Democracy is in trouble, no question about that, and it comes in part from a deep dilemma in which it is embedded. It's increasingly irrelevant to the kinds of decisions we face that have to do with global pandemics, a cross-border problem; with HIV, a transnational problem; with markets and immigration, something that goes beyond national borders; with terrorism, with war, all now cross-border problems.
Nema sumnje kako je demokracija u krizi, i to djelomice proizlazi iz dubokog proturječja u njenom korijenu. Sve je manje važna pri suočavanju s odlukama o globalnim pandemijama, kao prekograničnim problemom; s HIV-om kao transnacionalnim problemom; s tržištima i useljenicima, nečime što je iznad nacionalnih granica; s terorizmom, s ratom, sa svim današnjim prekograničnim problemima.
In fact, we live in a 21st-century world of interdependence, and brutal interdependent problems, and when we look for solutions in politics and in democracy, we are faced with political institutions designed 400 years ago, autonomous, sovereign nation-states with jurisdictions and territories separate from one another, each claiming to be able to solve the problem of its own people. Twenty-first-century, transnational world of problems and challenges, 17th-century world of political institutions. In that dilemma lies the central problem of democracy. And like many others, I've been thinking about what can one do about this, this asymmetry between 21st-century challenges and archaic and increasingly dysfunctional political institutions like nation-states.
Zapravo u 21. stoljeću živimo u međuzavisnom svijetu, i sa surovim međuzavisnim problemima. Tražimo li rješenja u politici i u demokraciji, suočavamo se s političkim institucijama stvorenima prije 400 godina, sa samostalnim, suverenim nacionalnim državama, s pravnim nadležnostima i upravnim područjima, međusobno razdvojenima, od kojih je svaka navodno u stanju riješiti probleme svojih ljudi. 21. stoljeće, transnacionalni svijet problema i izazova, svijet političkih institucija 17. stoljeća. U ovome proturječju leži središnji problem demokracije. Poput mnogih drugih, razmišljao sam o tome što netko može učiniti s ovim u vezi, s ovim nesrazmjerom između izazova 21. stoljeća te zastarjelih i sve neučinkovitijih političkih institucija poput nacionalnih država.
And my suggestion is that we change the subject, that we stop talking about nations, about bordered states, and we start talking about cities. Because I think you will find, when we talk about cities, we are talking about the political institutions in which civilization and culture were born. We are talking about the cradle of democracy.
A ja bih predložio da promijenimo temu, da prestanemo govoriti o nacijama, o "omeđenim" državama, i započnemo govoriti o gradovima. Jer, vjerujem da ćete shvatiti da, dok govorimo o gradovima, govorimo o političkim ustanovama u kojima su rođene civilizacija i kultura. Govorimo o kolijevci demokracije.
We are talking about the venues in which those public spaces where we come together to create democracy, and at the same time protest those who would take our freedom, take place. Think of some great names: the Place de la Bastille, Zuccotti Park, Tahrir Square, Taksim Square in today's headlines in Istanbul, or, yes, Tiananmen Square in Beijing.
Govorimo o mjestima gdje se nalaze ti javni prostori na kojima se okupljamo da bismo stvarali demokraciju i, istodobno, prosvjedovali protiv onih koji nam oduzimaju slobodu. Prisjetite se nekih veličanstvenih imena: Place de la Bastille, Zuccotti Park, Trg Tahrir, Trg Taksim iz današnjih naslova, u Istanbulu, ili, da, Trg Tiananmen u Pekingu.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Those are the public spaces where we announce ourselves as citizens, as participants, as people with the right to write our own narratives. Cities are not only the oldest of institutions, they're the most enduring. If you think about it, Constantinople, Istanbul, much older than Turkey. Alexandria, much older than Egypt. Rome, far older than Italy. Cities endure the ages. They are the places where we are born, grow up, are educated, work, marry, pray, play, get old, and in time, die. They are home. Very different than nation-states, which are abstractions. We pay taxes, we vote occasionally, we watch the men and women we choose rule rule more or less without us. Not so in those homes known as our towns and cities where we live. Moreover, today, more than half of the world's population live in cities. In the developed world, it's about 78 percent. More than three out of four people live in urban institutions, urban places, in cities today. So cities are where the action is. Cities are us. Aristotle said in the ancient world, man is a political animal. I say we are an urban animal. We are an urban species, at home in our cities. So to come back to the dilemma, if the dilemma is we have old-fashioned political nation-states unable to govern the world, respond to the global challenges that we face like climate change, then maybe it's time for mayors to rule the world, for mayors and the citizens and the peoples they represent to engage in global governance.
To su javni prostori gdje se deklariramo kao građani, kao sudionici, kao ljudi s pravom da ispisujemo vlastite priče. Gradovi nisu tek najstariji među institucijama; oni su i najdugovječniji. Ako malo razmislite: Konstantinopol, Istanbul, mnogo je stariji od Turske. Aleksandrija, mnogo starija od Egipta. Rim, daleko stariji od Italije. Gradovi nadživljuju vjekove. Oni su mjesta gdje se rađamo, odrastamo, obrazujemo se, radimo, vjenčavamo se, molimo se, igramo se, starimo i, s vremenom, umiremo. Oni su dom. Posve različiti od nacionalnih država, koje su apstrakcije. Plaćamo poreze, povremeno glasujemo, gledamo muškarce i žene koje biramo kako vladaju, vladaju, manje više, bez nas. Tako nije u tim domovima znanim kao naši gradići i gradovi, u kojima živimo. Štoviše, danas, više od polovice svjetske populacije živi u gradovima. U razvijenom svijetu - oko 78 posto. Više od tri četvrtine ljudi danas živi u urbanim ustanovama, urbanim mjestima, u gradovima. Gradovi su mjesta zbivanja. Gradovi su -- mi. Aristotel je nekad davno rekao kako je čovjek politička životinja. Ja kažem da smo gradske životinje. Mi smo gradska bića; dom nam je u našim gradovima. No, vratimo se našoj dvojbi... Ako ne znamo što bismo sa staromodnim političkim nacionalnim državama nesposobnima da upravljaju svijetom, da odgovore na globalne izazove s kojima se suočavamo, poput klimatskih promjena, onda je možda vrijeme da gradonačelnici zavladaju svijetom, za gradonačelnike i građane, i za ljude koje oni predstavljaju da se uključe u upravljanje svijetom.
When I say if mayors ruled the world, when I first came up with that phrase, it occurred to me that actually, they already do. There are scores of international, inter-city, cross-border institutions, networks of cities in which cities are already, quite quietly, below the horizon, working together to deal with climate change, to deal with security, to deal with immigration, to deal with all of those tough, interdependent problems that we face. They have strange names: UCLG, United Cities and Local Governments; ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Issues. And the list goes on: Citynet in Asia; City Protocol, a new organization out of Barcelona that is using the web to share best practices among countries. And then all the things we know a little better, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Mexican Conference of Mayors, the European Conference of Mayors. Mayors are where this is happening.
Kad kažem: "Kad bi gradonačelnici upravljali svijetom...", kada mi je prvi put došao taj izraz, sinulo mi je da oni, zapravo, doista to i čine. Mnoštvo je međunarodnih, međugradskih, prekograničnih institucija, mreža gradova u kojima gradovi već, prilično tiho, neprimjetno, zajedno surađuju u suočavanju s klimatskim promjenama, sa sigurnosnim problemima, s useljeničkim pitanjima, u suočavanju sa svim tim teškim, međusobno povezanim problemima. Neobičnih su naziva: UGLU, Udruženi gradovi i lokalne uprave; MVLOP, Međunarodno vijeće za lokalna okolišna pitanja. Popis se i nastavlja: Citynet u Aziji; City Protocol, nova organizacija iz Barcelone, koja koristi Internet za širenje najboljih iskustava među zemljama. A potom i svi oni koje bolje poznajemo: Američko vijeće gradonačelnika, Meksičko vijeće gradonačelnika, Europsko vijeće gradonačelnika. Gradonačelnici su ključni igrači.
And so the question is, how can we create a world in which mayors and the citizens they represent play a more prominent role? Well, to understand that, we need to understand why cities are special, why mayors are so different than prime ministers and presidents, because my premise is that a mayor and a prime minister are at the opposite ends of a political spectrum. To be a prime minister or a president, you have to have an ideology, you have to have a meta-narrative, you have to have a theory of how things work, you have to belong to a party. Independents, on the whole, don't get elected to office. But mayors are just the opposite. Mayors are pragmatists, they're problem-solvers. Their job is to get things done, and if they don't, they're out of a job. Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia said, we could never get away here in Philadelphia with the stuff that goes on in Washington, the paralysis, the non-action, the inaction. Why? Because potholes have to get filled, because the trains have to run, because kids have to be able to get to school. And that's what we have to do, and to do that is about pragmatism in that deep, American sense, reaching outcomes. Washington, Beijing, Paris, as world capitals, are anything but pragmatic, but real city mayors have to be pragmatists. They have to get things done, they have to put ideology and religion and ethnicity aside and draw their cities together. We saw this a couple of decades ago when Teddy Kollek, the great mayor of Jerusalem in the '80s and the '90s, was besieged one day in his office by religious leaders from all of the backgrounds, Christian prelates, rabbis, imams. They were arguing with one another about access to the holy sites. And the squabble went on and on, and Kollek listened and listened, and he finally said, "Gentlemen, spare me your sermons, and I will fix your sewers."
Prema tome, pitanje je: Kako možemo stvoriti svijet u kojemu gradonačelnici i građani koje oni predstavljaju, igraju istaknutiju ulogu? Da bismo to razumjeli, trebamo razumjeti zašto su gradovi tako posebni; zašto se gradonačelnici toliko razlikuju od premijera i predsjednika? Jer, moja je premisa da su gradonačelnik i premijer na suprotnim krajevima političkog spektra. Da biste bili premijer ili predsjednik, morate imati ideologiju, morate imati meta-priču, morate imati pojma o tome kako stvari funkcioniraju, morate pripadati stranci. Neovisni, općenito, ne bivaju izabrani. Gradonačelnici su upravo suprotni njima. Oni su pragmatičari, oni rješavaju probleme. Njihov je posao da rješavaju probleme, i ako to ne čine, ostaju bez posla. Gradonačelnik Philadelphije, Nutter, rekao je: Mi se u Philadelphiji nikad ne bismo izvukli s onime što se redovito događa u Washingtonu, paraliza, neaktivnost, pasivnost. Zašto? Zato što se rupe na cestama moraju začepiti, zato što vlakovi moraju voziti, zato što djeca moraju moći doći do svojih škola. I to je ono što moramo učiniti. A da bismo to učinili, potreban nam je pragmatizam u onom pravom, američkom smislu - ostvarivanja rezultata. Washington, Peking ili Pariz, kao svjetske prijestolnice, sve su samo ne pragmatične. No, pravi gradonačelnici to moraju biti. Oni moraju rješavati stvari, oni moraju zanemariti ideološke, religijske ili etničke razlike, i homogenizirati gradove koje vode. Prije nekoliko desetljeća smo to vidjeli, kad je Teddy Kollek, glasoviti gradonačelnik Jeruzalema u 80-ima i 90-ima, u svome uredu jednoga dana bio okružen religijskim vođama svih provenijencija, kršćanski prelatima, rabinima, imamima. Raspravljali su međusobno o pristupu svetim mjestima. Prepirke su trajale i trajale, a Kollek je strpljivo slušao, i konačno rekao: "Gospodo, poštedite me svojih propovijedi, i ja ću popraviti vaše odvode."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
That's what mayors do. They fix sewers, they get the trains running. There isn't a left or a right way of doing. Boris Johnson in London calls himself an anarcho-Tory. Strange term, but in some ways, he is. He's a libertarian. He's an anarchist. He rides to work on a bike, but at the same time, he's in some ways a conservative. Bloomberg in New York was a Democrat, then he was a Republican, and finally he was an Independent, and said the party label just gets in the way. Luzhkov, 20 years mayor in Moscow, though he helped found a party, United Party with Putin, in fact refused to be defined by the party and finally, in fact, lost his job not under Brezhnev, not under Gorbachev, but under Putin, who wanted a more faithful party follower. So mayors are pragmatists and problem-solvers. They get things done.
To rade gradonačelnici. Popravljaju odvode, osiguravaju da vlakovi voze. Ne postoji lijevi li desni način kako da se to učini. Boris Johnson, u Londonu, naziva sebe anarhotorijevcem. Čudan izraz, ali, na neki način, on to i jest. On je libertarijanac. Anarhist. Vozi se biciklom na posao, ali je istodobno, na neki način, konzervativan. U New Yorku, Bloomberg je bio demokrat, da bi potom bio republikanac, a konačno i nezavisan, i on je rekao da mu je stranačka oznaka samo smetnja. Lužkov, 20 godina gradonačelnik Moskve, iako je sudjelovao u stvaranju stranke, Ujedinjene stranke, s Putinom, na koncu je odbio identifikaciju sa strankom i izgubio posao, ne pod Brežnjevom, ne pod Gorbačovom, nego pod Putinom koji je želio vjernijeg stranačkog sljedbenika. Prema tome, gradonačelnici su pragmatičari i rješavači problema. Oni rješavaju stvari.
But the second thing about mayors is they are also what I like to call homeboys, or to include the women mayors, homies. They're from the neighborhood. They're part of the neighborhood. They're known. Ed Koch used to wander around New York City saying, "How am I doing?" Imagine David Cameron wandering around the United Kingdom asking, "How am I doing?" He wouldn't like the answer. Or Putin. Or any national leader. He could ask that because he knew New Yorkers and they knew him. Mayors are usually from the places they govern. It's pretty hard to be a carpetbagger and be a mayor. You can run for the Senate out of a different state, but it's hard to do that as a mayor.
Druga stvar vezana uz gradonačelnike jest ta da su oni, kako ja to volim zvati, domaći dečki, ili, ako uključimo i žene, domaći ljudi. Oni su tu, iz susjedstva. Oni su dio susjedstva. Ljudi ih poznaju. Ed Koch je običavao šetati New Yorkom govoreći: "Kako sam?" Zamislite Davida Camerona kako skita Ujedinjenim Kraljevstvom pitajući: "Kako sam?" Ne bi mu se svidio odgovor. Ili Putin. Ili bilo koji drugi nacionalni vođa. Koch je to mogao pitati zato što je poznavao Njujorčane, i oni su poznavali njega. Gradonačelnici uglavnom potječu iz mjesta kojima upravljaju. Prilično je teško došljaku postati gradonačelnikom. Za Senat se možete natjecati ako ste iz druge savezne države, ali u tome je teško uspjeti ako se radi o gradonačelničkoj ulozi.
And as a result, mayors and city councillors and local authorities have a much higher trust level, and this is the third feature about mayors, than national governing officials. In the United States, we know the pathetic figures: 18 percent of Americans approve of Congress and what they do. And even with a relatively popular president like Obama, the figures for the Presidency run about 40, 45, sometimes 50 percent at best. The Supreme Court has fallen way down from what it used to be. But when you ask, "Do you trust your city councillor, do you trust your mayor?" the rates shoot up to 70, 75, even 80 percent, because they're from the neighborhood, because the people they work with are their neighbors, because, like Mayor Booker in Newark, a mayor is likely to get out of his car on the way to work and go in and pull people out of a burning building -- that happened to Mayor Booker -- or intervene in a mugging in the street as he goes to work because he sees it. No head of state would be permitted by their security details to do it, nor be in a position to do it.
Posljedično, gradonačelnici i gradski vijećnici, lokalne vlasti, uživaju znatno više povjerenja -- i to je treća značajka gradonačelnika -- od političara na nacionalnoj razini. U Sjedinjenim Državama bilježimo jadne brojke: 18 % Amerikanaca podržava Kongres i ono što ondje čine. Čak i s relativno popularnim predsjednikom poput Obame, podrška njegovu predsjedništvu kreće se oko 40, 45, katkad 50 %, u najboljem slučaju. Vrhovni Sud izgubio je svoj značaj kakav je nekad imao. Ali, upitate li: "Vjerujete li svom gradskom vijećniku, vjerujete li svome gradonačelniku?", stope se podižu do 70, 75, čak i 80 %, jer oni su iz susjedstva, jer su ljudi s kojima rade njihovi susjedi, jer, poput gradonačelnika Bookera iz Newarka, gradonačelnik će, vjerojatno, na putu do posla izaći iz auta i utrčati u zgradu koja gori i izvući ljude -- što se dogodilo gradonačelniku Bookeru -- ili se uplesti u ulično razbojstvo na putu do posla jer ga primijeti. Nijednom državnom čelniku ne bi njegovo osiguranje dopustilo to učini, niti bi on ikad bio u prilici to učiniti.
That's the difference, and the difference has to do with the character of cities themselves, because cities are profoundly multicultural, open, participatory, democratic, able to work with one another.
U tome je razlika, i ta razlika proizlazi iz karaktera gradova, budući da su gradovi istinski multikulturalni, otvoreni, participativni, demokratični, sposobni raditi jedni s drugima.
When states face each other, China and the U.S., they face each other like this. When cities interact, they interact like this. China and the U.S., despite the recent meta-meeting in California, are locked in all kinds of anger, resentment, and rivalry for number one. We heard more about who will be number one. Cities don't worry about number one. They have to work together, and they do work together. They work together in climate change, for example. Organizations like the C40, like ICLEI, which I mentioned, have been working together many, many years before Copenhagen. In Copenhagen, four or five years ago, 184 nations came together to explain to one another why their sovereignty didn't permit them to deal with the grave, grave crisis of climate change, but the mayor of Copenhagen had invited 200 mayors to attend. They came, they stayed, and they found ways and are still finding ways to work together, city-to-city, and through inter-city organizations. Eighty percent of carbon emissions come from cities, which means cities are in a position to solve the carbon problem, or most of it, whether or not the states of which they are a part make agreements with one another. And they are doing it. Los Angeles cleaned up its port, which was 40 percent of carbon emissions, and as a result got rid of about 20 percent of carbon. New York has a program to upgrade its old buildings, make them better insulated in the winter, to not leak energy in the summer, not leak air conditioning. That's having an impact. Bogota, where Mayor Mockus, when he was mayor, he introduced a transportation system that saved energy, that allowed surface buses to run in effect like subways, express buses with corridors. It helped unemployment, because people could get across town, and it had a profound impact on climate as well as many other things there. Singapore, as it developed its high-rises and its remarkable public housing, also developed an island of parks, and if you go there, you'll see how much of it is green land and park land. Cities are doing this, but not just one by one. They are doing it together. They are sharing what they do, and they are making a difference by shared best practices. Bike shares, many of you have heard of it, started 20 or 30 years ago in Latin America. Now it's in hundreds of cities around the world. Pedestrian zones, congestion fees, emission limits in cities like California cities have, there's lots and lots that cities can do even when opaque, stubborn nations refuse to act.
Kad se države suoče, na primjer Kina i SAD, one se suoče ovako. Kad gradovi međudjeluju, međudjeluju ovako. Kina i SAD, unatoč nedavnom meta-sastanku u Kaliforniji, zapele su raznim oblicima srdžbe, ojađenosti i suparništva za prvu poziciju u svijetu. Čuli smo već tko bi mogao biti broj jedan. Gradovi ne brinu o broju jedan. Oni moraju surađivati, i oni surađuju. Surađuju u klimatskim promjenama, primjerice. Organizacije poput C40, poput MVLOP-a kojega sam već spomenuo, surađivale su puno, puno godina prije Kopenhagena. A u Kopenhagenu, prije četiri ili pet godina, 184 su se nacije našle da bi jedna drugoj objasnile zašto im njihov suverenitet ne dopušta da se bave ovom opasnom krizom oko klimatskih promjena, dok je gradonačelnik Kopenhagena pozvao 200 gradonačelnika. Došli su, ostali, i iznašli načine i još uvijek iznalaze načine zajedničkog surađivanja, gradova s gradovima, kroz udruge gradova. Gradovi su zaslužni za 80 % emisije ugljičnog dioksida, što znači da gradovi mogu riješiti problem ugljičnoga dioksida, ili veći dio toga problema, neovisno o tome što čine države kojih su ti gradovi dio. I gradovi to čine. Los Angeles je očistio svoju luku koja je stvarala 40 % emisije ugljičnog dioksida, što je rezultiralo smanjenjem od 20 % ugljičnog dioksida. New York ima program obnove svojih starih zgrada s ciljem bolje toplinske izolacije zimi, radi sprečavanja ispuštanja energije ljeti, radi sprečavanja curenja rashladnih uređaja. Sve to ima utjecaja. U Bogoti je gradonačelnik Mockus, dok je bio gradonačelnik, uveo prijevozni sustav koji je štedio energiju, koji je omogućio cestovnim autobusima da budu učinkoviti poput podzemne željeznice -- brzi autobusi s koridorima. To je smanjilo nezaposlenost, jer su ljudi mogli prijeći čitav grad, a imalo je i snažan utjecaj na klimu kao i na mnogo što drugo ondje. Singapur je, kako je gradio nebodere i svoje znamenite stambene zgrade, izgradio i otok parkova, i, odete li onamo, vidjet ćete koliko ima zelenila i parkova. Gradovi to rade, ali ne jedan po jedan. Oni to zajedno rade. Dijele međusobno što rade, i dijeljenjem tih najboljih iskustava oni doista poboljšavaju svijet. Dijeljenje bicikala, mnogi ste za to čuli, započelo je prije 20 ili 30 godina u Latinskoj Americi. Sad ga imamo u stotinama gradova širom svijeta. Pješačke zone, naknade zbog zagušenja, emisijske kvote u gradovima poput onih u Kaliforniji, puno je toga što gradovi mogu učiniti čak i kad nerazumljive, tvrdoglave nacije odbijaju djelovati.
So what's the bottom line here? The bottom line is, we still live politically in a world of borders, a world of boundaries, a world of walls, a world where states refuse to act together. Yet we know that the reality we experience day to day is a world without borders, a world of diseases without borders and doctors without borders, maladies sans frontières, Médecins Sans Frontières, of economics and technology without borders, of education without borders, of terrorism and war without borders. That is the real world, and unless we find a way to globalize democracy or democratize globalization, we will increasingly not only risk the failure to address all of these transnational problems, but we will risk losing democracy itself, locked up in the old nation-state box, unable to address global problems democratically.
Pa koji je onda zaključak? Zaključak je, i dalje živimo politički u svijetu granica, svijetu ograničenja, svijetu zidova, svijetu gdje države odbijaju djelovati zajedno. Ipak znamo kako je stvarnost koju doživljavamo svakodnevno svijet bez granica, svijet bolesti bez granica i doktora bez granica, maladies sans frontières, Médecins Sans Frontières, ekonomije i tehnologije bez granica, obrazovanja bez granica, terorizma i rata bez granica. To je pravi svijet i ako ne nađemo način da globaliziramo demokraciju i demokratiziramo globalizaciju, sve ćemo više riskirati ne samo promašaj u rješavanju tih prekograničnih problema, već ćemo riskirati i samu demokraciju, zaključanu u staru kutiju nacionalne države, nesposobnu da riješi globalne probleme demokratski.
So where does that leave us? I'll tell you. The road to global democracy doesn't run through states. It runs through cities. Democracy was born in the ancient polis. I believe it can be reborn in the global cosmopolis. In that journey from polis to cosmopolis, we can rediscover the power of democracy on a global level. We can create not a League of Nations, which failed, but a League of Cities, not a United or a dis-United Nations, but United Cities of the World. We can create a global parliament of mayors. That's an idea. It's in my conception of the coming world, but it's also on the table in City Halls in Seoul, Korea, in Amsterdam, in Hamburg, and in New York. Mayors are considering that idea of how you can actually constitute a global parliament of mayors, and I love that idea, because a parliament of mayors is a parliament of citizens and a parliament of citizens is a parliament of us, of you and of me.
Pa gdje nas to ostavlja? Reći ću vam. Put ka globalnoj demokraciji ne ide kroz države. Ide kroz gradove. Demokracija se rodila u antičkom polisu. Vjerujem da se može nanovo roditi u globalnom kozmopolisu. Na tom putovanju od polisa do kozmopolisa, možemo nanovo otkriti moć demokracije na globalnoj razini. Možemo stvoriti ne Ligu naroda, koja je propala, nego Ligu gradova, ne Ujedinjene narode ili Razjedinjene narode, nego Ujedinjene gradove svijeta. Možemo stvoriti globalni sabor gradonačelnika. Ovo je ideja. To je moja koncepcija nadolazećeg svijeta, ali također je i u raspravi u vijećnicama u Seoulu, Koreji, u Amsterdamu, U Hamburgu, i u New Yorku. Gradonačelnici razmatraju tu ideju kako bi se zbilja dao sastaviti globalni sabor gradonačelnika, i volim tu ideju jer je sabor gradonačelnika sabor građana a sabor građana je sabor nas, vas i mene.
If ever there were citizens without borders, I think it's the citizens of TED who show the promise to be those citizens without borders. I am ready to reach out and embrace a new global democracy, to take back our democracy. And the only question is, are you?
Ako će ikada biti građana bez granica, mislim da su građani TED-a oni koji su obećavajući takvi građani bez granica. Ja sam spreman otvoriti se i prigrliti novu globalnu demokraciju, da bismo povratili svoju demokraciju. Jedino pitanje je: Jeste li vi?
Thank you so much, my fellow citizens.
Hvala vam najljepša, moji dragi sugrađani.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Thank you. (Applause)
Hvala vam. (Pljesak)