I'm afraid I'm one of those speakers you hope you're not going to meet at TED. First, I don't have a mobile, so I'm on the safe side. Secondly, a political theorist who's going to talk about the crisis of democracy is probably not the most exciting topic you can think about. And plus, I'm not going to give you any answers. I'm much more trying to add to some of the questions we're talking about. And one of the things that I want to question is this very popular hope these days that transparency and openness can restore the trust in democratic institutions.
提前说一下 恐怕我是大家最不想在TED看到的演讲者之一 首先,我没有手机 所以我很安全 其次,作为一个政治理论家 我将要跟大家探讨“民主的危机” 估计大家会觉得我的话题很枯燥 另外,我并不打算为大家给出任何答案 我更喜欢留下更多的问题 我想要质疑的 是最近很流行的一种看法 那就是——公开透明 能够恢复民主机构的信任
There is one more reason for you to be suspicious about me. You people, the Church of TED, are a very optimistic community. (Laughter) Basically you believe in complexity, but not in ambiguity. As you have been told, I'm Bulgarian. And according to the surveys, we are marked the most pessimistic people in the world. (Laughter) The Economist magazine recently wrote an article covering one of the recent studies on happiness, and the title was "The Happy, the Unhappy and the Bulgarians."
我还有一点不足: 你们这些TED的教徒都是乐观的人 (笑声) 基本上你们都相信复杂性,而不相信模棱两可的东西 相信你们都已经知道我是保加利亚人 调查显示 我们保加利亚人是世界上最悲观的 (笑声) 经济学人杂志最近刊登了一篇文章 是关于最近的一次对“幸福”的研究报告 文章名称是“幸福,不幸福,以及保加利亚人”
(Laughter)
(笑声)
So now when you know what to expect, let's give you the story. And this is a rainy election day in a small country -- that can be my country, but could be also your country. And because of the rain until four o'clock in the afternoon, nobody went to the polling stations. But then the rain stopped, people went to vote. And when the votes had been counted, three-fourths of the people have voted with a blank ballot. The government and the opposition, they have been simply paralyzed. Because you know what to do about the protests. You know who to arrest, who to negotiate with. But what to do about people who are voting with a blank ballot? So the government decided to have the elections once again. And this time even a greater number, 83 percent of the people, voted with blank ballots. Basically they went to the ballot boxes to tell that they have nobody to vote for.
相信大家已经知道接下来会发生什么了 那么,让我们从一个故事开始吧 这是一个小国家的大选之日,天空中飘着雨 可以是保加利亚,当然也可以是你的国家 因为大雨到下午4点才停 所以4点前没有人去投票站提交选票 雨停了 人们才出门去投票 统计选票的时候 发现四分之三的公民投了空白的选票 政府及其反对者们 都慌了手脚 因为之前,你知道该怎么对付来抗议的人 你知道要逮捕谁,要跟谁谈判 但是现在,面对投了空白选票的人们,你却不知道该怎么办了! 所以,政府决定重新选举 但结果更离谱了 83%的公民投了空白选票 基本上,他们都是走到投票箱前 说自己感觉无人可选
This is the opening of a beautiful novel by Jose Saramago called "Seeing." But in my view it very well captures part of the problem that we have with democracy in Europe these days. On one level nobody's questioning that democracy is the best form of government. Democracy is the only game in town. The problem is that many people start to believe that it is not a game worth playing.
这是Jose Saramago一篇美丽的小说的开场白(译者注:Jose Saramago是葡萄牙小说家、诗人、记者,于1998年获得诺贝尔文学奖,擅长写寓言,对官方理论持怀疑态度) 叫做“我看到的” 但在我看来 这个故事很好地捕捉到了当今欧洲民主存在的问题 从某种程度上说 没有人质疑民主是政府最好的组成方式 民主是唯一的方式 问题是很多人开始相信 民主不是值得去关注的唯一方式
For the last 30 years, political scientists have observed that there is a constant decline in electoral turnout, and the people who are least interested to vote are the people whom you expect are going to gain most out of voting. I mean the unemployed, the under-privileged. And this is a major issue. Because especially now with the economic crisis, you can see that the trust in politics, that the trust in democratic institutions, was really destroyed. According to the latest survey being done by the European Commission, 89 percent of the citizens of Europe believe that there is a growing gap between the opinion of the policy-makers and the opinion of the public. Only 18 percent of Italians and 15 percent of Greeks believe that their vote matters. Basically people start to understand that they can change governments, but they cannot change policies.
在过去的30年,政治学家们观察到 投票选举率不断下降 那些对投票最没有兴趣的人 却是你觉得会从选举中获益最大的人 也就是那些没有工作的、没有权势的可怜的人 这才是问题所在 因为特别是现在,随着经济危机的出现 你可以发现,人们对政治的信任 对民主机构的信任 都已经被完全摧毁了 根据欧洲委员会最新的调查 欧洲89%的公民认为 政策制定者和公众的看法存在着存在巨大的缺口 只有18%的意大利人,15%的希腊人 认为投票是重要的 人们都开始觉得,他们能把政府换掉 但改不了政策
And the question which I want to ask is the following: How did it happen that we are living in societies which are much freer than ever before -- we have more rights, we can travel easier, we have access to more information -- at the same time that trust in our democratic institutions basically has collapsed? So basically I want to ask: What went right and what went wrong in these 50 years when we talk about democracy? And I'll start with what went right.
我想问的是: 为什么,在一个如此美好的社会 一个比以前自由的社会 一个让我们有权力,让我们自由翱翔的社会 一个让我们掌握了更多信息的社会 我们在爱这个社会的同时,却对民主机构 完全丧失信任了呢? 所以,我真正想问的是: 在这50年中,我们的民主 到底什么地方是对的,什么地方做错了 我们先看看正确的方面
And the first thing that went right was, of course, these five revolutions which, in my view, very much changed the way we're living and deepened our democratic experience. And the first was the cultural and social revolution of 1968 and 1970s, which put the individual at the center of politics. It was the human rights moment. Basically this was also a major outbreak, a culture of dissent, a culture of basically non-conformism, which was not known before. So I do believe that even things like that are very much the children of '68 -- nevertheless that most of us had been even not born then. But after that you have the market revolution of the 1980s. And nevertheless that many people on the left try to hate it, the truth is that it was very much the market revolution that sent the message: "The government does not know better." And you have more choice-driven societies. And of course, you have 1989 -- the end of Communism, the end of the Cold War. And it was the birth of the global world. And you have the Internet. And this is not the audience to which I'm going to preach to what extent the Internet empowered people. It has changed the way we are communicating and basically we are viewing politics. The very idea of political community totally has changed. And I'm going to name one more revolution, and this is the revolution in brain sciences, which totally changed the way we understand how people are making decisions.
在我看来,第一件正确的事 就是以下这五场革命 五场深刻改变了我们的生活方式、加深了我们对民主的认识的革命 第一场革命是1968年到1970年间的文化和社会革命 它把个人推到了政治的中心 那是属于人权的时刻 这场革命也是一次重大的突破,形成了一种多元的文化 一种不服从统一的文化 一种我们之前闻所未闻的文化 所有我认为 它们当时就像68年出生的孩子 尽管我们当中的很多人那时都还没有出生 但是在那之后,你经历了上世纪80年代的市场改革 ——尽管很多左翼人士都讨厌它—— 但事实上就是这次市场革命传递出这样的真理: “政府不比我们知道的更多” 你就有了一个存在更多选择的社会 然后,1989年,共产主义和冷战都结束了 这才是全球化的开始 然后你有了因特网 我并不是想告诉大家 因特网在多大程度上给了我们力量 但因特网改变了我们交流的方式 我们也成了审视政治的人 政治集团的理念也因为因特网完全改变了 我还要提到一个革命 一个大脑科学的革命 它颠覆了我们理解 人类决策的方式
So this is what went right. But if we're going to see what went wrong, we're going to end up with the same five revolutions. Because first you have the 1960s and 1970s, cultural and social revolution, which in a certain way destroyed the idea of a collective purpose. The very idea, all these collective nouns that we have been taught about -- nation, class, family. We start to like divorcing, if we're married at all. All this was very much under attack. And it is so difficult to engage people in politics when they believe that what really matters is where they personally stand.
以上就是对的事情(译者概括一下:1968年社会文化革命、1980年市场改革、1989年冷战结束、因特网的出现、大脑科学革命) 下面是做错的事情 那就是我们要结束上面的5次革命了 因为你有了1960年到1970年间的 文化和社会革命 以一种特定的方式摧毁了集体目标的理念 而那个理念,包括我们所学过的所有的关于集体的名词 民族、阶级、家族——都消失了 我们开始喜欢离婚,当然,如果我们还愿意结婚的话 所有这些都开始受到攻击 所以当人们都只是一味地相信 真正重要的是自己 那么我们再想鼓励他们参与政治就很难了
And you have the market revolution of the 1980s and the huge increase of inequality in societies. Remember, until the 1970s, the spread of democracy has always been accompanied by the decline of inequality. The more democratic our societies have been, the more equal they have been becoming. Now we have the reverse tendency. The spread of democracy now is very much accompanied by the increase in inequality. And I find this very much disturbing when we're talking about what's going on right and wrong with democracy these days.
然后你有80年代的市场改革 这加剧了社会的不平等 要知道,到1970年为止 民主的延伸,总是伴随着 不平等性的下降 之前的状况是,社会越民主 社会也就越平等 现在却反过来了 如今,民主的延伸 总是造成更多的不平等 现在,每当我跟别人讨论 我们的民主什么是对的,什么是错的 我都为此觉得很无力
And if you go to 1989 -- something that basically you don't expect that anybody's going to criticize -- but many are going to tell you, "Listen, it was the end of the Cold War that tore the social contract between the elites and the people in Western Europe." When the Soviet Union was still there, the rich and the powerful, they needed the people, because they feared them. Now the elites basically have been liberated. They're very mobile. You cannot tax them. And basically they don't fear the people. So as a result of it, you have this very strange situation in which the elites basically got out of the control of the voters. So this is not by accident that the voters are not interested to vote anymore.
到了1989年 有些事情,你一般都认为是无可指责的正确的事情 实际上,很多人会告诉你: ”正是冷战的结束撕毁了西欧在精英阶层和大众阶层之间的社会契约“ 苏维埃存在的时候 富人和权贵是需要民众的 因为他们惧怕苏维埃政权 现在,那些上层人士彻底解放了 他们可以随处流动,你无法正常对他们征税了 他们也不怕民众了 结果,你会发现一个奇怪的现象 上层人士都摆脱了投票的控制 这不是偶然的 投票者也不再热衷于投票了
And when we talk about the Internet, yes, it's true, the Internet connected all of us, but we also know that the Internet created these echo chambers and political ghettos in which for all your life you can stay with the political community you belong to. And it's becoming more and more difficult to understand the people who are not like you. I know that many people here have been splendidly speaking about the digital world and the possibility for cooperation, but [have you] seen what the digital world has done to American politics these days? This is also partly a result of the Internet revolution. This is the other side of the things that we like.
关于因特网 没错,它连接了世界 但是我们也知道,因特网创造了回音室,创造了政治贫民区 在那里,你终生都要与你属于的政党站在一起 你就会发现,理解与你不同的人群 会越来越困难 我知道这里的很多人 都喜欢讨论数字化的世界和合作的可能性 但是你是否看到这些年数字化世界对美国政治造成的影响? 这其中有一部分就是因特网革命造成的 这就是所谓的”一个硬币有两面“
And when you go to the brain sciences, what political consultants learned from the brain scientists is don't talk to me about ideas anymore, don't talk to me about policy programs. What really matters is basically to manipulate the emotions of the people. And you have this very strongly to the extent that, even if you see when we talk about revolutions these days, these revolutions are not named anymore around ideologies or ideas. Before, revolutions used to have ideological names. They could be communist, they could be liberal, they could be fascist or Islamic. Now the revolutions are called under the medium which is most used. You have Facebook revolutions, Twitter revolutions. The content doesn't matter anymore, the problem is the media.
然后你再看看大脑科学 政治顾问们从科学家那里学到的 就是不要再跟我讨论思想 不要再跟我讨论政策的制定程序 对他们来说,什么能真正操控人们的情绪,什么就是真正重要的 你还可以强烈地感觉到 今天在某种程度上,即使你看到我们大家在讨论革命 这些革命都不再根据某种意识形态或者思想被命名 以前,革命都是有意识形态上的名称的 它们可以是共产主义的,可以是自由主义的 可以是法西斯主义或者伊斯兰主义的 现状,它们却被根据媒介来命名 你看到了Facebook革命,Twitter革命 内容不再重要,问题是媒介是谁
I'm saying this because one of my major points is what went right is also what went wrong. And when we're now trying to see how we can change the situation, when basically we're trying to see what can be done about democracy, we should keep this ambiguity in mind. Because probably some of the things that we love most are going to be also the things that can hurt us most. These days it's very popular to believe that this push for transparency, this kind of a combination between active citizens, new technologies and much more transparency-friendly legislation can restore trust in politics. You believe that when you have these new technologies and people who are ready to use this, it can make it much more difficult for the governments to lie, it's going to be more difficult for them to steal and probably even going to be more difficult for them to kill. This is probably true. But I do believe that we should be also very clear that now when we put the transparency at the center of politics where the message is, "It's transparency, stupid."
我这么说是因为我的主要观点之一就是 那些正确的也可以变成错的 当我们现在试图去发现我们能如何改变现状的时候 当我们试图去发现我们能为民主做些什么的时候 我们必须接受一些模棱两可的东西 因为可能那些我们最喜爱的 将会成为伤我们最深的 如今很流行的观点是 大家喜欢透明 所以积极的公民、新的科技、更透明的立法 被联合起来使用 来恢复大家对政治的信任 你坚信,当你有了新科技和喜欢使用新科技的公民 可以更好地防止政府作假 政府想要偷取什么、杀害谁 都会因此而变得更困难 也许你是对的 但我认为,我们应当清楚 是我们把透明推到政治的中心 而政治总是讨厌透明的
Transparency is not about restoring trust in institutions. Transparency is politics' management of mistrust. We are assuming that our societies are going to be based on mistrust. And by the way, mistrust was always very important for democracy. This is why you have checks and balances. This is why basically you have all this creative mistrust between the representatives and those whom they represent. But when politics is only management of mistrust, then -- I'm very glad that "1984" has been mentioned -- now we're going to have "1984" in reverse. It's not going to be the Big Brother watching you, it's going to be we being the Big Brother watching the political class.
所以透明并没有恢复信任 透明只是在政治上管理”不信任"的一种手段而已 我们这纯粹只是在假设我们的社会将基于“不信任”而被建立起来 顺便说一句,“不信任”对民主来说总是非常重要的 这也是为什么我们有了分权制度 为什么我们有了这些创造出来的“不信任” 有了这些在代表(指政府)和那些他们所代表的人(指大众)之间的“不信任” 但是,当政治仅仅作为管理“不信任”的方式而存在时 那么——我很高兴《1984》提起过这个——(译者注:1984是乔治·奥威尔的小说,是反乌托邦的三大小说之一,主题为反对极权主义) 我们就会退回到“1984” 它不会变成“娱乐老大哥秀”(译者注:Big Brother is watching you是全方位时刻观察游戏者的竞赛节目,语出《1984》) 而我们将变成那个时刻观察别人的Big Brother 我们将始终盯着政治阶层
But is this the idea of a free society? For example, can you imagine that decent, civic, talented people are going to run for office if they really do believe that politics is also about managing mistrust? Are you not afraid with all these technologies that are going to track down any statement the politicians are going to make on certain issues, are you not afraid that this is going to be a very strong signal to politicians to repeat their positions, even the very wrong positions, because consistency is going to be more important than common sense? And the Americans who are in the room, are you not afraid that your presidents are going to govern on the basis of what they said in the primary elections?
这是自由社会的理念么? 例如,请你想象一下 当优秀的公民要参与竞选 如果他们真的认为 政治也是要管理“不信任”的 你就不对那些科技感到害怕么? 这些科技 将会追踪政治家们对特定问题的所有看法 由于对政治家来说,自己观点的一致性要比常识重要 所以即使错了,他们也要坚持重复自己的观点 对于这样不理性的政治,你不感到恐惧么? 此刻坐在这间房子里的美国人 你们难道就不害怕你们的总统 永远按照自己在竞选预选时所说的话那样来管理你们么
I find this extremely important, because democracy is about people changing their views based on rational arguments and discussions. And we can lose this with the very noble idea to keep people accountable for showing the people that we're not going to tolerate politicians the opportunism in politics. So for me this is extremely important. And I do believe that when we're discussing politics these days, probably it makes sense to look also at this type of a story.
我之所以觉得这点极为重要 是因为民主就是要公民不断改变观点 根据理性的讨论来做出选择 但是如果我们放弃了这样(公民要根据理性改变观点)的想法 政治就成了作秀 变成仅仅为了告诉公民们,我们不会 容忍政治家们在政治中的机会主义(译者注:此处的机会主义是指政治家冒险去破坏自己观点的一致性而逃避大众监督) 所以对我来说,这点至关重要 我确实相信,如今当我们谈论政治时 也许想想这样的故事 是很合乎逻辑的
But also don't forget, any unveiling is also veiling. [Regardless of] how transparent our governments want to be, they're going to be selectively transparent. In a small country that could be my country, but could be also your country, they took a decision -- it is a real case story -- that all of the governmental decisions, discussions of the council of ministers, were going to be published on the Internet 24 hours after the council discussions took place. And the public was extremely all for it. So I had the opportunity to talk to the prime minister, why he made this decision. He said, "Listen, this is the best way to keep the mouths of my ministers closed. Because it's going to be very difficult for them to dissent knowing that 24 hours after this is going to be on the public space, and this is in a certain way going to be a political crisis."
但请不要忘了,任何的揭露,同时也是一种掩饰 不管我们的政府多想要公开透明 他们也只是想要有选择地公开透明 在一个小国家里,比如保加利亚 当然也可能是你的国家 他们要求——这是个真实的故事—— 所有的政府决策 所有的内阁讨论 都要在讨论结束一天后 公布在因特网上供大家监督 公众欢呼雀跃 所以当我有机会与首相交流 我就问他为什么决定如此公开 首相说,听着,只有这样 才能让议员们都闭嘴 因为当他们知道24小时之后 所有讨论都要公开 他们就必须尽快取得一致了 否则就会出现政治危机
So when we talk about transparency, when we talk about openness, I really do believe that what we should keep in mind is that what went right is what went wrong. And this is Goethe, who is neither Bulgarian nor a political scientist, some centuries ago he said, "There is a big shadow where there is much light."
所以,当我们讨论透明 当我们讨论公开 我真的认为我们必须牢记 正确的同时就是错误的 歌德,既不是保加利亚人,也不是政治学家 数个世纪前说过 “光线越充足的地方,阴影就越大”
Thank you very much.
谢谢大家
(Applause)
(掌声)