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?
我想要談的是一個大哉問, 也許是最大的大哉問: 我們要如何共同生活? 有一群人,也許住在同一個城市中, 或同一塊大陸上, 或一起住在地球上, 要如何分享和管理共同資源? 我們要如何制定出管理我們的規則?
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.
這一直都是個重要的問題。 現今,它的重要性比以往更高, 可協助我們處理越來越嚴重的 不平等、氣候變遷、難民危機, 以及許多其他的重大議題。 它也是個很古老的問題。 人類一直自問這個問題, 自從我們住在有組織的 社會開始就在問了。
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.
比如這個傢伙,柏拉圖。 他認為我們需要有仁心的守護者, 由他們來為每個人的 更大利益做決策。 國王和皇后認為他們 能扮演那些守護者, 但在許多的革命中, 他們通常連頭都保不住。 這個傢伙,你們可能知道。 在匈牙利,你會花很多年的時間 在生活中嘗試實踐 他對於如何共同生活的答案。 他的答案很殘忍、殘酷,且沒人性。 但有一個不同的答案, 一種不同的答案, 已經沉睡了大約兩千年, 這個答案在近期有了很深刻的成功。 當然,這個答案就是: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.
如果我們快速回顧一下 民主的現代史, 它是像這樣子的。 在這條時間橫軸上, 我們標出過去兩百年。 縱軸則是民主的數目。 而畫出的圖形是這樣的, 這張圖的重點 在於隨著時間出現了驚人的成長, 這就是為什麼二十世紀 一直被稱為是民主勝利的世紀, 也是為什麼在 1989 年 法蘭西斯福山會說, 有些人認為我們已經 到達了歷史的終點, 要如何共同生活的問題 已經被解答了, 答案就是自由民主。 不過,咱們先來探究一下那主張。 我想要知道各位怎麼想。
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.
所以我要問各位兩個問題, 如果同意, 請舉手。 第一個問題:有誰認為 生活在民主中是好事? 誰喜歡民主? 如果你能想出更好的體制, 請別舉手。 別擔心那些沒舉手的人, 我相信他們沒有惡意。 第二個問題: 誰認為我們的民主運作得非常好? 拜託,在觀眾席上 總會有一個政治人物吧。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
沒有。 但我的重點是, 如果自由民主就是歷史的終點, 那其實會有很大量的悖論或矛盾。 為什麼? 第一個問題是關於民主的理想, 所有這些特性都非常吸引人。 但在實際上,是行不通的。 那就是第二個問題。 我們的政治是破損的, 我們的政治人物不被信任, 政治體制被強大的既得利益給扭曲。
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.
我想,有兩種方式能解決這種矛盾。 第一,放棄民主;它沒有用。 咱們來選出一位民粹煽動家, 他會忽視民主的規範, 賤踏自由, 來把事情搞定。 我想,另一個選擇就是 修復這個破損的體制, 讓現實跟理想更接近, 將社會的多元聲音 放入我們的國會中, 讓國會制定出深思熟慮、 以證據為基礎的法律, 為每個人的長遠利益著想。 這就要談到我的頓悟, 我被啟發的時刻。 我希望各位能做批判。 我希望各位能問問自己: 「為什麼這會行不通?」 之後再來找我討論。 它的專業名稱叫做「抽簽」。 但它的俗名叫做「隨機選擇」。 想法其實非常簡單: 我們隨機選擇一些人, 把他們放到國會裡。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
咱們花幾分鐘時間思考一下,好嗎? 想像我們選中了你、你、 你、你,還有那邊的你, 以及一群隨機選中的人, 接下來幾年,把你們放到國會。 當然,我們可以做分層選擇, 來確保選出的人 符合這個國家的社會經濟 和人口統計特性, 確保這個樣本真的有代表性。 這群人當中有 50% 會是女性。 當中許多人是年輕人,有一些老人, 有少數的富人, 但大部分會是和你我一樣的凡人。 這會是社會的縮影。 這個縮影會模擬我們所有人的想法, 前提是我們有時間、有資訊, 且有一個好的流程, 針對政治決策能達到道德的癥結。 雖然你可能不是那群人其中之一, 有和你年齡相同的人、 和你性別相同的人、 和你所在相同的人、 和你背景相同的人, 在那個房間中。
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.
這些人所做的決策 會以群眾的智慧為基礎。 他們會產生一加一大於二的效果。 他們會成為批判性思想家, 有辦法接觸到專家, 有需要時專家都可以支援, 但他們不主導。 他們會證明在面臨廣大的 社會疑問和問題時, 多樣性能夠勝過能力。 這個政府不是民意投票選出的。 這個政府不是公投選出來的。 這些消息靈通、深思熟慮的人, 能夠跳脫民意, 做出公共判斷。
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,會有一項很重大的副作用: 如果我們用抽簽取代選舉, 並讓國會成員真正能夠代表社會, 那就意味著政治人物沒戲唱了。 我相信我們都會對此感到很傷心。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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, 在古代雅典,隨機選擇就是 實行民主的關鍵。 這個機器,這種策略, 叫做「抽籤箱(kleroteria)」。 它是古雅典的一種隨機選擇策略。 古雅典人會隨機選擇公民, 來擔任大部分的政治職務。 他們知道選舉是貴族式的手段。 他們知道,應該要 避免職業政治家的出現。 我想我們都非常清楚這些。 但,還有比古時使用 隨機選擇更有趣的事, 就是這個方式在現代再度復活。 近期,重新發現在政治上 採用隨機選擇的合法性 變得非常常見, 常見到太多例子無法一一列舉。
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.
當然,我非常清楚,要在國會中 進行這個方式是非常困難的。 試試看對你的朋友說: 「我認為我們應該安排 隨機選中的人入主國會。」 「你在開玩笑嗎? 如果我鄰居被選上怎麼辦? 那個蠢蛋甚至不會 做資源回收分類。」 但所有這些現代的例子, 都有驚人但具壓倒性說服力的證據, 證明它確實行得通。 如果你給人責任, 他們就會負責地行事。 別誤會我,它不是萬靈丹。 問題並不是:這會很完美嗎? 當然不完美。 人本來就很容易犯錯, 失真扭曲的影響也將會一直存在。
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?
問題是:它會比較好嗎? 這個問題的答案,至少對我而言, 很明顯是「會」。 這就帶我們回到了原本的問題: 我們要如何生活在一起? 現在我們有了一個答案: 用抽簽制的國會。 但我們要如何從這裡到達那裡? 我們要如何修好破損的體制, 並為二十一世紀重製民主?
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.
嗯,我們能做的事有幾件, 且事實上,這些事已經在進行了。 我們可以針對抽簽做實驗。 我們可以將它導入學校、 工作場所,以及其他機構, 就像實踐民主組織 (Democracy In Practice) 在玻利維亞所做的一樣。 我們可以舉辦 政策陪審團以及公民集會, 就像新民主組織 (newDemocracy Foundation) 在澳洲所做的一樣, 就像傑佛森中心( Jefferson Center) 在美國所做的一樣, 就像愛爾蘭政府現在正在做的一樣。 我們可以發起社會運動來要求改變, 這就是分類基金會 (Sortition Foundation) 現在在英國所做的。 在某個時點,我們得開始著手進行。
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.
也許第一步是在國會中 設置第二個會議廳, 裡面都是隨機選中的人—— 公民參議員,你若這麼說也行。 在法國,有一項公民參議員的活動, 在蘇格蘭也有, 當然,在匈牙利這裡也可以進行。 那就會有點像是把特洛依木馬 直接送入政府中心。 一旦無法修補目前體制的裂縫時, 我們必須站出來,用抽簽取代選舉。
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.
我抱有希望。 在匈牙利這裡已經建立了體制, 體制也曾被拆毀和取代。 能夠改變,確實也改變過, 只是時間和方式的問題。
Thank you. (Hungarian) Thank you.
謝謝。 (匈牙利語)謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)