I want to talk about one of the big questions, perhaps the biggest question: How should we live together? How should a group of people, who perhaps live in a city or in the continent or even the whole globe, share and manage common resources? How should we make the rules that govern us?
Želim da govorim o jednom od velikih pitanja, možda i najvećem pitanju: kako da živimo zajedno? Kako bi grupa ljudi, koja možda živi u gradu, ili na kontinentu, ili čak na čitavom svetu trebalo da deli i upravlja zajedničkim resursima? Kako bi trebalo da donosimo pravila kojima se povinujemo?
This has always been an important question. And today, I think it's even more important than ever if we want to address rising inequality, climate change, the refugee crisis, just to name a few major issues. It's also a very old question. Humans have been asking themselves this question ever since we lived in organized societies.
Ovo je oduvek bilo važno pitanje. A danas, mislim da je važnije nego ikad pre, ako želimo da se bavimo rastućom nejednakošću, klimatskim promenama, izbegličkom krizom; samo da nabrojim nekoliko većih pitanja. Takođe se radi o veoma starom pitanju. Ljudi postavljaju sebi ovo pitanje još od nastanka organizovanih društava.
Like this guy, Plato. He thought we needed benevolent guardians who could make decisions for the greater good of everyone. Kings and queens thought they could be those guardians, but during various revolutions, they tended to lose their heads. And this guy, you probably know. Here in Hungary, you lived for many years under one attempt to implement his answer of how to live together. His answer was brutal, cruel and inhumane. But a different answer, a different kind of answer, which went more or less into hibernation for 2,000 years, has had profound recent success. That answer is, of course, democracy.
Poput ovog tipa, Platona. Smatrao je da su nam potrebni dobroćudni čuvari koji bi donosili odluke za opšte dobro svih. Kraljevi i kraljice su smatrali da bi oni mogli da budu ti čuvari, ali tokom raznih revolucija, imali su običaj da izgube glave. A ovog tipa verovatno znate. Ovde u Mađarskoj, živeli ste mnogo godina pokušavajući da primenite njegov odgovor na pitanje o saživotu. Njegov odgovor je bio brutalan, okrutan i neljudski. Međutim, drugačiji odgovor, drugačiji tip odgovora koji je bio više-manje u dvehiljadugodišnjoj hibernaciji je nedavno imao istinski uspeh. Taj odgovor, naravno, glasi: demokratija.
If we take a quick look at the modern history of democracy, it goes something like this. Along here, we're going to put the last 200 years. Up here, we're going to put the number of democracies. And the graph does this, the important point of which, is this extraordinary increase over time, which is why the 20th century has been called the century of democracy's triumph, and why, as Francis Fukuyama said in 1989, some believe that we have reached the end of history, that the question of how to live together has been answered, and that answer is liberal democracy. Let's explore that assertion, though. I want to find out what you think.
Ako se osvrnemo na kratko na savremenu istoriju demokratije, ona glasi nekako ovako. Duž ove linije ćemo da stavimo poslednjih 200 godina. Uspravno ćemo da stavimo broj demokratija. A grafikon se odvija ovako, pri čemu je njegova važna suština ovaj izvanredni uspon tokom vremena, zbog čega je XX vek nazvan vekom trijumfa demokratije i zbog čega je Fransis Fukujama 1989. godine izjavio kako neki veruju da smo dosegli kraj istorije, da imamo odgovor na pitanje o zajedničkom životu, a da je taj odgovor liberalna demokratija. Istražimo tu tvrdnju, pak. Želim da saznam šta vi mislite.
So I'm going to ask you two questions, and I want you to put your hands up if you agree. The first question is: Who thinks living in a democracy is a good thing? Who likes democracy? If you can think of a better system, keep your hands down. Don't worry about those who didn't raise their hands, I'm sure they mean very well. The second question is: Who thinks our democracies are functioning well? Come on, there must be one politician in the audience somewhere.
Stoga ću da vam postavim dva pitanja, i želim da podignete ruke ako se slažete. Prvo pitanje glasi: ko smatra da je živeti u demokratiji nešto dobro? Kome se sviđa demokratija? Ako na umu imate bolji sistem, ne podižite ruke. Ne brinite za one koji nisu podigli ruke; siguran sam da misle dobro. Drugo pitanje glasi: ko smatra da naše demokratije dobro funkcionišu? Ma hajde, mora da ima bar jedan političar tu negde u publici.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
No. But my point is, if liberal democracy is the end of history, then there's a massive paradox or contradiction here. Why is that? Well, the first question is about the ideal of democracy, and all these qualities are very appealing. But in practice, it's not working. And that's the second question. Our politics is broken, our politicians aren't trusted, and the political system is distorted by powerful vested interests.
Nema. Međutim, moja poenta je da, ako je liberalna demokratija kraj istorije, onda ovde imamo strašan paradoks ili kontradikciju. Zašto je tako? Pa, kod prvog pitanja se radi o idealu demokratije i svi njegovi kvaliteti su veoma privlačni. Međutim, u praksi to ne funkcioniše. A to je drugo pitanje. Naša politika je pokvarena, naši političari nisu od poverenja, a politički sitem je iskrivljen interesima moćnika.
I think there's two ways to resolve this paradox. One is to give up on democracy; it doesn't work. Let's elect a populist demagogue who will ignore democratic norms, trample on liberal freedoms and just get things done. The other option, I think, is to fix this broken system, to bring the practice closer to the ideal and put the diverse voices of society in our parliaments and get them to make considered, evidence-based laws for the long-term good of everyone. Which brings me to my epiphany, my moment of enlightenment. And I want you to get critical. I want you to ask yourselves, "Why wouldn't this work?" And then come and talk to me afterwards about it. Its technical name is "sortition." But its common name is "random selection." And the idea is actually very simple: we randomly select people and put them in parliament.
Smatram da postoje dva načina da se razreši ovaj paradoks. Jedan je da dignemo ruke od demokratije; ne deluje. Izaberimo populističkog demagoga koji će da ignoriše demokratske norme, pregazi liberalne slobode i prosto obavi sve što treba. Druga mogućnost, verujem, jeste da popravimo sistem koji ne fukcioniše, da uvedemo prakse koje su bliže idealu i da uvedemo raznolike glasove društva u naš parlament i da ih navedemo da donose obazrive zakone zasnovane na dokazu radi dugoročne dobrobiti svih nas. To me vraća na moje proviđenje, moj prosvetljujući trenutak. Želim da budete kritički nastrojeni. Želim da se zapitate: „Zašto ovo ne bi funkcionisalo?” A kasnije mi priđite i razgovarajmo o tome. Tehnički naziv ovoga je „žrebanje“. Međutim, uopšten naziv je „nasumičan izbor“. A zamisao je zapravo krajnje prosta: nasumično biramo ljude i postavljamo ih u parlament.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Let's think about that for a few more minutes, shall we? Imagine we chose you and you and you and you and you down there and a bunch of other random people, and we put you in our parliament for the next couple of years. Of course, we could stratify the selection to make sure that it matched the socioeconomic and demographic profile of the country and was a truly representative sample of people. Fifty percent of them would be women. Many of them would be young, some would be old, a few would be rich, but most of them would be ordinary people like you and me. This would be a microcosm of society. And this microcosm would simulate how we would all think, if we had the time, the information and a good process to come to the moral crux of political decisions. And although you may not be in that group, someone of your age, someone of your gender, someone from your location and someone with your background would be in that room.
Razmislimo o tome na nekoliko minuta, hoćemo li? Zamislite da izaberemo vas, vas, vas, vas i vas tamo dole, kao i gomilu drugih nasumičnih ljudi, i postavimo vas u naš parlament na narednih nekoliko godina. Naravno, možemo da raslojimo izbor kako bismo se postarali da odgovara društveno-ekonomskom i demografskom profilu države i da je uistinu reprezentativan uzorak ljudi. Pedeset posto bi bile žene. Mnogi od njih bi bili mladi, neki bi bili stari, nekolicina bi bila bogata, ali bi većina njih bila obični ljudi kao vi i ja. Bio bi to mikrokosmos društva. A taj mikrokosmos bi simulirao to kako mi razmišljamo, ako bismo imali vremena, informacije i dobar proces da zadremo u moralnu srž političkih odluka. Čak i ako možda ne biste bili u toj grupi, neko iz vaše starosne grupe, neko vašeg roda, neko iz vašeg mesta i neko s vašim iskustvom bi bio u toj prostoriji.
The decisions made by these people would build on the wisdom of crowds. They would become more than the sum of their parts. They would become critical thinkers with access to experts, who would be on tap but not on top. And they could prove that diversity can trump ability when confronting the wide array of societal questions and problems. It would not be government by public opinion poll. It would not be government by referendum. These informed, deliberating people would move beyond public opinion to the making of public judgments.
Odluke koje bi donosili ti ljudi bi se nadograđivale na mudrost gomile. Postali bi više od zbira svojih delova. Postali bi kritički mislioci sa pristupom stručnjacima, koji bi bili u pripravnosti, ali ne na vlasti. A oni bi mogli da dokažu da različitost može da pobedi stručnost kada smo suočeni sa širokom lepezom društvenih pitanja i problema. Ne bi to bila vlada izabrana anketama javnog mnjenja. Ne bi to bila vlada izabrana referendumom. Ovi informisani, promišljeni ljudi bi se kretali mimo javnog mnjenja ka izgradnji javnih sudova.
However, there would be one major side effect: if we replaced elections with sortition and made our parliament truly representative of society, it would mean the end of politicians. And I'm sure we'd all be pretty sad to see that.
Međutim, imali bismo jednu veću nuspojavu: ako zamenimo izbore žrebanjem i učinimo parlament istinskim zastupnikom društva, to bi značilo kraj za političare. I sigurno bismo svi bili izuzetno tužni zbog toga.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Very interestingly, random selection was a key part of how democracy was done in ancient Athens. This machine, this device, is called a kleroteria. It's an ancient Athenian random-selection device. The ancient Athenians randomly selected citizens to fill the vast majority of their political posts. They knew that elections were aristocratic devices. They knew that career politicians were a thing to be avoided. And I think we know these things as well. But more interesting than the ancient use of random selection is its modern resurgence. The rediscovery of the legitimacy of random selection in politics has become so common lately, that there's simply too many examples to talk about.
Veoma je interesantno, nasumičan izbor je bio ključni deo toga kako se demokratija praktikovala u antičkoj Atini. Ovaj mehanizam, ovaj uređaj se naziva kleroterija. Radi se o antičkom atinskom uređaju za nasumičan izbor. Antički Atinjani su nasumično birali građane da popune većinu političkih funkcija. Znali su da su izbori sredstva aristokratije. Znali su da su karijerni političari nešto što bi valjalo izbegavati. A mislim da i mi to znamo. Međutim, interesantnije od antičke upotrebe nasumičnog izbora je njegov savremeni ponovni uspon. Ponovno otkriće legitimnosti nasumičnog izbora u politici je od nedavno postalo toliko ustaljeno da prosto postoji previše primera da o njima govorimo.
Of course, I'm very aware that it's going to be difficult to institute this in our parliaments. Try this -- say to your friend, "I think we should populate our parliament with randomly selected people." "Are you joking? What if my neighbor gets chosen? The fool can't even separate his recycling." But the perhaps surprising but overwhelming and compelling evidence from all these modern examples is that it does work. If you give people responsibility, they act responsibly. Don't get me wrong -- it's not a panacea. The question is not: Would this be perfect? Of course not. People are fallibly human, and distorting influences will continue to exist.
Naravno, veoma sam svestan da će da bude teško uvesti ovo u naš parlament. Pokušajte ovo - recite prijatelju: „Smatram da bi trebalo naseliti parlament nasumično odabranim ljudima.” „Šališ li se? Šta ako odaberu mog komšiju? Budala ne zna ni da rasporedi smeće za reciklažu.” Međutim, možda je iznenađujuće, ali ogromni i neoborivi dokazi iz svih ovih savremenih primera kažu da to deluje. Ako date ljudima odgovornost, ponašaju se odgovorno. Ne shvatajte me pogrešno - ne radi se o panakeji. Pitanje nije: da li bi ovo bilo savršeno? Naravno da ne bi. Ljudi su falična bića i naopaki uticaji bi i dalje postojali.
The question is: Would it be better? And the answer to that question, to me at least, is obviously yes. Which gets us back to our original question: How should we live together? And now we have an answer: with a parliament that uses sortition. But how would we get from here to there? How could we fix our broken system and remake democracy for the 21st century?
Pitanje glasi: da li bi bilo bolje? A odgovor na to pitanje, bar meni, je očigledno da. A to nas vraća na naše prvobitno pitanje: kako da živimo zajedno? A sada imamo odgovor: sa parlamentom koji koristi žrebanje. Međutim, kako da stignemo odavde do tamo? Kako da popravimo naš pokvareni sistem i da obnovimo demokratiju za XXI vek?
Well, there are several things that we can do, and that are, in fact, happening right now. We can experiment with sortition. We can introduce it to schools and workplaces and other institutions, like Democracy In Practice is doing in Bolivia. We can hold policy juries and citizens' assemblies, like the newDemocracy Foundation is doing in Australia, like the Jefferson Center is doing in the US and like the Irish government is doing right now. We could build a social movement demanding change, which is what the Sortition Foundation is doing in the UK. And at some point, we should institute it.
Pa, postoji nekoliko stvari koje možemo da učinimo, a one su upravo u toku, zapravo. Možemo da eksperimentišemo sa žrebanjem. Možemo da ga uvedemo u škole i radna mesta i druge institucije, kao što u Bolivij radi Demokratija u praksi. Možemo da imamo zakonodavna sudska i građanska zasedanja, kao što u Australiji radi Nova demokratska fondacija, kao što radi Centar Džeferson u SAD-u i kao što trenutno radi irska vlada. Mogli bismo da izgradimo društveni pokret koji zahteva promenu, a upravo to u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu radi Fondacija žrebanja. A u nekoj tački bi trebalo to da ozakonimo.
Perhaps the first step would be a second chamber in our parliament, full of randomly selected people -- a citizens' senate, if you will. There's a campaign for a citizens' senate in France and another campaign in Scotland, and it could, of course, be done right here in Hungary. That would be kind of like a Trojan horse right into the heart of government. And then, when it becomes impossible to patch over the cracks in the current system, we must step up and replace elections with sortition.
Možda bi prvi korak bio drugi dom u našim parlamentima, ispunjen nasumično odabranim ljudima - građanski senat, ako hoćete. Postoji kampanja za građanski senat u Francuskoj i još jedna kampanja u Škotskoj, i mogla bi, naravno, da se izvede i ovde u Mađarskoj. To bi bio nekakav trojanski konj u samom srcu vlade. A onda, kad postane nemoguće da se krpe pukotine u trenutnom sistemu, moramo da iskoračimo i zamenimo izbore žrebanjem.
I have hope. Here in Hungary, systems have been created, and systems have been torn down and replaced in the past. Change can and does happen. It's just a matter of when and how.
Gajim nadu. Ovde u Mađarskoj stvarali su se sistemi i sistemi su svrgavani i menjani u prošlosti. Promena može da se desi i dešava se. Samo je pitanje kada i kako.
Thank you. (Hungarian) Thank you.
Hvala vam. (Na mađarskom) Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)