"Give me liberty or give me death."
“不自由,毋宁死”
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.
当弗吉尼亚州州长帕特里克·亨利(Patrick Henry) 在1775 年说出这些话时, 他根本没有想到 这句话会和后代的美国人 产生多少共鸣。 当时,这些词专门 针对英国人, 但过去 200 年来,这句话开始体现出 许多西方人的信仰, 那就是言论自由价值万千, 而且,最好的政治制度与经济体制 一定有自由的元素嵌入其中。 谁能责怪他们呢? 在过去几百年中, 自由民主和私人资本主义的组合 帮助了美国和西方国家 迅速崛起, 将经济发展到新的水平。 过去几百年中, 美国人的收入增加了 30 倍, 有數十萬人, 脱离了贫困。 与此同时,美国的独创性和创新精神 帮助推动了产业化 同时也有助发明和创造 家电一类的产品 比如冰箱、 电视、 小汽车,甚至你口袋中的手机。 这一切都毫不令人意外,而后, 即使在私人资本主义危机深重的时候 奥巴马总统都说道: "我们面前的问题不在于市场 是正面还是负面的力量。 市场创造财富,扩展自由 的力量是无与伦比的。 因此,人们可以理解 这个在西方人脑海中根深蒂固的观念, 全世界都会采取 私人资本主义作为经济增长的模式, 采纳自由民主,并将持续 优先选择获得政治权利而非经济利益。
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.
但是,对很多生活在新兴市场国家的人来说, 这是一种空想,即使 1948年签署的 《世界人权宣言》 获得了一致通过, 它所做的也是掩盖 发达国家和发展中国家之间出现的分裂, 以及政治权利和经济利益间 不同意识形态的分裂。 这个分裂不断扩大。 今天,很多人生活在新兴国家, 占世界人口的90%, 他们不相信西方对政治权利的执着 有那么重要, 真正重要的是 政府提供食物、 住所、 教育和医疗保健。 "不自由,毋宁死" 确实理想,但要在能负担的前提下才成立, 但如果你每天靠不到 1 美元收入过活, 你只会挣扎求生存 和供养家人 而不会花时间到处去 宣扬和捍卫民主。
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?
现在,我知道在座的很多人 以及世界各地的许多人会认为, "事实上,这很难让人接受," 因为私人资本主义和自由民主 是神圣不可侵犯的。 但我现在问你,如果要你选择 你会怎么做? 如果你必须在 有地方住 和投票的权之间做出选择,你会怎么选?
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.
过去 10 年中, 我曾有幸到 60 多个国家旅行, 许多是新兴国家, 在拉丁美洲、 亚洲、 和我家乡非洲大陆的一些国家。 我见过总统、异议人士、 政策制定者、 律师、 教师、 医生和路人, 并通过和他们的谈话, 清楚了解到 很多新兴国家的人们 相信确有正在形成的分裂, 西方人相信的 政治经济意识形态 和世界其他地区人们相信的不一样。
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.
现在,不要误解我的意思。 我不是说在新兴市场中的人们 不懂民主, 我也不是说在理想的情况下 他们不愿意自由选择自己的总统或领导人。 他们当然愿意。 然而若考虑各种条件, 他们会更关心 如何改善生活水平, 以及政府如何提供途径, 而不是政府 是否由民主选举产生。
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.
事实上, 这已经成为一个非常沈痛的问题 因为这是在很长时间内第一次 对西方政治和经济意识形态系统 的真正挑战, 这是以中国为代表的系统, 不是私人资本主义,而是国家资本主义。 他们不主张自由民主,并推后实行民主制度。 他们亦决定优先考虑 经济利益而不是政治权利。 我今天为你们介绍的这个 以中国为代表的系统, 得到新兴国家人民的广泛拥护 并被当成体系来遵循, 因为人们越来越相信 是这一体系 保证在最短时间内最好最快地改进 人们的生活标准。 如果大家允许的话,我会花几分钟 先向大家解释 为什么在经济上他们有这信念。
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.
首要因素是中国在过去三十年 的经济表现。 中国已经能够产生创纪录的经济增长 并卓有成效地使许多人摆脱了贫困, 特别在消除贫困方面打开了缺口 使得超过 3 亿人 脱离了贫穷。 变化不仅发生在经济上, 同时也发生在生活水平的变化上。 我们看到,过去在中国,只有28%的人口 接受中学教育。 今天,这一数字接近于 82%。 所以总体上经济改善的成果 已经相当明显。
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.
其次,中国已能 在不改变政治结构的前提下 卓有成效地改善收入不平等的问题。 今天,美国和中国 是世界上两个主要的经济体。 他们有着极其不同的政治制度 和经济制度, 一个奉行私人资本主义 另一个广泛地践行着国家资本主义。 然而,这两个国家 有相同的基尼系数, 基尼系数反应收入平等的状况。 也许令人感到更加不安的是 中国的收入平等状况 最近以来一直在改善, 而美国的情况 却一直在恶化。
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.
再次,新兴国家的人们 惊讶于中国如神话传说般的 基础设施建设。 这不单指中国 在自己国家建设的 道路、港口、铁路—— 中国已经建造了 85,000 公里长的 国内公路网 并超越了美国建造的总长度 但就算看看像非洲这样的地方, 中国已经帮助非洲铺设了从开普敦到开罗 那么长距离的沥青路, 长度是 9000 英里, 或者说是从纽约到加利福尼亚州距离的三倍。 这是人们看得到摸得着的事物。 也许这并不令人意外 在 2007 年的皮尤调查中, 来自10 个非洲国家的受访者说: 他们认为,中国建设者们做了 一些令人称奇的事来提高非洲人的生活水平 提升幅度之大,达到 98%之高。
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.
最后,中国还提供创新方案 来解决世界面临的根深蒂固的社会问题。 如果你到摩加迪沙(索马里首都)、 墨西哥城或孟买旅行 你会发现那些破旧不堪的基础设施和物流 仍是发展偏远地区 卫生保健的 一个绊脚石。 然而,通过国营企业通力合作 并藉国籍企业之便, 中国已经能够走进这些农村地区, 协助解决当地的医药卫生问题。
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.
女士们先生们,这并不令人意外 在全世界各地,人们都在谈论中国的所作所为, "我喜欢那样的。我想要那样的。 我想做中国做的事情。 中国的体制看来是行得通的"。 说到这,我还要告诉你们, 随着中国目前的发展, 对民主的观点 也产生了许多变化。 尤其是,在新兴市场国家 有越来越多人的怀疑, 这是因为目前,民主制度 不再被视为 经济发展的先决条件。 事实上,不只是中国,像台湾、 新加坡、 智利等 实际上都证实了这点, 经济增长,是民主的 一个先决条件。 在最近的研究中,有迹象显示 收入是决定民主持续时间的 最大因素。 研究发现,如果一国的人均收入 是大约 1000 美元一年, 其民主政体将持续约八年半。 如果一国人均收入在 每年2000 至 4000 美元 可能会有33 年的民主。 只有人均收入 达到每年 6000 美元以上 民主才会持续。
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.
这告诉我们 首先需要建立一个 能问责政府的中产阶级。 但也许这还告诉我们 我们应该为在世界各地 将民主强加于人感到不安 因为最终我们要承担的风险 就是狭隘的民主, 某种程度来说,这样的民主, 可能比设法终结的独裁政府 还要糟糕!
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.
狭隘民主的证据 是十分让人沮丧的。 自由之家(Freedom House)认为,虽然今天 世界上 50%的国家是民主国家, 但这些国家中的 70%是狭隘的 就人民没有 言论或行动自由而言。 但同时,我们从自由之家 去年出版的一项研究中发现 过去七年的每一年里 自由的发展都在恶化。
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.
这表示: 对于像我这样的人 在乎自由民主的人, 需要找到更多可持续的方式 确保有一个可持续的 实现民主的方式, 并且拥有深厚的经济基础。 但同时,当中国就要 成为世界最大经济体时, 专家预计2016 年 这便会成真, 在西方和世界其他地区之间的 政治和经济意识形态的分裂 很可能会扩大。
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.
这个世界可能变成什么样? 嗯,世界可能会有 更多的国家干预和国家资本主义; 及民族国家更强烈的保护主义; 但我刚才也提过的, 不断减少的政治权利 和个人权利。
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.
因此我们共同的问题是, 在这之后,西方应该怎样做? 我认为,西方有两个选项。 他们可以或竞争或合作。 如果西方选择与中国模式竞争, 实质上就是要在全世界 继续尝试和推行 私人资本主义和自由民主, 这基本上都是在逆风而行, 但这对西方来说 也是理所当然的立场 因为在很多方面 西方模式与中国模式的 暂缓民主和国家资本主义是对立的。 事实是, 如果西方决定要竞争, 将产生更大的分裂。 西方的另一个选项是进行合作, 我的意思是通过合作, 给予新兴市场国家一些弹性空间, 让他们顺其自然地找出 什么样的政治和经济制度 对他们来说才是最佳的。
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.
我确信在座的有一些人 正在想,咳,这不就是对中国让步, 换句话说,这种方式 就是让西方处于次要地位。 但我告诉你们 如果美国和欧洲国家 想要在全球保持影响力 他们可能会为了竞争, 短期内不得不考虑合作 以此类推,他们可能不得不更积极地 关注经济成果 来帮助创建中产阶层 让政府负起责任 并创建我们真正想要的民主政体。
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.
事实就是, 与其在国际上 鼓吹与中国交流, 西方应该鼓励自己的企业 在这些地区进行贸易和投资, 与其批评中国的不良行为。 西方应该展示 为何他们自己的政治和经济制度 是有优势的。 与其在世界各地 强行推进民主, 或许西方应从借镜 自己的历史经验 并且铭记:你们今天 拥有的模式与体系得以发展 至此 也是慢慢累积的。 的确,最高法院法官斯蒂芬 · 布雷耶(Stephen Breyer.) 提醒我们 从制定宪法 直到达到权利平等 花费了170年。 如今有些人会争论说 权利不平等仍然存在的。 事实上,仍然有群体会争辩 他们在现有的法律之下没有得到平等权利。
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."
西方模式最棒的地方是, 直截了当地证明了。 它是让下一餐有着落的模式。 让人有冰箱。 还把人送上了月球。 但事实是, 虽然人们过去 经常指着西方国家并且说: "我想要那样的,我喜欢那样的," 但现在出现了一个新人, 也就是中国。 今天,几代人正看着中国 并说:"中国可以建设基础设施, 中国可以创造经济增长, 我们喜欢那样的。
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.
因为,最终摆在我们面前的问题 和地球上 70 亿人 面前的问题都是: 我们如何创造繁荣? 在乎这点的人 会理性地 以中国的政经模式为基础 倾向于那些可以确保 他们能够在最短时间内 拥有更高生活水准的模式。
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.
在你们今天要离开的时候, 我想要留给你们 一点个人的见解, 也就是我相信 我们应当作为独立的个人来做事, 也就是要变得思想开明, 对于我们想要为全世界的人们 创造繁荣, 并且有意义地为数以亿计的人们 削弱贫困的希望与梦想。 都要从开放的态度做起, 因为不同的体系有优点 也有缺点。
Just to illustrate, I went into my annals of myself. That's a picture of me.
为了說明这一点, 我调查了关于我自己的记录。 这是我的照片。
Awww. (Laughter)
噢。(笑声)
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.
我在1969年出生于赞比亚。 在我诞生时, 黑人得不到出生证明, 那条法律在1973年才改变。 这是赞比亚政府的誓章。 我展示这些,是为了告诉你们 这四十年来,我从不被承认 到今天站在TED观众前 为你们讲述我的观点的经历。 从这一点上讲,我们可以促进经济增长。 我们可以卓有成效地削弱贫困。 不仅如此,这也将要求我们 正视我们的观念, 我们从小到大关于 民主与私人资本主义, 关于什么才能促进经济增长 并且减少贫困、创造自由的观念与教条。 我们也许不得不撕掉那些书本 来开始正视其它选项 并且积极地探求真实。 最终,我们要改变世界 并使它成为一个更好的地方。
Thank you very much.
非常感谢你们。
(Applause)
(掌声)