"Give me liberty or give me death."
"Daj mi slobodu ili mi daj smrt."
When Patrick Henry, the governor of Virginia, said these words in 1775, he could never have imagined just how much they would come to resonate with American generations to come. At the time, these words were earmarked and targeted against the British, but over the last 200 years, they've come to embody what many Westerners believe, that freedom is the most cherished value, and that the best systems of politics and economics have freedom embedded in them. Who could blame them? Over the past hundred years, the combination of liberal democracy and private capitalism has helped to catapult the United States and Western countries to new levels of economic development. In the United States over the past hundred years, incomes have increased 30 times, and hundreds of thousands of people have been moved out of poverty. Meanwhile, American ingenuity and innovation has helped to spur industrialization and also helped in the creation and the building of things like household appliances such as refrigerators and televisions, motor vehicles and even the mobile phones in your pockets. It's no surprise, then, that even at the depths of the private capitalism crisis, President Obama said, "The question before us is not whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and to expand freedom is unmatched." Thus, there's understandably a deep-seated presumption among Westerners that the whole world will decide to adopt private capitalism as the model of economic growth, liberal democracy, and will continue to prioritize political rights over economic rights.
Kad je Patrick Henry, guverner Virginije, rekao te riječi 1775., nije nikad mogao zamisliti koliko će one odjekivati kasnijim Američkim generacijama. U to vrijeme, te su riječi bile izdvojene i usmjerene protiv Britanaca, ali tijekom zadnjih 200 godina, one su počele utjelovljivati ono što brojni Zapadnjaci vjeruju, da je slobodan najdragocjenija vrijednost, te da najbolji politički i ekonomski sustavi imaju u sebe utkani ideju slobode. Tko bi ih mogao kriviti? Tijekom zadnjih stotinu godina, kombinacija liberalne demokracije i privatnog kapitalizma je pomogla katapultirati Sjedinjene države i zapadne zemlje do novih razina ekonomskog razvoja. U Sjedinjenim državama tijekom zadnjih stotinu godina prihodi su se povećali 30 puta, a stotine tisuća ljudi su se makli iz siromaštva. U međuvremenu, američka je genijalnost i inovativnost pomogla potaknuti industrijalizaciju te također pomogla u stvaranju i izradi stvari poput kućanskih aparata kao frižidera i televizora, motornih vozila te čak i mobilnih telefona u vašim džepovima. Nije čudo, onda, da čak i duboko unutar krize privatnog kapitalizma, predsjednik Obama govori: "Pitanje pred nama nije je li tržište sila dobrog ili lošeg. Njegovoj moći stvaranja bogatstva i širenja slobode nema premca." Tako, jasno je da postoji duboko usađena pretpostavka među Zapadnjacima da će cijeli svijet odlučiti prigrliti privatni kapitalizam kao model ekonomskog rasta, liberalnu demokraciju, te da će nastaviti držati politička prava nadređena ekonomskim pravima.
However, to many who live in the emerging markets, this is an illusion, and even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was signed in 1948, was unanimously adopted, what it did was to mask a schism that has emerged between developed and developing countries, and the ideological beliefs between political and economic rights. This schism has only grown wider. Today, many people who live in the emerging markets, where 90 percent of the world's population lives, believe that the Western obsession with political rights is beside the point, and what is actually important is delivering on food, shelter, education and healthcare. "Give me liberty or give me death" is all well and good if you can afford it, but if you're living on less than one dollar a day, you're far too busy trying to survive and to provide for your family than to spend your time going around trying to proclaim and defend democracy.
Međutim, brojnima koji žive u tržištima u nastajanju to je iluzija, te čak iako je Opća deklaracija o ljudskim pravima, koja je potpisana 1948., bila jednoglasno usvojena, ona je tek prikrila rascjep koji je nastao između razvijenih zemalja i onih u razvoju, te glede ideoloških uvjerenja između političkih i ekonomskih prava. Taj se rascjep samo širio. Danas, brojni ljudi koji žive u tržištima u nastajanju, gdje živi 90 posto svjetske populacije, vjeruje da je Zapadna opsjednutost političkim pravima pucanj u prazno, te da je ono što je zbilja važno kako dostaviti hranu, utočište, obrazovanje i zdravstvenu skrb. "Daj mi slobodu ili mi daj smrt." je lijepo i krasno ako si to možete priuštti, ali ako živite na manje od dolara na dan, previše ste zaposleni pokušavajući preživjeti i priskrbiti za svoju obitelj da bi trošili vrijeme idući okolo pokušavajući proglasiti i obraniti demokraciju.
Now, I know many people in this room and around the world will think, "Well actually, this is hard to grasp," because private capitalism and liberal democracy are held sacrosanct. But I ask you today, what would you do if you had to choose? What if you had to choose between a roof over your head and the right to vote?
Sad, znam da brojni ljudi u ovoj sobi te oko svijeta misle: "Pa zapravo, ovo je teško dokučiti," jer se privatni kapitalizam i liberalna demokracija drže nepovredivim svetinjama. Ali pitam vas sad, što biste učinili ako biste morali birati? Što ako biste morali birati između krova nad glavom i glasačkog prava?
Over the last 10 years, I've had the privilege to travel to over 60 countries, many of them in the emerging markets, in Latin America, Asia, and my own continent of Africa. I've met with presidents, dissidents, policymakers, lawyers, teachers, doctors and the man on the street, and through these conversations, it's become clear to me that many people in the emerging markets believe that there's actually a split occurring between what people believe ideologically in terms of politics and economics in the West and that which people believe in the rest of the world.
Tijekom zadnjih 10 godina imala sam povlasticu putovati u preko 60 zemalja, brojne unutar tržišta u nastajanju, u Latinskoj Americi, Aziji, te mom vlastitom kontinentu Africi. Sretala sam se sa predsjednicima, disidentima, stvarateljima politika, odvjetnicima, učiteljima, doktorima i ljudima po ulici, te mi je kroz te razgovore postalo jasno da brojni ljudi iz tržišta u nastajanju vjeruju da se zapravo pojavljuje rascjep između onog što ljudi ideološki vjeruju glede politike i ekonomije na Zapadu te onog što ljudi vjeruju u ostatku svijeta.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying people in the emerging markets don't understand democracy, nor am I saying that they wouldn't ideally like to pick their presidents or their leaders. Of course they would. However, I am saying that on balance, they worry more about where their living standard improvements are going to come from, and how it is their governments can deliver for them, than whether or not the government was elected by democracy.
Sad, nemojte me shvatiti krivo. Ne govorim da ljudi iz tržišta u nastajanju ne razumiju demokraciju, niti ne govorim da im se idealno ne bi sviđalo birati svoje predsjednike ili vođe. Naravno da bi. Međutim, govorim da kad se sve svede, više se brinu otkud će im doći unapređenja životnog standarda te kako im ih njihove vlasti mogu dostaviti, nego hoće li ili neće te vlasti biti izabrane demokratski.
The fact of the matter is that this has become a very poignant question because there is for the first time in a long time a real challenge to the Western ideological systems of politics and economics, and this is a system that is embodied by China. And rather than have private capitalism, they have state capitalism. Instead of liberal democracy, they have de-prioritized the democratic system. And they have also decided to prioritize economic rights over political rights. I put it to you today that it is this system that is embodied by China that is gathering momentum amongst people in the emerging markets as the system to follow, because they believe increasingly that it is the system that will promise the best and fastest improvements in living standards in the shortest period of time. If you will indulge me, I will spend a few moments explaining to you first why economically they've come to this belief.
Činjenica od značaja je kako je ovo postalo vrlo pronicljvo pitanje budući po prvi put nakon dugo vremena postoji pravi izazov Zapadnim ideološkim sustavima politike i ekonomije, a to je sustav utjelovljen u Kini. Radije nego privatni kapitalizam, imaju državni kapitalizam. Umjesto liberalne demokracije, podredili su demokratsku sustav te su također odlučili podići ekonomska prava iznad političkih. Prenosim vam danas da je taj sustav koji je utjelovljen u Kini koji lovi zamah među ljudima u tržištima u nastajanju kao sustav koji valja slijediti, jer sve više vjeruju kako je to sustav koji im obećava najbolja i najbrža unapređenja životnog standarda u najkraćem vremenskom roku. Ako mi dopustite, potrošit ću nekoliko trenutaka objašnjavajući vam prvo zašto su ekonomski došli do tog uvjerenja.
First of all, it's China's economic performance over the past 30 years. She's been able to produce record economic growth and meaningfully move many people out of poverty, specifically putting a meaningful dent in poverty by moving over 300 million people out of indigence. It's not just in economics, but it's also in terms of living standards. We see that in China, 28 percent of people had secondary school access. Today, it's closer to 82 percent. So in its totality, economic improvement has been quite significant.
Prije svega, to je ekonomska izvedba Kine tijekom zadnjih 30 godina. Bila je u stanju stvoriti rekordan ekonomski rast i smisleno izvući puno ljudi iz siromaštva, pogotovo smisleno praveći ulupljenje u siromaštvu izvlačenjem preko 300 milijuna ljudi iz neimaštine. Nije riječ samo u ekonomiji, već također i u životnom standardu. Vidimo da je u Kini 28 posto ljudi imalo pristup sekundarnoj školi. Danas, ta je brojka bliža 82 posto. Tako da je u svojoj cjelokupnosti, ekonomski napredak bio poprilično značajan.
Second, China has been able to meaningfully improve its income inequality without changing the political construct. Today, the United States and China are the two leading economies in the world. They have vastly different political systems and different economic systems, one with private capitalism, another one broadly with state capitalism. However, these two countries have the identical GINI Coefficient, which is a measure of income equality. Perhaps what is more disturbing is that China's income equality has been improving in recent times, whereas that of the United States has been declining.
Drugo, Kini je bilo moguće smisleno poboljšati razlike u prihodima bez mijenjanja političke konstrukcije. Danas, Sjedinjene države i Kina su dvije vodeće svjetske ekonomije. Imaju vrlo različite političke sustave te različite ekonomske sustave, jedan s privatnim kapitalizmom, drugi ugrubo sa državnim kapitalizmom. Međutim, ove dvije zemlje imaju identičan GINI koeficijent, koji je mjera jednakosti prihoda. Možda ono što je više uznemirujuće je kako je jednakost prihoda u Kini bila napredovala u novije vrijeme, dok se ona Sjedinjenih država bila smanjivala.
Thirdly, people in the emerging markets look at China's amazing and legendary infrastructure rollout. This is not just about China building roads and ports and railways in her own country -- she's been able to build 85,000 kilometers of road network in China and surpass that of the United States -- but even if you look to places like Africa, China has been able to help tar the distance of Cape Town to Cairo, which is 9,000 miles, or three times the distance of New York to California. Now this is something that people can see and point to. Perhaps it's no surprise that in a 2007 Pew survey, when surveyed, Africans in 10 countries said they thought that the Chinese were doing amazing things to improve their livelihoods by wide margins, by as much as 98 percent.
Treće, ljudi u tržištima u nastajanju gledaju u Kinino zapanjujuće i legendarno stvaranje infrastrukture. Ovdje nije samo riječ o Kini koja gradi ceste i luke i željeznice u vlastitoj zemlji -- umjela je sagraditi 85.000 kilometara cestovne mreže u Kini te prestići ono Sjedinjenih država -- ali čak i ako gledate mjesta poput Afrike, Kina je bila u stanju pomoći okatraniti udaljenost od Cape Towna do Caira, koja je 9.000 milja, ili trostruka udaljenost od New Yorka do Kalifornije. Sad to je nešto što ljudi mogu vidjeti i na što mogu ukazivati. Možda nije iznenađenje kako su u 2007 Pew pregledu, kad su ispitani, Afrikanci u 10 zemalja rekli kako misle da Kinezi rade zapanjujuće stvari kako bi unaprijedili njihove životne uvjete u velikim prednostima, čak do 98 posto.
Finally, China is also providing innovative solutions to age-old social problems that the world faces. If you travel to Mogadishu, Mexico City or Mumbai, you find that dilapidated infrastructure and logistics continue to be a stumbling block to the delivery of medicine and healthcare in the rural areas. However, through a network of state-owned enterprises, the Chinese have been able to go into these rural areas, using their companies to help deliver on these healthcare solutions.
Konačno, Kina donosi inovativna rješenja starim društvenim problemima koji more svijet. Ako otputujete u Mogadishu, Mexico City ili Mumbai, vidjet ćete kako trošna infrastruktura i logistika nastavlja biti kamen spoticanja dostavljanju medicinske i zdravstvene skrbi u ruralna područja. Međutim, kroz mrežu poduzeća u državnom vlasništvu, Kinezi su uspjeli otići u ta ruralna područja, koristeći svoje firme kako bi pomogli dostavu tih zdravstvenih rješenja.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's no surprise that around the world, people are pointing at what China is doing and saying, "I like that. I want that. I want to be able to do what China's doing. That is the system that seems to work." I'm here to also tell you that there are lots of shifts occurring around what China is doing in the democratic stance. In particular, there is growing doubt among people in the emerging markets, when people now believe that democracy is no longer to be viewed as a prerequisite for economic growth. In fact, countries like Taiwan, Singapore, Chile, not just China, have shown that actually, it's economic growth that is a prerequisite for democracy. In a recent study, the evidence has shown that income is the greatest determinant of how long a democracy can last. The study found that if your per capita income is about 1,000 dollars a year, your democracy will last about eight and a half years. If your per capita income is between 2,000 and 4,000 dollars per year, then you're likely to only get 33 years of democracy. And only if your per capita income is above 6,000 dollars a year will you have democracy come hell or high water.
Dame i gospodo, nije iznenađenje kako širom svijeta ljudi pokazuju na to što Kina radi i govore: "Sviđa mi se to. Želim to." "Želim biti u mogućnosti da činim ono što Kina čini." "To je sustav za koji se čini kako radi." Također sam ovdje da vam kažem kako se pojavljuje puno promjena oko onog što Kina čini u stavu prema demokraciji. Posebno, postoji rastuća sumnja među ljudima tržišta u nastajanju, gdje ljudi sad vjeruju kako demokraciju više nije potrebno gledati kao preduvjet za ekonomski rast. Zapravo, zemlje poput Taiwana, Singapura, Čilea, ne samo Kina, su pokazale da zapravo, ekonomski rast je preduvjet za demokraciju. U nedavnoj studiji, dokazi su pokazali kako je prihod najveća odrednica koliko dugo demokracija može trajati. Studija je pokazala da ako je vaš prihod po glavi oko 1.000 dolara godišnje, vaša će demokracija trajati oko osam i pol godina. Ako je vaš prihod po glavi između 2.000 i 4.000 dolara godišnje, onda je vjerojatno da ćete imati samo 33 godina demokracije. A samo ako je vaš prihod po glavi iznad 6.000 dolara godišnje imati ćete demokraciju bez obzira na sve nedaće.
What this is telling us is that we need to first establish a middle class that is able to hold the government accountable. But perhaps it's also telling us that we should be worried about going around the world and shoehorning democracy, because ultimately we run the risk of ending up with illiberal democracies, democracies that in some sense could be worse than the authoritarian governments that they seek to replace.
Što nam to govori jest kako prvo trebamo uspostaviti srednju klasu koja je sposobna držati vlast odgovornom. Ali možda nam također govori kako bi trebali biti zabrinuti glede putovanja širom svijeta i uvođenja demokracije, stoga što u konačnici riskiramo završetak s neslobodnim demokracijama, demokracijama koje bi u nekim pogledima mogle biti gore od autoritarnih vlasti koje žele zamijeniti.
The evidence around illiberal democracies is quite depressing. Freedom House finds that although 50 percent of the world's countries today are democratic, 70 percent of those countries are illiberal in the sense that people don't have free speech or freedom of movement. But also, we're finding from Freedom House in a study that they published last year that freedom has been on the decline every year for the past seven years.
Dokazi oko neslobodnih demokracija su poprilično depresivni. Freedom House pronalazi da iako je 50 posto svjetskih zemalja danas demokratskih, 70 posto tih zemalja su neslobodne u smislu da ljudi nemaju slobodu govora ili slobodu kretanja. Ali također, vidimo u istraživanjima Freedom Housea u studiji koju su objavili prošle godine da je sloboda bila u opadanju svaku godinu u zadnjih sedam godina.
What this says is that for people like me who care about liberal democracy, is we've got to find a more sustainable way of ensuring that we have a sustainable form of democracy in a liberal way, and that has its roots in economics. But it also says that as China moves toward being the largest economy in the world, something that is expected to happen by experts in 2016, that this schism between the political and economic ideologies of the West and the rest is likely to widen.
Što to govori je da za ljude poput mene kojima je stalo do liberalne demokracije, moramo naći održiviji način osiguravanja da imamo održiv oblik demokracije na liberalan način, a to ima svoje korijene u ekonomiji. Ali to također govori kako dok se Kina kreće prema poziciji najveće svjetske ekonomije, nečega što se očekuje da će se dogodit kažu stručnjaci u 2016., da će se taj rascjep između političkih i ekonomskih ideologija Zapada i ostalih vjerojatno proširiti.
What might that world look like? Well, the world could look like more state involvement and state capitalism; greater protectionisms of nation-states; but also, as I just pointed out a moment ago, ever-declining political rights and individual rights.
Na što bi taj svijet mogao nalikovati? Pa, svijet bi mogao nalikovati na više državnog uplitanja i državnog kapitalizma; većeg protekcionizma u nacionalnih država; ali također, kako sam ukazala maloprije, stalnog pada političkih prava i prava pojedinca.
The question that is left for us in general is, what then should the West be doing? And I suggest that they have two options. The West can either compete or cooperate. If the West chooses to compete with the Chinese model, and in effect go around the world and continue to try and push an agenda of private capitalism and liberal democracy, this is basically going against headwinds, but it also would be a natural stance for the West to take because in many ways it is the antithesis of the Chinese model of de-prioritizing democracy, and state capitalism. Now the fact of the matter is, if the West decides to compete, it will create a wider schism. The other option is for the West to cooperate, and by cooperating I mean giving the emerging market countries the flexibility to figure out in an organic way what political and economic system works best for them.
Pitanje koje je općenito pred nama jest, što bi onda Zapad trebao činiti? A ja sugeriram da imaju dvije opcije. Zapad se može ili natjecati ili surađivati. Ako se Zapad odluči natjecati sa Kineskim modelom, dakle ići oko svijeta te nastaviti pokušavati progurati agendu privatnog kapitalizma i liberalne demokracije, to bi bilo čisto kretanje protiv struje, ali to bi također bio prirodan stav koji bi Zapad mogao zauzeti stoga što je to na puno načina antiteza KIneskog modela podređivanja demokracije, i državnog kapitalizma. Sad, činjenica jest ako se Zapad odluči natjecati, to će stvoriti širi rascjep. Druga je mogućnost da Zapad surađuje, a pod suradnjom mislim na davanje tržištima u nastajanju fleksibilnost da shvate na organski način koji politički i ekonomski sustav za njih radi najbolje.
Now I'm sure some of you in the room will be thinking, well, this is like ceding to China, and this is a way, in other words, for the West to take a back seat. But I put it to you that if the United States and European countries want to remain globally influential, they may have to consider cooperating in the short term in order to compete, and by that, they might have to focus more aggressively on economic outcomes to help create the middle class and therefore be able to hold government accountable and create the democracies that we really want.
Sad, sigurna sam da će neki od vas u sobi razmišljati, dobro, ovo je poput ustupanja mjesta Kini, a ovo je put, drugim riječima, kojim će Zapad završiti na zadnjem sjedištu. Ali natuknula bih vam da ako Sjedinjene države i Europske zemlje žele ostati globalno utjecajne, mogle bi razmisliti o suradnji u kratkom roku da bi se mogli natjecati kasnije, a pod tim, mogli bi se fokusirati agresivnije na ekonomske rezultate da pomognu stvoriti srednju klasu i time biti u mogućnosti držati vlast odgovornom te stvoriti demokracije koje zbilja želimo.
The fact of the matter is that instead of going around the world and haranguing countries for engaging with China, the West should be encouraging its own businesses to trade and invest in these regions. Instead of criticizing China for bad behavior, the West should be showing how it is that their own system of politics and economics is the superior one. And instead of shoehorning democracy around the world, perhaps the West should take a leaf out of its own history book and remember that it takes a lot of patience in order to develop the models and the systems that you have today. Indeed, the Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer reminds us that it took the United States nearly 170 years from the time that the Constitution was written for there to be equal rights in the United States. Some people would argue that today there is still no equal rights. In fact, there are groups who would argue that they still do not have equal rights under the law.
Činjenica je kako umjesto da ide oko svijeta i drži govore zemljama radi surađivanja s Kinom, Zapad bi trebao ohrabrivati vlastite tvrtke da trguju i investiraju u te regije. Umjesto kritiziranja Kine za loše ponašanje, Zapad bi trebao pokazivati po čemu je to njihov vlastiti sustav politike i ekonomije onaj koji je superioran. A umjesto nametanja demokracije širom svijeta, možda bi Zapad trebao počitati list iz vlastite knjige povijesti te zapamtiti da treba puno strpljenja da bi se razvili modeli i sustavi koje imate danas. Zbilja, sudac vrhovnog suda Stephen Breyer podsjeća nas da je Sjedinjenim državama trebalo gotovo 170 godina od vremena kad je Ustav napisan do uspostave jednakih prava u Sjedinjenim državama. Neki ljudi bi tvrdili da čak ni danas još uvijek nema jednakih prava. Zapravo, postoje grupe koje bi tvrdile da još uvijek nemaju jednaka prava pred zakonom.
At its very best, the Western model speaks for itself. It's the model that put food on the table. It's the refrigerators. It put a man on the moon. But the fact of the matter is, although people back in the day used to point at the Western countries and say, "I want that, I like that," there's now a new person in town in the form of a country, China. Today, generations are looking at China and saying, "China can produce infrastructure, China can produce economic growth, and we like that."
U svom najboljem svjetlu Zapadni model govori sam za sebe. To je model koji donosi hranu u kuću. To su frižideri. Spustio je čovjeka na Mjesec. Ali činjenica je, iako su ljudi ranije običavali pokazivati na Zapadne zemlje i govoriti: "Želim to, sviđa mi se to." u gradu je sada nova osoba u obliku zemlje, Kine. Danas, generacije gledaju u Kinu i govore: "Kina može proizvesti infrastrukturu," "Kina može proizvesti ekonomski rast," "i to nam se sviđa."
Because ultimately, the question before us, and the question before seven billion people on the planet is, how can we create prosperity? People who care and will pivot towards the model of politics and economics in a very rational way, to those models that will ensure that they can have better living standards in the shortest period of time.
Jer u krajnjoj liniji, pitanje pred nama, i pitanje pred sedam milijardi ljudi na planetu jest, kako možemo stvoriti blagostanje? Ljudi kojima je stalo i koji će se okrenuti modelu politike i ekonomije na vrlo razuman način, ka onim modelima koji će osigurati da mogu imati bolje životne standarde u najkraćem vemenskom roku.
As you leave here today, I would like to leave you with a very personal message, which is what it is that I believe we should be doing as individuals, and this is really about being open-minded, open-minded to the fact that our hopes and dreams of creating prosperity for people around the world, creating and meaningfully putting a dent in poverty for hundreds of millions of people, has to be based in being open-minded, because these systems have good things and they have bad things.
Dok danas napuštate ovo mjesto, voljela bih napustiti vas s vrlo osobnom porukom, koja je ono za što vjerujem da bismo trebali raditi kao pojedinci, i riječ je zbilja o bivanju otvorenih nazora, otvorenih za činjenicu da naše nade i snovi o stvaranju blagostanja za ljude širom svijeta, smislenom pravljenju ulupljenja u siromaštvu stotina milijuna ljudi, moraju biti temeljeni na otvorenosti nazora, jer ti sustavi imaju dobre stvari i imaju loše stvari.
Just to illustrate, I went into my annals of myself. That's a picture of me.
Samo da ilustriram, otišla sam u vlastitu prošlost. Ovo je moja slika.
Awww. (Laughter)
Awww. (Smijeh)
I was born and raised in Zambia in 1969. At the time of my birth, blacks were not issued birth certificates, and that law only changed in 1973. This is an affidavit from the Zambian government. I bring this to you to tell you that in 40 years, I've gone from not being recognized as a human being to standing in front of the illustrious TED crowd today to talk to you about my views. In this vein, we can increase economic growth. We can meaningfully put a dent in poverty. But also, it's going to require that we look at our assumptions, assumptions and strictures that we've grown up with around democracy, around private capitalism, around what creates economic growth and reduces poverty and creates freedoms. We might have to tear those books up and start to look at other options and be open-minded to seek the truth. Ultimately, it's about transforming the world and making it a better place.
Rođena sam i othranjena u Zambiji 1969. U vrijeme mog rođenja, crncima nisu izdavali rodne listove, a taj se zakon promijenio tek 1973. Ovo je pismena izjava Zambijske vlade. Prikazujem je da vam kaže kako sam u 40 godina prešla put od neprepoznavanja kao ljudskog bića da stajanja ispred slavne ekipe iz TED-a danas da bih vam pričala o svojim pogledima. Na isti način, možemo povećati ekonomski rast. Možemo smisleno napraviti ulupljenje u siromaštvu. Ali također, biti će potrebno da pregledamo svoje pretpostavke, pretpostavke i ograničenosti s kojima smo odrasli glede demokracije, glede privatnog kapitalizma, glede razloga što uzrokuju ekonomski rast smanjenje siromaštva i stvaraju slobode. Možda bi trebali podrapati te računice te početi gledati na druge mogućnosti i biti otvorenih nazora u potrazi za istinom. U krajnjoj liniji, riječ je o mijenjanju svijeta i stvaranju od njega boljeg mjesta.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)