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.
毫无疑问的是,民主正处于危难之中。 这种危难部分来自于 扎根于其中的两难境地。 我们面临的抉择越来越与国与国之间的界线无关。 如我们所面临的的全球性流行病, 不是境内境外的问题; 如获得性免疫缺陷综合征(简称HIV),不是国家内部的问题; 如市场与移民, 不是国家领土界线内的问题; 再如恐怖主义、战争, 这些都是超越了国家与界线的问题。
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.
实际上,我们共存在二十一世纪 这是一个互相依赖的世界, 也是一个有着很多残酷的互相依赖问题的世界, 当我们去政界和民主中找答案时, 我们面对的是400年前 组织建立起来的政治机构, 与有着法律与领土界线的 自治的主权国家, 这些政治机构与国际彼此分离, 各自主张自己能够解决 自己人民的问题。 我们生活在的是二十一世纪,应是一个有着困难和挑战 的无国界世界, 而它却笼罩在十七世纪的政治机构体制之下。 民主的核心问题正存在于这种两难境地中。 我与其他人一样都在想一个问题, 那就是,我们可以如何处理 这横跨在二十一世纪众多挑战中的不平衡 我们应该如何处理这种古旧的政体和 越发机能失调的政治机构(如单一民族国家)。
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.
我的建议是, 我们应该改一改话题, 不谈国家, 不谈界线, 而开始把我们的话题转移到城市。 因为,我想相信当我们开始谈到城市的时候,你就会发现 我们谈到的是 孕育着文明与文化的政治机构; 我们谈到的是民主的摇篮;
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.
我们谈到的是人民在公共场所集会, 谈论民主、创造民主, 而与此同时, 也抗议那些剥夺我们自由的势力。 想想那些伟大的名字吧: 巴士底广场(法国巴黎,巴士底狱所在地), 祖科蒂公园(美国纽约,占领华尔街集会所在地) 塔利尔解放广场(埃及开罗,埃及七月革命所在地) 和在今日头条的塔克西姆广场(土耳其伊斯坦布尔,人民示威游行所在地) 或者,是的, 中国北京的天安门广场。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)
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.
在这些公共场所中, 我们宣告自己为公民, 为参与者, 为有权利书写我们自己人生的人民。 城市不仅仅是最古老的机构, 还是最经久不衰的机构。 想想看, 君士坦丁堡和伊斯坦布尔(城市)比土耳其(国家)持久; 亚历山大港,比埃及更不朽; 罗马,远比意大利经久不衰。 城市,经得起岁月的考验。 城市是我们出生、 成长、受教育、工作以及结婚的地方; 也是我们祈祷、玩耍、老去以及死亡的地方。 城市是我们的家。 他们不同于抽象意义上的 民族与国家。 我们也许会纳税,也许会偶尔投票选举, 也许会看着那些由我们选举出来的男人和女人们 或多或少不考虑我们的统治着这个国家。 他们都不如我们誉为家的小镇, 和我们生活的城市。 除此以外,超过世界人口的一半以上 都居住生活在城市。 在发达国家中,这种比例达到了78%。 超过了四分之三的人口 居住在城市的机构、场所, 城市的各个地方。 所以,城市,才应该是我们采取行动的所在地。 城市就是我们。 亚里士多德曾说过,“在古代,人们就是政治性动物。” 而我说,我们是城市性动物。 我们是以城市为栖息地的物种。 让我们再回到一开始我们所说到的窘境, 如果这种窘境是因为我们现在所拥有的古旧的 政治体系(民族、国家)无法统治这个世界, 也无法回应我们面临的全球性挑战, 如气候变化的问题, 也许是时候让市长们统治这个世界的时候了, 是时候让市长们,市民的忠实喉舌, 去参与到全球问题的管理中来。
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.
当我说,“如果市长们可以统治这个世界”, 当我第一次想到这个说法的时候, 我突然认识到,他们其实已经这样做了。 现如今在城市中已经有许多的跨国、跨市、 跨境、连接众多城市的组织 已经在悄无声息中, 合作无间, 共同对抗气候变化、安全问题、 处理移民问题, 和那些纵使艰难, 但仍需要面对的共存性问题。 这些组织有着一些奇怪的名字: UCLG (United Cities And Local Governments) 城市和地方政府联合; ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Issues.) 国际地方环境理事会, 这样的例子不胜枚举: 亚洲城市组织 Citynet in Asia; 城市协议组织 City Protocol(一个在巴塞罗那新成立的组织, 它通过运用网络共享城市中成功的案例) 还有一些我们更熟悉的组织, 美国市长会 U.S. Conference of Mayors 墨西哥市长会 Mexican Conference of Mayors 欧洲市长会 European Conference of Mayors 正因为市长们,这些组织们才得以成立。
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."
所以,问题来了, 我们如何建立一个 市长们和他们所代表的的市民们 可以更扮演更重要角色的世界? 要回答这个问题, 我们首先要了解城市是如此特别的原因, 了解为何市长与总理和总统们相比 与众不同的原因。 那是因为我的首要前提是市长和总理 处在一个政治谱系中相反的两端 要成为一名总理或是总统, 你必须要有思想意识, 你必须要元叙述(即对历史的意义、经历和知识的叙述) 你还必须要有上任后如何使国家运作的理论基础, 您必须要从属于一个政党。 如若你是无党派人士,自由、独立的个体, 那么你就无法被选举。 但,市长们则相反。 市长是实用主义者,他们能够解决问题。 他们的责任就在于完成任务, 他们一旦失败就会失业。 费城纳特市的市长曾经说过, “在费城,我们不能眼看着华盛顿的 麻痹无能、不作为 和迟钝。 为什么?因为漏洞需要被填补, 只有这样火车才能够正常运行, 只有这样孩子们才能够享受教育。” 而那就是我们要做的, 去做那些实质性的事, 从美国人的思维来说, 那就是去做那些能够达到成果的事。 华盛顿,北京,巴黎,世界的首都都一样, 一点都不务实。 但是市长们却不得不务实, 他们必须确保使事物运转, 他们必须摒弃意识形态、宗教和民族差异 把他们的城市联系起来。 我们在在几世纪之前目睹了这一切的发生。 当耶路撒冷的市长,特迪·科勒克 (Teddy Kollek) 在八十和九十年代, 被来自于不同背景的宗教领袖 包围在办公室里, 基督教主教、犹太教和伊斯兰教领袖 对圣地麦加的朝圣问题 争论不休。 市长科勒克聆听着这些领袖们的争论, 最后说, “先生们, 把你们的步道放一放, 我去给你们修下水道。”
(Laughter)
(笑声)
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.
这就是市长们的工作。 他们修理下水道,他们使火车运行。 这不是一个左翼,也不是一个右翼的处理方式。 伦敦市长鲍里斯·约翰逊 (Boris Johnson)称他自己为无政府主义者 - 托利(党) 一个非常奇怪的名字,但他却是这样。 他是一个自由主义者。他是一个无政府主义者。 他每天骑自行车上班, 但与此同时,他又在某方面又有一些保守。 纽约市市长迈克尔·布隆伯格 (Michael Bloomberg) 起先是一个民主党成员, 后来他又是一个共和党成员, 但最后他退出两个党派然后说, “党派的标签妨碍我做事。” 卢日科夫(Yori Luzhkov)在莫斯科担任了二十年的市长, 尽管他帮助普金共同建立了联合党 但他实际上拒绝被定义为政党人士 最后,他不是在勃列日涅夫手下 也不是在戈尔巴乔夫手下, 而是渴望更忠诚的政党追随者的普金手下丢掉了工作。 所以,我再次强调,市长是实用主义者,他们能够解决问题。 他们能够使事物运转。
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.
另外一件我想说的关于市长的事是, 我喜欢把他们叫做“哥们儿” 不过如果要把女市长们也列入其中的话,就叫他们“死党”吧。 他们从我们的街坊邻里中被选举出来, 是社区的一部分,而且他们也知道这一点。 纽约市长埃德•科克(Ed Koch)层漫步于纽约街头, 采访路人问,“我任职期间做的怎么样?” 想想戴维·卡梅伦(David Cameron), 如果他漫步于大不列颠王国的街头,随口就问,“我做的如何?” 他应该不会喜欢那个答案。 或者普金,或者任何国家领导人。 埃德•科克 之所以能够这么问是因为他了解纽约人, 纽约人也了解他。 市长通常从他所管辖的区域中选举出来, 非本地的参政者通常没有办法被选举为市长。 你可以在不同的州为议员拉选票, 但却无法作为市长这么做。
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.
所以,市长、市议员 和地方当局 在民众中有更高的信任度。 而这也是关于市长的第三个特点, 那就是比国家领导人更具有民心。 在美国,我们知道一个可悲的数据: 只有18%的美国民众 赞成国会和国会的所作所为。 而甚至是稍微更受青睐的总统奥巴马, 也不过在总统大选中获得的支持率得到40%或45%, 最多50%。 最高法院的支持率也比以往大大下滑。 但如果你问民众,“你是否信任你们市议员, 你是否相信你们市长?” 支持率飙升至70%,75%,甚至是80%。 因为他们从街坊邻里中被选举出来, 因为他们的同僚们也是他们的邻居, 因为,就像纽瓦克的市长布克(Cory Booker) 是一个不坐豪华车去上班的市长, 是一个冲进火场并把人火场里救出来的市长 (这是真实发生在市长布克身上的事情) 或者在他上班的途中看见行凶抢劫毫不犹豫的上前见义勇为 就只因为他看见了,他就不会坐视不管。 没有任何一个国家领导人 会被安全条例所允许去做这件事, 也不会去做这件事。
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.
这就是他们之间存在的区别。 而这种区别与城市的特性本身相关, 因为城市是融合多种文化的, 开放的、供人分享的、民主的、 合作无间的。
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.
而国家间的交流, 如中美两国,他们的交流模式是一种模式 , 而城市间的交流是另外一种模式。 中美两国,且不论最近在加州召开的高层会议, 两国之间被各种 愤怒、不满以及竞争所禁锢。 两个国家都想要争第一。 我们对于谁可能坐上第一的宝座的争论听得很多了。 但城市之间从来不用担心谁会第一的问题。 城市之间必须彼此合作,而它们真的在这么做, 她们合作对抗气候变化问题, 如C40,ICLEI这些我刚才提到的组织, 都在互相合作, 而这些是很早就在哥本哈根气候大会之前发生的事。 四五年前, 184个国家聚集在哥本哈根 为自己辩解为什么他们的国家不允许他们 处理这一场日渐严峻的气候变化危机。 但是哥本哈根市长却邀请到了 200位来自世界各地的市长参与会议。 他们参加会议,共同商讨并最终找到 并仍在寻找方法使城市间、 通过城际组织共同合作的道路。 80%的碳排放来自于城市, 而这意味着城市正处于一个 解决碳排放问题的关键位置。 无论这些城市是否来自于同一个国家, 他们达成协议。 并且履行承诺。 洛杉矶清理了它的港口 也就是说原40%的碳排放量 被减少为20%的碳排放量。 纽约同样有着一个翻新旧建筑物的项目, 使这些建筑可以在冬天隔绝冷风, 而减少夏天泄露室内的冷气的现象, 从而减少用电,减少碳排放量。 哥伦比亚首都波哥大,前市长莫库斯 Antanas Mockus 引进了一种可以节省能源、 又让地面交通如地铁般高效的 通达地点多的 公共交通系统。 它帮助减少失业率因为人们能够在城市中自由穿行, 并且对当地气候 有了显著的改善。 再如新加坡,一个拥有众多发达的高楼大厦 和卓越的公共住房体系的国家, 也同样发展了公园岛屿政策, 如果你有机会去到新加坡,你就可以看到 新加坡遍地是绿地和公园。 城市们正在实践,但并不是一个接着一个的, 而是合力共赢。 它们彼此分享经验, 而且他们通过分享让世界变得不同。 公用自行车,你们可能听说过, 大约二十至三十年前在拉丁美洲起源。 而现如今已再全世界的数以千计的城市里有了这个项目。 行人专用区、交通拥挤费、 以及像加州城市有的碳排放限制条款, 有很多是城市可以做的, 而不透明、固执的国家体制不愿意去做的。
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.
那,我们的底线是什么? 底线就是,我们依旧生活在政治性界线之下、 生活在领土界线之下、 生活在高墙之下、 生活在国家拒绝共同合作努力的现实之下; 但是我们却知道我们所经历的现实是 世界正一天一天的变成一个没有界线的世界, 因为世界性流行病跨越了国界, 所以医生们跨越了国界, 卫生组织跨越了国界; 经济和技术跨越了国界; 教育跨越了国界; 恐怖主义和战争跨越了国界; 而这就是真实的世界, 除非我们找到了一个方法去使民主全球化, 我们将会不仅冒着无法解决国际问题的危险, 并且冒着失去 民主的危险, 被锁在一个旧的民族国家的牢笼里 无法民主地处理这些全球性的大问题,
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.
那我们处于一个何等的境地? 让我来告诉你。通往全球民主之路, 不会通过国家 而是通过城市。 民主起源于古代城邦, 我相信它也可以在全球大都市中重生。 从古代城邦到现代大都市的旅程中, 我们重新发现了全球层次的 民主的力量。 我们要创造的不是国家的联盟,因为它注定会失败。 我们要创造的而是城市间的联盟, 不是联合或对抗的国家组合, 而是联合起来的全球的城市。 我们可以创立全球市长议会。 这是一个新的议题,是我理想中的未来社会, 也是在市政会议厅上迫在眉睫的议题, 在韩国首尔、阿姆斯特丹、 汉堡、纽约, 市长们正正在考虑如何真正的组成一个 国际市长议会。 我钟意这个创意,因为市长议会 也是市民议会, 市民议会就是我们的议会, 是你,也是我的议会。
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?
如果有一个地方的市民是无国界的, 我想,那就是TED的市民, 是发誓成为无国界市民的TED人。 我已经张开双臂去拥抱 一个全新的全球性民主, 去拿回属于我们的民主。 唯一的问题是, 你准备好了吗?
Thank you so much, my fellow citizens.
谢谢,各位市民的聆听与关注。
(Applause)
(掌声)
Thank you. (Applause)
谢谢。 (掌声)