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?
我想谈谈几个最大的问题之一, 也许是最大的一个问题。 我们该如何共存? 生活在同一城市的一群人, 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? 我们该如何制定用来 约束我们的规则?
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.
这一直是个重要的问题。 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, 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。 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. 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.
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, 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。 你可能认识这个人, 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。 而他的回答是野蛮的, 残忍的,毫无人性的。 但是一个不一样的回答, 一种不一样的回答, 沉睡了大约2000年, 在最近有了卓越的成功。 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. 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.
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。 这条横轴代表着近两百年的时间, 这条纵轴代表着民主国家的数量。 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, 这就是为什么20世纪 被称为民主胜利的世纪, 这也是为什么,如同 弗朗西斯 · 福山(Francis Fukuyama)所说, 一些人认为我们已经 抵达了历史的尽头, 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。 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. 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.
所以我要问你们两个问题, 如果你表示同意 请举起你的手。 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? 如果你能想到一种更好的制度, 请你不要举手。 不要担心那些没有举手的人, 我相信他们非常有想法。 第二个问题是: 你们认为我们的 民主制运行得好吗? 快举手,你们当中 肯定有一个是政治家。
(Laughter)
(笑声)
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.
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。 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, 但是在现实中,它没什么作用。 这就引出了第二个问题。 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. 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.
我认为有两种方法 来解决这样一个矛盾。 一个是我们放弃民主,因为它没有用 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。 另一个选择,我认为, 是去修复这个有缺陷的民主。 让实际情况更加理想化, 让社会不同的声音在议会中发声, 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。 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, 来问问自己,接下来 我要说的想法为什么不行? 然后来跟我探讨一下。 它的学名叫做 ”随机选择”。 但通常我们叫它 “抽签”。 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。
(Laughter)
(笑声)
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.
我们不妨来思考一下。 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, 然后我们在接下来的几年里, 把你们加入议会, 当然我们会分阶级抽选, 以确保被抽到的人 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。 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, 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。 这将会是整个社会的缩影。 而且这个缩影 会模拟我们所有人的想法, 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。 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, 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. 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.
这些人做出的决定 是基于群体的智慧。 群体的智慧 会超过他们个人智慧的总和。 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, 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。 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。 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: 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.
然而,最大的一个副作用就是: 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, 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。
(Laughter)
(笑声)
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.
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。 这个仪器叫做 “kleroteria”, 这是一个古雅典的抽签工具。 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。 他们知道选举是贵族统治的手段, 他们知道政治家这个职业 是应该被避免的。 我认为我们也知道这些。 但是比古代抽签更有趣的是 它在当代的重生, 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, 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. 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.
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。 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。” “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。” 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。 如果你给人们责任, 他们就会变得负责。 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。 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. 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?
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。 这也把我们带回到最初的问题, 我们该如何生活在一起? 现在我们已经有了一个答案, 就是随机选择议员的议会。 但是我们该如何 将现有制度变成那样呢? 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. 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.
有几件事情是我们能做的。 事实上,这些事已经在发生了。 我们可以对抽签制度进行试验, 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。 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, 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。 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。 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, 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.
也许第一步,就是建立一个第二议会, 全部由被抽签的人构成—— 一个公民议院,你也可以这么说。 在法国已经有了这样的运动, 在苏格兰也是。 这当然也可以在这里, 匈牙利,得到实现。 这就像是把一个特洛伊木马 插入了政府的心脏。 然后,当不可能 修补现有的漏洞的时候, 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. Change can and does happen. It's just a matter of when and how.
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。 改变可以发生,改变也正在发生, 这是只时间和方式的问题。
Thank you. (Hungarian) Thank you.
谢谢, (匈牙利语)谢谢。
(Applause)
(掌声)