，以及让议会真正代表我们的社会，
it would mean the end of politicians. And I'm sure we'd all be pretty sad to see that.
这就意味着政治家的末日。我敢肯定看到这一幕我们都会很伤心。
Very interestingly, random selection was a key part of how democracy was done in ancient Athens.
非常有趣的是，随机选择就是古雅典民主社会中一个关键的因素。
This machine, this device, is called a kleroteria. It's an ancient Athenian random-selection device.
这个仪器叫做“kleroteria”，这是一个古雅典的抽签工具。
The ancient Athenians randomly selected citizens to fill the vast majority of their political posts.
古雅典人随机选择他们的公民，让他们担任大部分的政治职务。
They knew that elections were aristocratic devices.
他们知道选举是贵族统治的手段。
They knew that career politicians were a thing to be avoided.
他们知道政治家这个职业是应该被避免的。
And I think we know these things as well.
我认为我们也知道这些。
But more interesting than the ancient use of random selection is its modern resurgence.
但是比古代抽签更有趣的是它在当代的重生。
The rediscovery of the legitimacy of random selection in politics has become so common lately,
人们重新发现随机选择在政治领域的正确性，最近这一现象已经变得十分普遍，
that there's simply too many examples to talk about.
有太多的例子可以说明这一现象。
Of course, I'm very aware that it's going to be difficult to institute this in our parliaments.
当然，我清楚的知道，在议会启动随机选择过程一定会困难重重。
Try this -- say to your friend, "I think we should populate our parliament with randomly selected people."
你可以试试跟你的朋友说：“我认为我们应该推行由抽签来选择议员。”
"Are you joking? What if my neighbor gets chosen? The fool can't even separate his recycling."
“你在跟我开玩笑吧？如果我的邻居被选上了怎么办？这个傻子甚至连垃圾分类回收都不会。”
But the perhaps surprising but overwhelming and compelling evidence from all these modern examples is that it does work.
但是令人欣喜，有具有说服力的证据，都来自于当代的例子，说明其实这种制度是有效的。
If you give people responsibility, they act responsibly.
如果你给人们责任，他们就会变得负责。
Don't get me wrong -- it's not a panacea. The question is not: Would this be perfect?
别曲解我的意思，这并不是万能药。但问题的关键不在于这种制度是否是完美的。
Of course not. People are fallibly human, and distorting influences will continue to exist.
这当然不是完美的。人们是会犯错误的，过去扭曲的影响还会持续存在。
The question is: Would it be better? And the answer to that question, to me at least, is obviously yes.
问题的关键是，这种制度是更好的吗？至少对于我来说，答案明显是肯定的。
Which gets us back to our original question: How should we live together?
这也把我们带回到最初的问题，我们该如何生活在一起？
And now we have an answer: with a parliament that uses sortition.
现在我们已经有了一个答案，就是随机选择议员的议会。
But how would we get from here to there?
但是我们该如何将现有制度变成那样呢？
How could we fix our broken system and remake democracy for the 21st century?
我们应该如何修复这个有缺陷的民主，并在21世纪翻新我们的民主制度？
Well, there are several things that we can do, and that are, in fact, happening right now.
有几件事情是我们能做的。事实上，这些事已经在发生了。
We can experiment with sortition.
我们可以对抽签制度进行试验。
We can introduce it to schools and workplaces and other institutions, like Democracy In Practice is doing in Bolivia.
我们可以把它引入学校、工作单位以及其他的机构，就像“democracy in practice”在玻利维亚做的那样。
We can hold policy juries and citizens' assemblies, like the newDemocracy Foundation is doing in Australia,
我们可以举办公民陪审团和公民集会，就像“newDemocracy Foundation”在澳大利亚做的那样，
like the Jefferson Center is doing in the US and like the Irish government is doing right now.
就像杰弗逊中心在美国做的那样，就像爱尔兰政府现在做的那样。
We could build a social movement demanding change, which is what the Sortition Foundation is doing in the UK.
我们可以发起一个要求改变的社会运动。就像“Sortition Foundation”在英国做的那样。
And at some point, we should institute it.
然后在未来的某个时候，我们应该将这种制度创立起来。
Perhaps the first step would be a second chamber in our parliament,
也许第一步，就是建立一个第二议会，
full of randomly selected people -- a citizens' senate, if you will.
全部由被抽签的人构成--一个公民议院，你也可以这么说。
There's a campaign for a citizens' senate in France and another campaign in Scotland,
在法国已经有了这样的运动，在苏格兰也是，
and it could, of course, be done right here in Hungary.
这当然也可以在这里，匈牙利，得到实现。
That would be kind of like a Trojan horse right into the heart of government.
这就像是把一个特洛伊木马插入了政府的心脏。
And then, when it becomes impossible to patch over the cracks in the current system,
然后，当不可能修补现有的漏洞的时候，
we must step up and replace elections with sortition.
我们必须站出来，用抽签来取代选举。
I have hope. Here in Hungary, systems have been created, and systems have been torn down and replaced in the past.
我对此充满希望。在匈牙利，历史上有各种不同的制度被创立，或被撤下和取代。
Change can and does happen. It's just a matter of when and how. Thank you. Thank you.
改变可以发生，改变也正在发生。这是只时间和方式的问题。谢谢，谢谢。
