The conventional wisdom about our world today is that this is a time of terrible decline. And that's not surprising, given the bad news all around us, from ISIS to inequality, political dysfunction, climate change, Brexit, and on and on. But here's the thing, and this may sound a little weird. I actually don't buy this gloomy narrative, and I don't think you should either. Look, it's not that I don't see the problems. I read the same headlines that you do. What I dispute is the conclusion that so many people draw from them, namely that we're all screwed because the problems are unsolvable and our governments are useless.
Konvencionalna mudrost o našem svetu danas je da je ovo vreme užasnog propadanja. To ne iznenađuje, s obzirom na sve loše vesti oko nas, od Islamske države do nejednakosti, političke disfunkcionalnosti, klimatskih promena, Bregzita i tako dalje. Međutim, znate šta, a ovo može zvučati pomalo čudno. Ja se zapravo ne slažem sa ovom sumornom pričom, a mislim da ni vi ne bi trebalo. Vidite, nije da ne vidim probleme. Čitam iste naslove kao i vi. Ono što osporavam jeste zaključak koji toliko ljudi izvlači iz njih, naime, da smo svi gotovi jer su problemi nerešivi i naše vlade su beskorisne.
Now, why do I say this? It's not like I'm particularly optimistic by nature. But something about the media's constant doom-mongering with its fixation on problems and not on answers has always really bugged me.
Zašto to kažem? Ne može se reći da sam naročito optimističan po prirodi. Međutim, nešto vezano za stalno medijsko raspirivanje propasti sa svojom fiksiranošću na problemima, a ne na odgovorima, oduvek mi je zaista smetalo.
So a few years ago I decided, well, I'm a journalist, I should see if I can do any better by going around the world and actually asking folks if and how they've tackled their big economic and political challenges. And what I found astonished me. It turns out that there are remarkable signs of progress out there, often in the most unexpected places, and they've convinced me that our great global challenges may not be so unsolvable after all. Not only are there theoretical fixes; those fixes have been tried. They've worked. And they offer hope for the rest of us.
Tako sam pre nekoliko godina odlučio: „Pa, ja sam novinar. Treba da vidim umem li bolje tako što ću ići po svetu i zapravo pitati ljude da li su se i kako bavili svojim velikim ekonomskim i političkim izazovima. Ono što sam otkrio me je zapanjilo. Ispostavilo se da postoje izuzetni znaci napretka, često na najneočekivanijim mestima, i ubedili su me da naši veliki globalni izazovi možda ipak nisu tako nerešivi. Ne samo da postoje teoretska rešenja, već su ona i isprobana. Uspela su i nude nadu za nas ostale.
I'm going to show you what I mean by telling you about how three of the countries I visited -- Canada, Indonesia and Mexico -- overcame three supposedly impossible problems. Their stories matter because they contain tools the rest of us can use, and not just for those particular problems, but for many others, too.
Pokazaću vam šta pod tim mislim tako što ću vam ispričati o tome kako su tri zemlje koje sam posetio - Kanada, Indonezija i Meksiko - prebrodile tri navodno nemoguća problema. Njihove priče su značajne jer sadrže sredstva koje ostatak nas može koristiti, i to ne samo za te određene probleme, već i za mnogo drugih.
When most people think about my homeland, Canada, today, if they think about Canada at all, they think cold, they think boring, they think polite. They think we say "sorry" too much in our funny accents. And that's all true.
Kada većina ljudi danas pomisli na moju domovinu, današnju Kanadu, ako uopšte pomišljaju na Kanadu, pomisle: hladno, dosadno, učtivo. Misle da previše govorimo „izvinite“ našim smešnim naglaskom. To je sve tačno.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Sorry.
Izvinite.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
But Canada's also important because of its triumph over a problem currently tearing many other countries apart: immigration. Consider, Canada today is among the world's most welcoming nations, even compared to other immigration-friendly countries. Its per capita immigration rate is four times higher than France's, and its percentage of foreign-born residents is double that of Sweden. Meanwhile, Canada admitted 10 times more Syrian refugees in the last year than did the United States.
Međutim, Kanada je takođe važna zbog svoje pobede nad problemom koji trenutno razara mnoge druge zemlje, imigracijom. Uzmite u obzir da je Kanada danas među najgostoljubivijim nacijama sveta, čak i u poređenju sa drugim zemljama prijateljski naklonjenih imigraciji. Njena stopa imigracije po glavi stanovnika je četiri puta veća od stope Francuske, a njen procenat stanovnika rođenih u inostranstvu je dvostruko veći od tog procenta u Švedskoj. U međuvremenu, Kanada je primila deset puta više sirijskih izbeglica tokom prošle godine nego Sjedinjene Države.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
And now Canada is taking even more. And yet, if you ask Canadians what makes them proudest of their country, they rank "multiculturalism," a dirty word in most places, second, ahead of hockey. Hockey.
A sada ih Kanada još više prihvata. Ipak, ako upitate Kanađane šta ih najviše čini ponosnim na svoju zemlju, rangiraju „multikulturalizam“, što je okaljana reč na većini mesta, na drugom mestu, ispred hokeja. Hokej.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
In other words, at a time when other countries are now frantically building new barriers to keep foreigners out, Canadians want even more of them in.
Drugim rečima, u vreme kada druge zemlje sada mahnito grade nove barijere da bi zadržale strance podalje, Kanađani žele još više njih.
Now, here's the really interesting part. Canada wasn't always like this. Until the mid-1960s, Canada followed an explicitly racist immigration policy. They called it "White Canada," and as you can see, they were not just talking about the snow.
Evo zaista zanimljivog dela. Kanada nije uvek bila takva. Do sredine 1960-ih, Kanada je sledila otvoreno rasističku imigracionu politiku. Zvali su je „Bela Kanada“, a kao što možete videti, nisu samo govorili o snegu.
So how did that Canada become today's Canada? Well, despite what my mom in Ontario will tell you, the answer had nothing to do with virtue. Canadians are not inherently better than anyone else. The real explanation involves the man who became Canada's leader in 1968, Pierre Trudeau, who is also the father of the current prime minister.
Dakle, kako je ta Kanada postala današnja Kanada? Pa, uprkos ono što će vam reći moja mama u Ontariju, odgovor nema nikakve veze sa vrlinom. Kanađani nisu prirodno bolji ni od koga drugog. Pravo objašnjenje obuhvata čoveka koji je postao kanadski vođa 1968. godine, Pjera Trudoa, koji je takođe otac sadašnjeg premijera.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
The thing to know about that first Trudeau is that he was very different from Canada's previous leaders. He was a French speaker in a country long-dominated by its English elite. He was an intellectual. He was even kind of groovy. I mean, seriously, the guy did yoga. He hung out with the Beatles.
Ono što treba znati o tom prvom Trudou je da je bio veoma drugačiji u odnosu na prethodne vođe Kanade. Govorio je francuskim jezikom u zemlji kojom je dugo dominirala engleska elita. Bio je intelektualac. Nekako je bio strava. Mislim, ozbiljno, tip je vežbao jogu. Družio se sa Bitlsima.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
And like all hipsters, he could be infuriating at times. But he nevertheless pulled off one of the most progressive transformations any country has ever seen. His formula, I've learned, involved two parts. First, Canada threw out its old race-based immigration rules, and it replaced them with new color-blind ones that emphasized education, experience and language skills instead. And what that did was greatly increase the odds that newcomers would contribute to the economy. Then part two, Trudeau created the world's first policy of official multiculturalism to promote integration and the idea that diversity was the key to Canada's identity.
Kao i svi hipsteri, umeo je da povremeno razbesni druge. Međutim, i pored toga mu je uspeo jedan od najnaprednijih preobražaja koji je bilo koja zemlja ikada videla. Njegova formula je, kako sam saznao, obuhvatala dva dela. Najpre, Kanada je odbacila stara imigraciona pravila bazirana na rasi i zamenila ih novim koja nisu razlikovala boje i koja su umesto toga naglašavala obrazovanje, iskustvo i jezičke veštine. To je znatno povećalo izglede da će pridošlice doprineti ekonomiji. Zatim, drugi deo je da je Trudo stvorio prvu svetsku politiku zvaničnog multikulturalizma da bi promovisao integraciju i ideju da je raznovrsnost ključ identiteta Kanade.
Now, in the years that followed, Ottawa kept pushing this message, but at the same time, ordinary Canadians soon started to see the economic, the material benefits of multiculturalism all around them. And these two influences soon combined to create the passionately open-minded Canada of today.
Tokom godina koje su usledile, Otava je nastavljala da nameće tu poruku, ali su istovremeno obični Kanađani uskoro počeli da uviđaju ekonomske, materijalne prednosti multikulturalizma svuda oko sebe. Ta dva uticaja su se uskoro udružila da bi stvorila današnju Kanadu sa strastveno otvorenim umom.
Let's now turn to another country and an even tougher problem, Islamic extremism. In 1998, the people of Indonesia took to the streets and overthrew their longtime dictator, Suharto. It was an amazing moment, but it was also a scary one. With 250 million people, Indonesia is the largest Muslim-majority country on Earth. It's also hot, huge and unruly, made up of 17,000 islands, where people speak close to a thousand languages. Now, Suharto had been a dictator, and a nasty one. But he'd also been a pretty effective tyrant, and he'd always been careful to keep religion out of politics. So experts feared that without him keeping a lid on things, the country would explode, or religious extremists would take over and turn Indonesia into a tropical version of Iran. And that's just what seemed to happen at first. In the country's first free elections, in 1999, Islamist parties scored 36 percent of the vote, and the islands burned as riots and terror attacks killed thousands.
Hajde da se sada pozabavimo drugom zemljom i još težim problemom, islamskim ekstremizmom. Godine 1998, narod Indonezije izašao je na ulice i zbacio dugogodišnjeg diktatora Suhartoa. Bio je to neverovatan trenutak, ali takođe i zastrašujuć. Sa 250 miliona ljudi, Indonezija je najveća zemlja na planeti sa većinskim muslimanskim stanovništvom. Takođe je topla, ogromna i nemirna, sačinjena od 17 000 ostrva, gde ljudi govore blizu hiljadu jezika. Suharto je bio diktator i to grozan. Međutim, takođe je bio prilično efikasan tiranin i uvek je pazio da drži religiju izvan politike. Stoga su se stručnjaci bojali da će, bez njegove kontrole, zemlja eksplodirati, ili bi verski ekstremisti preuzeli stvar i pretvorili Indoneziju u tropsku verziju Irana. To je upravo ono što je isprva delovalo da se dešava. Na prvim slobodnim izborima u zemlji, 1999. godine, islamističke stranke su dobile 36 posto glasova, a ostrva su gorela dok su neredi i teroristički napadi ubili hiljade ljudi.
Since then, however, Indonesia has taken a surprising turn. While ordinary folks have grown more pious on a personal level -- I saw a lot more headscarves on a recent visit than I would have a decade ago -- the country's politics have moved in the opposite direction. Indonesia is now a pretty decent democracy. And yet, its Islamist parties have steadily lost support, from a high of about 38 percent in 2004 down to 25 percent in 2014. As for terrorism, it's now extremely rare. And while a few Indonesians have recently joined ISIS, their number is tiny, far fewer in per capita terms than the number of Belgians. Try to think of one other Muslim-majority country that can say all those same things.
Međutim, od tada je Indonezija napravila iznenađujuć preokret. Dok su obični ljudi postali pobožniji na ličnom nivou - video sam mnogo više marama na glavi pri nedavnoj poseti nego što bih video deceniju ranije - politika zemlje je krenula u suprotnom pravcu. Indonezija je sada prilično pristojna demokratija. Štaviše, njene islamističke stranke su postepeno gubile podršku, od visokih 38 posto 2004. godine do 25 posto 2014. godine. Što se tiče terorizma, sada je izuzetno redak. Iako se nekoliko Indonežana nedavno pridružilo ISIS-u, njihov broj je mali, daleko manji prema glavi stanovnika nego broj Belgijanaca. Pokušajte da se prisetite druge zemlje sa većinom muslimana koja može reći to isto.
In 2014, I went to Indonesia to ask its current president, a soft-spoken technocrat named Joko Widodo, "Why is Indonesia thriving when so many other Muslim states are dying?"
Godine 2014, otišao sam u Indoneziju da pitam njenog trenutnog predsednika, tihog tehnokratu po imenu Đoko Vidodo: „Zašto Indonezija napreduje kada toliko drugih muslimanskih zemalja izumire?“
"Well, what we realized," he told me, "is that to deal with extremism, we needed to deal with inequality first."
„Pa, ono što smo shvatili“, rekao mi je, „jeste da, da bismo se izborili sa ekstremizmom,
See, Indonesia's religious parties, like similar parties elsewhere,
moramo se najpre izboriti sa nejednakošću.“
had tended to focus on things like reducing poverty and cutting corruption. So that's what Joko and his predecessors did too, thereby stealing the Islamists' thunder. They also cracked down hard on terrorism, but Indonesia's democrats have learned a key lesson from the dark years of dictatorship, namely that repression only creates more extremism. So they waged their war with extraordinary delicacy. They used the police instead of the army. They only detained suspects if they had enough evidence. They held public trials. They even sent liberal imams into the jails to persuade the jihadists that terror is un-Islamic. And all of this paid off in spectacular fashion, creating the kind of country that was unimaginable 20 years ago.
Vidite, verske stranke Indonezije, kao i slične stranke bilo gde drugde, bile su sklone da se fokusiraju na stvari kao što je smanjenje siromaštva i ukidanje korupcije. Đoko i njegovi prethodnici su to takođe radili, čime su islamistima ukrali štos. Takođe su preduzmali oštre mere protiv terorizma, ali su indonezijske demokrate naučile ključnu lekciju iz mračnih godina diktature, naime, da potiskivanje samo stvara više ekstremizma. Tako su vodili svoj rat sa izuzetnom delikatnošću. Koristili su policiju umesto vojske. Zadržavali su osumnjičene samo ako su imali dovoljno dokaza. Održavali su javna suđenja. Čak su slali liberalne imame u zatvor da bi ubedili džihadiste da teror nije u skladu sa islamom. Sve se to isplatilo na spektakularan način, stvorivši takvu vrstu zemlje koja je bila nezamisliva pre 20 godina.
So at this point, my optimism should, I hope, be starting to make a bit more sense. Neither immigration nor Islamic extremism are impossible to deal with. Join me now on one last trip, this time to Mexico. Now, of our three stories, this one probably surprised me the most, since as you all know, the country is still struggling with so many problems. And yet, a few years ago, Mexico did something that many other countries from France to India to the United States can still only dream of. It shattered the political paralysis that had gripped it for years.
U ovom trenutku bi moj optimizam trebalo da, nadam se, počne da ima malo više smisla. Nije nemoguće izboriti se sa imigracijom niti sa islamskim ekstremizmom. Sada mi se pridružite na poslednjem putovanju, ovoga puta do Meksika. Od naše tri priče, ova me je verovatno najviše iznenadila, jer kao što svi znate, zemlja se još bori sa toliko mnogo problema. Ipak, pre nekoliko godina, Meksiko je uradio nešto što mnoge druge zemlje, od Francuske i Indije do Sjedinjenih Država, mogu za sada samo da sanjaju. Razbio je političku paralizu koja ga je godinama prikovala.
To understand how, we need to rewind to the year 2000, when Mexico finally became a democracy. Rather than use their new freedoms to fight for reform, Mexico's politicians used them to fight one another. Congress deadlocked, and the country's problems -- drugs, poverty, crime, corruption -- spun out of control. Things got so bad that in 2008, the Pentagon warned that Mexico risked collapse.
Da bismo razumeli kako, moramo premotati na 2000. godinu, kada je Meksiko konačno postao demokratija. Umesto da koriste svoje nove slobode da bi se borili za reformu, meksički političari su ih koristili da se bore međusobno. Kongres u zastoju i problemi u zemlji - droga, siromaštvo, kriminal, korupcija - otrgli su se kontroli. Postalo je tako loše da je 2008. godine Pentagon upozorio da je Meksiko pod rizikom od propasti.
Then in 2012, this guy named Enrique Peña Nieto somehow got himself elected president. Now, this Peña hardly inspired much confidence at first. Sure, he was handsome, but he came from Mexico's corrupt old ruling party, the PRI, and he was a notorious womanizer. In fact, he seemed like such a pretty boy lightweight that women called him "bombón," sweetie, at campaign rallies. And yet this same bombón soon surprised everyone by hammering out a truce between the country's three warring political parties. And over the next 18 months, they together passed an incredibly comprehensive set of reforms. They busted open Mexico's smothering monopolies. They liberalized its rusting energy sector. They restructured its failing schools, and much more. To appreciate the scale of this accomplishment, try to imagine the US Congress passing immigration reform, campaign finance reform and banking reform. Now, try to imagine Congress doing it all at the same time. That's what Mexico did.
Zatim je 2012. godine tip po imenu Enrike Penja Nijeto nekako uspeo da bude izabran za predsednika. Taj Penja jedva da je ulivao mnogo poverenja u početku. Svakako, bio je zgodan, ali je došao iz stare korumpirane rukovodeće meksičke stranke, PRI, i bio je ozloglašeni ženskaroš. Zapravo, delovao je kao nevažni lepotan kojeg su žene zvale „bombon“, slatkiš, na skupovima kampanje. Ipak, taj isti „bombon“ je uskoro sve iznenadio kada je zakucao primirje između tri zaraćene političke stranke u zemlji. Tokom narednih 18 meseci, zajedno su doneli izuzetno sveobuhvatan skup reformi. Rasturili su pljačkaške monopole Meksika. Liberalizovali su njegov zarđali energetski sektor. Restrukturirali su njegove propale škole i još mnogo toga. Da biste cenili razmere ovog postignuća, pokušajte da zamislite da Kongres SAD-a donese imigracionu reformu, reformu finansiranja kampanja i reformu bankarstva. Sada pokušajte da zamislite da Kongres sve to uradi istovremeno. To je ono što je Meksiko uradio.
Not long ago, I met with Peña and asked how he managed it all. The President flashed me his famous twinkly smile --
Nedavno sam se sastao sa Penjom i pitao ga kako je sve to uspeo. Predsednik mi je uputio njegov čuveni blještavi osmeh -
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
and told me that the short answer was "compromiso," compromise. Of course, I pushed him for details, and the long answer that came out was essentially "compromise, compromise and more compromise." See, Peña knew that he needed to build trust early, so he started talking to the opposition just days after his election. To ward off pressure from special interests, he kept their meetings small and secret, and many of the participants later told me that it was this intimacy, plus a lot of shared tequila, that helped build confidence. So did the fact that all decisions had to be unanimous, and that Peña even agreed to pass some of the other party's priorities before his own. As Santiago Creel, an opposition senator, put it to me, "Look, I'm not saying that I'm special or that anyone is special, but that group, that was special." The proof? When Peña was sworn in, the pact held, and Mexico moved forward for the first time in years. Bueno.
i rekao mi je da je odgovor na to ukratko - kompromis. Naravno, navaljivao sam da mi da detalje, a duži odgovor koji je proizašao u suštini je glasio „kompromis, kompromis i još kompromisa“. Vidite, Penja je znao da treba da rano izgradi poverenje, pa je počeo da razgovara sa opozicijom samo nekoliko dana nakon njegovog odabira. Da bi izbegao pritisak interesnih grupa, sastanke je održavao kao male i u tajnosti, a mnogi učesnici su mi kasnije rekli da je ta intimnost, plus dosta tekile koju su podelili, pomogla da se izgradi poverenje. Takođe je pomogla činjenica da su sve odluke morale biti jednoglasne i da se Penja čak složio da propusti prioritete druge stranke ispred sopstvenih. Kako mi je to izneo Santjago Kril, senator opozicije: „Vidi, ne kažem da sam ja poseban ili da je bilo ko poseban, ali ta grupa, to je bilo posebno.“ Dokaz? Kada je Pena položio zakletvu, pakt se održao, a Meksiko je napredovao po prvi put nakon mnogo godina. Dobro.
So now we've seen how these three countries overcame three of their great challenges. And that's very nice for them, right? But what good does it do the rest of us?
Sada smo videli kako su ove tri zemlje prebrodile tri svoja najveća izazova. To je baš fino za njih, zar ne? Međutim, kakve koristi od toga ima ostatak nas?
Well, in the course of studying these and a bunch of other success stories, like the way Rwanda pulled itself back together after civil war or Brazil has reduced inequality, or South Korea has kept its economy growing faster and for longer than any other country on Earth, I've noticed a few common threads.
Pa, tokom izučavanja ovih i gomile drugih uspešnih priča, kao što je način na koji se Ruanda povratila posle građanskog rata ili na koji je Brazil umanjio nejednakost, ili kako je Južna Koreja održala ekonomiju u porastu brže i duže od bilo koje države na planeti, primetio sam nekoliko zajedničkih tema.
Now, before describing them, I need to add a caveat. I realize, of course, that all countries are unique. So you can't simply take what worked in one, port it to another and expect it to work there too. Nor do specific solutions work forever. You've got to adapt them as circumstances change.
Pre nego što ih opišem, moram da dodam jednu primedbu. Shvatam, naravno, da su sve zemlje jedinstvene. Stoga ne možete prosto uzeti ono što je uspelo u jednoj, preneti to na drugu i očekivati da to i tamo funkcioniše, niti će određena rešenja uspevati večno. Morate ih prilagoditi dok se okolnosti menjaju.
That said, by stripping these stories to their essence, you absolutely can distill a few common tools for problem-solving that will work in other countries and in boardrooms and in all sorts of other contexts, too.
Međutim, ako ogolite ove priče do njihove suštine, apsolutno možete izvući nekoliko zajedničkih načina za rešavanje problema koje će delovati u drugim zemljama, u konferencijskim salama i u raznim drugim kontekstima, takođe.
Number one, embrace the extreme. In all the stories we've just looked at, salvation came at a moment of existential peril. And that was no coincidence. Take Canada: when Trudeau took office, he faced two looming dangers. First, though his vast, underpopulated country badly needed more bodies, its preferred source for white workers, Europe, had just stopped exporting them as it finally recovered from World War II. The other problem was that Canada's long cold war between its French and its English communities had just become a hot one. Quebec was threatening to secede, and Canadians were actually killing other Canadians over politics. Now, countries face crises all the time. Right? That's nothing special. But Trudeau's genius was to realize that Canada's crisis had swept away all the hurdles that usually block reform. Canada had to open up. It had no choice. And it had to rethink its identity. Again, it had no choice. And that gave Trudeau a once-in-a-generation opportunity to break the old rules and write new ones. And like all our other heroes, he was smart enough to seize it.
Broj jedan, prigrlite krajnost. U svim pričama koje smo upravo razmotrili, spas je došao u trenutku egzistencijalne opasnosti. To nije bila slučajnost. Uzmite Kanadu - kada je Trudo stupio na funkciju, suočio se sa dve opasnosti koje su se nadvijale. Prvo, iako je njegovoj prostranoj, nedovoljno nastanjenoj zemlji jako bilo potrebno više ljudi, njen najpoželjniji izvor belih radnika, Evropa, prestala je da ih izvozi kako se konačno oporavila od Drugog svetskog rata. Drugi problem je bio što je kanadski dugi hladni rat između njenih francuskih i engleskih zajednica upravo postao uzavreo. Kvebek je pretio da se odvoji i Kanađani su zapravo ubijali druge Kanađane zbog politike. Sad, zemlje se stalno suočavaju sa krizama, zar ne? To nije ništa posebno. Ipak, Trudoov genije je shvatio da je kanadska kriza uklonila sve prepreke koje obično blokiraju reforme. Kanada je morala da se otvori. Nije imala izbora. Morala je da iznova osmisli svoj identitet. Još jednom, nije imala izbora. To je Trudou dalo priliku koja dolazi jednom u generaciji da sruši stara pravila i napiše nova. Kao i svi drugi naši heroji, bio je dovoljno pametan da je zgrabi.
Number two, there's power in promiscuous thinking. Another striking similarity among good problem-solvers is that they're all pragmatists. They'll steal the best answers from wherever they find them, and they don't let details like party or ideology or sentimentality get in their way. As I mentioned earlier, Indonesia's democrats were clever enough to steal many of the Islamists' best campaign promises for themselves. They even invited some of the radicals into their governing coalition. Now, that horrified a lot of secular Indonesians. But by forcing the radicals to actually help govern, it quickly exposed the fact that they weren't any good at the job, and it got them mixed up in all of the grubby compromises and petty humiliations that are part of everyday politics. And that hurt their image so badly that they've never recovered.
Broj dva, postoji moć u promiskuitetnom razmišljanju. Druga upadljiva sličnost između onih koji dobro rešavaju probleme je da su svi pragmatisti. Ukrašće najbolje odgovore kod koga god da ih pronađu i ne dozvoljavaju da se ispreče detalji poput stranke, ideologije ili sentimentalnosti. Kao što sam pomenuo ranije, demokrate u Indoneziji su bile dovoljno pametne da ukradu za sebe mnoga od islamističkih najboljih kampanjskih obećanja. Čak su pozvali neke od radikala u svoju vladajuću koaliciju. To je užasnulo mnogo sekularnih Indonežana. Međutim, primoravanje radikala da zapravo pomognu u vlasti ubrzo je razotkrilo činjenicu da uopšte nisu dobri za taj posao i to ih je umešalo u sve prljave kompromise i sitna poniženja koja su deo svakodnevne politike. To je toliko naškodilo njihovom imidžu da se nikada nisu oporavili.
Number three, please all of the people some of the time. I know I just mentioned how crises can grant leaders extraordinary freedoms. And that's true, but problem-solving often requires more than just boldness. It takes showing restraint, too, just when that's the last thing you want to do. Take Trudeau: when he took office, he could easily have put his core constituency, that is Canada's French community, first. He could have pleased some of the people all of the time. And Peña could have used his power to keep attacking the opposition, as was traditional in Mexico. Yet he chose to embrace his enemies instead, while forcing his own party to compromise. And Trudeau pushed everyone to stop thinking in tribal terms and to see multiculturalism, not language and not skin color, as what made them quintessentially Canadian. Nobody got everything they wanted, but everyone got just enough that the bargains held.
Broj tri, ponekad udovoljite svim ljudima. Znam da sam pomenuo kako kriza može vođama pružiti izuzetnu slobodu. To je tačno, ali rešavanje problema često zahteva više od same smelosti. Takođe je potrebno pokazati uzdržanost, baš kada je to poslednje što biste da uradite. Uzmite Trudoa - kada je preuzeo dužnost, mogao lako da postavi svoje osnovno biračko telo, a to je francuska kanadska zajednica, na prvo mesto. Mogao je da neke ljude učini zadovoljnim za stalno. Penja je mogao da iskoristi svoju moć da nastavi da napada opoziciju, kao što je bilo po običaju u Meksiku. Ipak, odabrao je da umesto toga prigrli svoje neprijatelje, pri tome primoravajući svoju stranku na kompromis. A Trudo je pritisnuo sve da prestanu da razmišljaju u plemenskim okvirima i da vide multikulturalizam, a ne jezik ili boju kože, kao nešto što ih u suštini čini Kanađanima. Niko nije dobio sve što je hteo, ali je svako dobio dovoljno da se pogodba održi.
So at this point you may be thinking, "OK, Tepperman, if the fixes really are out there like you keep insisting, then why aren't more countries already using them?" It's not like they require special powers to pull off. I mean, none of the leaders we've just looked at were superheroes. They didn't accomplish anything on their own, and they all had plenty of flaws. Take Indonesia's first democratic president, Abdurrahman Wahid. This man was so powerfully uncharismatic that he once fell asleep in the middle of his own speech.
Možda razmišljate u ovom trenutku: „U redu, Tepermane, ako rešenja zaista postoje kao što uporno insistiraš, zašto ih onda već ne koristi više zemalja? Ne može se reći da su im potrebne specijalne moći da im uspe. Mislim, nijedan od vođa koje smo upravo razmotrili nije superheroj. Nisu ništa postigli samostalno i imali su dosta mana. Uzmite prvog demokratskog predsednika Indonezije, Abdurahmana Vahida. Taj čovek je bio toliko izazito neharizmatičan da je jednom zaspao usred sopstvenog govora.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
True story.
Istinita priča.
So what this tells us is that the real obstacle is not ability, and it's not circumstances. It's something much simpler. Making big changes involves taking big risks, and taking big risks is scary. Overcoming that fear requires guts, and as you all know, gutsy politicians are painfully rare. But that doesn't mean we voters can't demand courage from our political leaders. I mean, that's why we put them in office in the first place. And given the state of the world today, there's really no other option.
Ovo nam govori da prava prepreka nije sposobnost, a nisu ni okolnosti. U pitanju je nešto mnogo jednostavnije. Stvaranje velikih promena obuhvata preuzimanje velikih rizika, a preuzimanje velikih rizika je zastrašujuće. Prevazilaženje tog straha zahteva hrabrost, a kao što znate, hrabri političari su bolno retki. Ipak, to ne znači da mi, glasači, ne možemo zahtevati hrabrost od naših političkih vođa. Mislim, zato smo ih pre svega i postavili na funkcije. Imajući u vidu stanje sveta danas, zaista ne postoji druga opcija.
The answers are out there, but now it's up to us to elect more women and men brave enough to find them, to steal them and to make them work.
Odgovori postoje, ali sada je na nama da izaberemo više žena i muškaraca koji su dovoljno hrabri da ih nađu, da ih ukradu i da učine da deluju.
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)