"Give me liberty or give me death."
「不自由,毋寧死」,
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.
1775年,維吉尼亞州州長 派翠克•亨利(Patrick Henry)說這話的時候, 當時他可能無法想像, 這句話在美國後代, 將要掀起的廣大迴響。 當時,這句伏筆是衝著 英國殖民政府說的; 但200年來, 這句話恰好體現了 廣為西方人接受的信念: 自由是最寶貴的價值, 而最好的政治經濟體制, 必有自由的內涵。 這是理所當然的! 一百年來,民主自由 加上資本主義, 讓美國 和西方國家 的經濟發展水平提升到新高度。 美國國民收入在過去的百年間, 增長了30倍; 有數十萬美國人, 擺脫貧窮。 同時,美國人的創新能力, 帶動工業化, 也助長了創造與建設, 家電產品就是其中的例子, 像是冰箱和電視, 還有汽車,甚至是隨身攜帶的手機。 也難怪,即使在資本主義 深陷危機的時候, 歐巴馬總統仍說: 「我們當前面臨的問題 不是市場機制的優劣。 畢竟以增加財富和發揚自由來說, 這種機制的效果無可匹敵。」 所以,不難理解西方人為何 執著地認定, 全世界都將以私人資本主義 作為經濟發展的模式。 而自由民主制度中, 政治權的重要性 仍會大於經濟權。
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.
然而,對許多新興市場的人來說, 這不過是虛幻。而且, 1948年就已簽署的 世界人權宣言, 儘管已廣受採納, 但當時其實是用來掩飾 發達國家和發展中國家間 既有的隔閡, 以及政治權力和經濟利益方面 意識形態的分歧。 且這樣的鴻溝不減反增。 目前的全球人口, 超過9成生活在新興市場國家, 其中有很多人認為 西方社會所熱衷的政治權, 是無關緊要的。 真正重要的是, 食物和住所有著落, 還有教育機會及醫療保健。 「不自由,毋寧死」 是在生活無憂下, 才有辦法談的。 若你每天的生活費 只有不到1塊美金, 為了養家餬口, 就已經忙不過來了, 就別奢望還會有時間四處奔波, 鼓吹及捍衛民主。
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?
我知道在場有很多人, 還有全世界範圍的很多人會認為, 「說真的,這很難讓人接受。」 因為,私人資本主義和自由民主 都是不容置疑的。 我現在請教各位, 若非得選擇不可, 你會怎麼做? 如果必須選擇, 你是要有地方住, 還是寧可要投票權?
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.
在過去的十年當中, 我有幸造訪60多國, 其中有很多是拉丁美洲,亞洲, 還有我家鄉非洲, 的新興市場國家。 我見過總統,異議人士, 政策制定者,律師,教師, 醫生和平民, 跟他們訪談過後, 我明白了一件事 新興市場國家中有許多人認為 以政治和經濟來看 在所信奉的意識形態上 西方國家和其他地區之間 目前的確存在著分歧。
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.
不要誤解我的意思。 我不是說新興市場地區的人 不懂民主, 也不是說他們 不想投票選出總統或領袖。 他們當然想。 然而若考慮各種條件, 他們比較在意 能改善生活水準的因素, 還有政府要如何為他們带來福祉, 至於政府是否由民主選舉產生 反倒没那麼重要。
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.
事實是, 這樣的分歧已成為沈痛的問題 因為這是西方的政經意識型態 長久以來 首度面臨真正的挑戰, 也就是由中國具體實現的體制。 捨私人資本主義, 採行國家資本主義。 降低民主制度的優先地位, 而不全然採納。 同時決定 先顧經濟利益, 再談政治權利。 不妨這樣說好了, 中國施行的這個體制 在新興市場地區凝聚了不小的聲勢, 還被奉為值得效仿的體制, 因為他們越來越相信 這種制度 能在最短的時間內 以最快最好的方式改善生活水準。 容我先花一些時間 向你們解釋 為何人們在經濟上有這樣的結論。
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.
首先,過去30年來, 中國的經濟表現。 開創了空前的成長, 讓許多人大幅擺脱貧窮, 尤其是改善貧窮 有3億多人 因而脫離赤貧。 這不只是指經濟上, 還有生活水準也是。 另一項眼見為實的是, 1970年的時候 還只有28%的中國人 接受中學教育。 目前,這數字逼近82%。 所以整體而言, 經濟明顯好轉。
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,中國在 不改變政治結構的狀況下, 大幅改善國民所得不均的現象。 目前,美國和中國 是全球兩大經濟體。 兩國各有迥然不同的 政治經濟體制, 一邊是資本主義, 另一邊是國家資本主義。 然而中美兩國 卻有非常接近的吉尼係數(Gini coefficient), 這數據是用來衡量所得分配的公平度。 但也許更令人不安的, 是中國的所得分配 近來持續改善, 反觀美國 情況卻持續惡化。
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.
第三,在新興市場地區 人們目睹中國驚人且聲名大噪的 基礎建設成果。 而我要說的是, 中國不只在國內 建造道路、港灣和鐵路, 中國境內修築的道路網, 累計已有8萬5千公里, 長度已超越美國。 即使在其他地區,例如非洲 中國也已協助鋪設 大約9千英里的道路, 這距離相當於開普敦到開羅, 是紐約和加州間距離的3倍。 這是大家有目共睹的。 或許這也難怪, 2007年的皮尤調查(Pew survey)中, 來自非洲10國的受訪者中認為, 中國做了許多驚人之舉 來改善他們的生計, 而改善的幅度竟高達9成8。
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.
最後,中國也能以創新的方式 解決困擾各國已久的社會問題。 如果你到摩加迪休(索馬利亞首都), 墨西哥城或孟買, 就會發現殘破不堪的 基礎建設和調度系統, 仍是將醫療保健物資 送往偏遠地區的一大障礙。 但靠著與國營企業通力合作, 中國已能夠藉著國企的力量, 深入這些偏遠地區 協助解決當地的醫藥衛生問題。
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.
女士們先生們, 這就不難理解 中國的一舉一動為何受到全球關注, 到處都有人說: 「真的很棒,我也希望如此。 我希望可以像現在的中國那樣, 看來他們的體制是行得通的。」 我還要告訴你們 隨著中國的發展, 對民主的觀點 也產生了許多變化。 尤其是新興市場地區的人 越來越抱持懷疑的態度, 目前人們開始認為,民主制度 不再被視為 經濟發展的先決條件。 實際上,不只中國, 臺灣,新加坡,智利等, 都證實了這點。 經濟發展才是 民主制度的先決條件。 最近有研究證據顯示, 民主能維持多久, 取決於國民收入。 這項研究指出,年國民所得平均 若達到1千美金左右, 大約可維持8年半的民主; 假如平均收入落在 美金2千到4千美元之間, 那麼大概會有33年的民主。 只有當國民平均收入 超過美金6千元 民主才能屹立不搖。
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.
這告訴我們, 首先要有中產階級, 才能讓政府對人民負責。 但這也告訴我們, 我們最好不要 到處將民主強加於人, 因為我們最後 有可能淪為非自由民主制, 某方面來說,這樣的民主 比原本應該被取代的威權政府 還要糟糕。
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.
談到非自由民主制的證據, 是頗令人沮喪的。 自由之家(Freedom House)發現, 儘管全球半數以上都是民主國家, 但其中7成的國家是不自由的, 嚴格意義上,人們沒有 言論自由或遷徙自由。 不過,自由之家 去年發表的研究也顯示, 最近七年,自由狀況 每年都在惡化。
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.
這表示 像我一樣 關心自由民主的人, 必須尋求長久之計 以確保我們享有 以經濟為基礎、 永續的開放式民主。 這也說明,當中國即將如同 部分專家所預測, 在2016年 成為全球最大經濟體時, 西方國家和其他地區間, 政治經濟意識形態的分歧 可能會擴大。
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.
到時候世界局勢會怎樣呢? 全球可能更普遍的是, 更多的國家涉入與國家資本主義; 和更多來自民族國家的保護主義; 還有像我剛才提過的, 持續衰減的政治權 和個人權利。
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.
我們都要面對的問題是 西方社會到時該如何因應? 我認為到時有二種可能。 西方國家可能採取競爭或合作的態度。 若西方社會選擇與中國模式抗衡, 且實際上,依然企圖 推動私人資本主義和自由民主的 政治目的, 這基本上是違背時勢, 但也是西方社會 很可能採取的立場 因為中國模式 暫緩民主制度並施行國家資本主義 與西方政治扞格不入。 事實上, 若西方決心分庭抗禮, 將加深隔閡。 西方社會也可以選擇合作, 而我所謂的合作是指 給新興市場國家一些彈性空間 讓他們順其自然地 找出適合本身的 政治經濟體制。
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.
我確信你們當中 有人會想,這好像是對中國讓步, 換句話說,這不就等於 讓西方退居二線。 但我這樣跟你們說好了 如果美國和歐洲國家 還想保有全球影響力, 他們短期內可能要考慮合作 未來才能和中國競爭, 若是如此,歐美可能必須更積極地 專注於經濟成就, 促進中產階級成形 這樣才能保證負責任的政府 然後創造我們真正想要的民主。
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.
事實是 與其在世界範圍內 大聲斥責與中國交流的國家, 西方倒不如鼓勵本國的產業, 在這些地區進行貿易和投資活動。 與其批評中國的不是, 西方國家應想辦法證明, 西方的政治經濟體系 是比較好的。 與其到處強迫推銷 民主制度, 或許西方應該 從他們的歷史汲取教訓 同時,請記得,西方體制 得以發展到目前的樣子, 是得要有很大的耐心的, 這不是一蹴可幾。 的確,美國最高法院大法官 史蒂芬•布雷耶(Stephen Breyer)提醒我們 美國從憲法起草 到實踐平等權 花了將近170年。 時至今日,還是有人會爭辯 平等權仍未落實。 實際上,部分族群聲稱 他們仍未享有法律保障的平等權。
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."
西方模式引以為豪的, 充其量就是 讓下一餐有著落, 讓人有冰箱, 並實現登陸月球。 不過實際上, 儘管那時人們 也曾指著西方國家說: 「真的很棒,我也要那樣,」 不過現在新秀出現了, 也就是中國。 目前觀察著中國的各個世代 都說:「中國能發展基礎建設, 創造經濟成長, 那就是我們要的。」
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.
因為,我們和 全球70億人口 終究要面對的問題, 是我們要如何創造繁榮? 在乎這點的人, 會理性地 傾向某種政治經濟模式, 因為這能確保 在最短時間內 讓他們的生活水準獲得改善。
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.
今天的演講結束後, 我希望留給你們 一個來自我個人的觀點, 我認為以個人而言 我們該做的, 就是保持開放的思想, 開明地接受這個事實 我們想為全球的人創造繁榮, 想要幫數億人口 脫離貧窮的夢想和希望, 都要從開放的態度做起, 因為這些體制 各有優缺點。
Just to illustrate, I went into my annals of myself. That's a picture of me.
舉例來說, 我從陳年往事中, 找到這張自己的照片。
Awww. (Laughter)
喔。(笑聲)
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.
1969年我在尚比亞出生長大。 我出生的時候, 黑人沒有出生證明, 直到1973年才修法。 這是尚比亞政府發的證明文件。 給你們看這些是要告訴你們, 40年的時間,我從不被認可為人類, 直到今天,得以在優秀的TED觀眾面前, 闡述自己的觀點。 這樣看來,我們可以發展經濟。 我們可以減少貧窮。 但是,這需要我們 檢視自己的假設, 那些我們從小就被灌輸, 關於民主和私人資本主義, 關於如何創造經濟增長, 以及改善貧窮,創造自由的假設與限制。 我們可能要摒棄那些教條 並考慮其他可能性, 再以開放態度尋找真相。 我們終究想改變這個世界, 讓它變得更好。
Thank you very much.
感謝大家。
(Applause)
(掌聲)