Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • I want to talk about one of the big questions,

    我想要談的是一個大哉問,

  • perhaps the biggest question:

    也許是最大的大哉問:

  • How should we live together?

    我們要如何共同生活?

  • How should a group of people, who perhaps live in a city

    有一群人,也許住在同一個城市中,

  • or in the continent

    或同一塊大陸上,

  • or even the whole globe,

    或一起住在地球上,

  • share and manage common resources?

    要如何分享和管理共同資源?

  • How should we make the rules that govern us?

    我們要如何制定出管理我們的規則?

  • This has always been an important question.

    這一直都是個重要的問題。

  • And today, I think it's even more important than ever

    現今,它的重要性比以往更高,

  • if we want to address rising inequality, climate change, the refugee crisis,

    可協助我們處理越來越嚴重的 不平等、氣候變遷、難民危機,

  • just to name a few major issues.

    以及許多其他的重大議題。

  • It's also a very old question.

    它也是個很古老的問題。

  • Humans have been asking themselves this question

    人類一直自問這個問題,

  • ever since we lived in organized societies.

    自從我們住在有組織的 社會開始就在問了。

  • Like this guy, Plato.

    比如這個傢伙,柏拉圖。

  • He thought we needed benevolent guardians

    他認為我們需要有仁心的守護者,

  • who could make decisions for the greater good of everyone.

    由他們來為每個人的 更大利益做決策。

  • Kings and queens thought they could be those guardians,

    國王和皇后認為他們 能扮演那些守護者,

  • but during various revolutions, they tended to lose their heads.

    但在許多的革命中, 他們通常連頭都保不住。

  • And this guy, you probably know.

    這個傢伙,你們可能知道。

  • Here in Hungary, you lived for many years

    在匈牙利,你會花很多年的時間

  • under one attempt to implement his answer of how to live together.

    在生活中嘗試實踐 他對於如何共同生活的答案。

  • His answer was brutal, cruel and inhumane.

    他的答案很殘忍、殘酷,且沒人性。

  • But a different answer, a different kind of answer,

    但有一個不同的答案, 一種不同的答案,

  • which went more or less into hibernation for 2,000 years,

    已經沉睡了大約兩千年,

  • has had profound recent success.

    這個答案在近期有了很深刻的成功。

  • That answer is, of course, democracy.

    當然,這個答案就是:民主。

  • If we take a quick look at the modern history of democracy,

    如果我們快速回顧一下 民主的現代史,

  • it goes something like this.

    它是像這樣子的。

  • Along here, we're going to put the last 200 years.

    在這條時間橫軸上, 我們標出過去兩百年。

  • Up here, we're going to put the number of democracies.

    縱軸則是民主的數目。

  • And the graph does this,

    而畫出的圖形是這樣的,

  • the important point of which,

    這張圖的重點

  • is this extraordinary increase over time,

    在於隨著時間出現了驚人的成長,

  • which is why the 20th century

    這就是為什麼二十世紀

  • has been called the century of democracy's triumph,

    一直被稱為是民主勝利的世紀,

  • and why, as Francis Fukuyama said in 1989,

    也是為什麼在 1989 年 法蘭西斯福山會說,

  • some believe that we have reached the end of history,

    有些人認為我們已經 到達了歷史的終點,

  • that the question of how to live together has been answered,

    要如何共同生活的問題 已經被解答了,

  • and that answer is liberal democracy.

    答案就是自由民主。

  • Let's explore that assertion, though.

    不過,咱們先來探究一下那主張。

  • I want to find out what you think.

    我想要知道各位怎麼想。

  • So I'm going to ask you two questions,

    所以我要問各位兩個問題,

  • and I want you to put your hands up

    如果同意,

  • if you agree.

    請舉手。

  • The first question is: Who thinks living in a democracy is a good thing?

    第一個問題:有誰認為 生活在民主中是好事?

  • Who likes democracy?

    誰喜歡民主?

  • If you can think of a better system, keep your hands down.

    如果你能想出更好的體制, 請別舉手。

  • Don't worry about those who didn't raise their hands,

    別擔心那些沒舉手的人,

  • I'm sure they mean very well.

    我相信他們沒有惡意。

  • The second question is:

    第二個問題:

  • Who thinks our democracies are functioning well?

    誰認為我們的民主運作得非常好?

  • Come on, there must be one politician in the audience somewhere.

    拜託,在觀眾席上 總會有一個政治人物吧。

  • (Laughter)

    (笑聲)

  • No.

    沒有。

  • But my point is, if liberal democracy is the end of history,

    但我的重點是, 如果自由民主就是歷史的終點,

  • then there's a massive paradox or contradiction here.

    那其實會有很大量的悖論或矛盾。

  • Why is that?

    為什麼?

  • Well, the first question is about the ideal of democracy,

    第一個問題是關於民主的理想,

  • and all these qualities are very appealing.

    所有這些特性都非常吸引人。

  • But in practice, it's not working.

    但在實際上,是行不通的。

  • And that's the second question.

    那就是第二個問題。

  • Our politics is broken, our politicians aren't trusted,

    我們的政治是破損的, 我們的政治人物不被信任,

  • and the political system is distorted by powerful vested interests.

    政治體制被強大的既得利益給扭曲。

  • I think there's two ways to resolve this paradox.

    我想,有兩種方式能解決這種矛盾。

  • One is to give up on democracy; it doesn't work.

    第一,放棄民主;它沒有用。

  • Let's elect a populist demagogue who will ignore democratic norms,

    咱們來選出一位民粹煽動家, 他會忽視民主的規範,

  • trample on liberal freedoms

    賤踏自由,

  • and just get things done.

    來把事情搞定。

  • The other option, I think, is to fix this broken system,

    我想,另一個選擇就是 修復這個破損的體制,

  • to bring the practice closer to the ideal

    讓現實跟理想更接近,

  • and put the diverse voices of society in our parliaments

    將社會的多元聲音 放入我們的國會中,

  • and get them to make considered, evidence-based laws

    讓國會制定出深思熟慮、 以證據為基礎的法律,

  • for the long-term good of everyone.

    為每個人的長遠利益著想。

  • Which brings me to my epiphany,

    這就要談到我的頓悟,

  • my moment of enlightenment.

    我被啟發的時刻。

  • And I want you to get critical.

    我希望各位能做批判。

  • I want you to ask yourselves, "Why wouldn't this work?"

    我希望各位能問問自己: 「為什麼這會行不通?」

  • And then come and talk to me afterwards about it.

    之後再來找我討論。

  • Its technical name is "sortition."

    它的專業名稱叫做「抽簽」。

  • But its common name is "random selection."

    但它的俗名叫做「隨機選擇」。

  • And the idea is actually very simple:

    想法其實非常簡單:

  • we randomly select people and put them in parliament.

    我們隨機選擇一些人, 把他們放到國會裡。

  • (Laughter)

    (笑聲)

  • Let's think about that for a few more minutes, shall we?

    咱們花幾分鐘時間思考一下,好嗎?

  • Imagine we chose you and you and you and you and you down there

    想像我們選中了你、你、 你、你,還有那邊的你,

  • and a bunch of other random people,

    以及一群隨機選中的人,

  • and we put you in our parliament for the next couple of years.

    接下來幾年,把你們放到國會。

  • Of course, we could stratify the selection to make sure that it matched

    當然,我們可以做分層選擇, 來確保選出的人

  • the socioeconomic and demographic profile of the country

    符合這個國家的社會經濟 和人口統計特性,

  • and was a truly representative sample of people.

    確保這個樣本真的有代表性。

  • Fifty percent of them would be women.

    這群人當中有 50% 會是女性。

  • Many of them would be young, some would be old,

    當中許多人是年輕人,有一些老人,

  • a few would be rich,

    有少數的富人,

  • but most of them would be ordinary people like you and me.

    但大部分會是和你我一樣的凡人。

  • This would be a microcosm of society.

    這會是社會的縮影。

  • And this microcosm would simulate how we would all think,

    這個縮影會模擬我們所有人的想法,

  • if we had the time, the information

    前提是我們有時間、有資訊,

  • and a good process to come to the moral crux of political decisions.

    且有一個好的流程, 針對政治決策能達到道德的癥結。

  • And although you may not be in that group,

    雖然你可能不是那群人其中之一,

  • someone of your age, someone of your gender,

    有和你年齡相同的人、 和你性別相同的人、

  • someone from your location and someone with your background

    和你所在相同的人、 和你背景相同的人,

  • would be in that room.

    在那個房間中。

  • The decisions made by these people would build on the wisdom of crowds.

    這些人所做的決策 會以群眾的智慧為基礎。

  • They would become more than the sum of their parts.

    他們會產生一加一大於二的效果。

  • They would become critical thinkers

    他們會成為批判性思想家,

  • with access to experts,

    有辦法接觸到專家,

  • who would be on tap but not on top.

    有需要時專家都可以支援, 但他們不主導。

  • And they could prove that diversity can trump ability

    他們會證明在面臨廣大的 社會疑問和問題時,

  • when confronting the wide array of societal questions and problems.

    多樣性能夠勝過能力。

  • It would not be government by public opinion poll.

    這個政府不是民意投票選出的。

  • It would not be government by referendum.

    這個政府不是公投選出來的。

  • These informed, deliberating people would move beyond public opinion

    這些消息靈通、深思熟慮的人, 能夠跳脫民意,

  • to the making of public judgments.

    做出公共判斷。

  • However, there would be one major side effect:

    然而,會有一項很重大的副作用:

  • if we replaced elections with sortition

    如果我們用抽簽取代選舉,

  • and made our parliament truly representative of society,

    並讓國會成員真正能夠代表社會,

  • it would mean the end of politicians.

    那就意味著政治人物沒戲唱了。

  • And I'm sure we'd all be pretty sad to see that.

    我相信我們都會對此感到很傷心。

  • (Laughter)

    (笑聲)

  • Very interestingly,

    非常有趣的是,

  • random selection was a key part of how democracy was done

    在古代雅典,隨機選擇就是

  • in ancient Athens.

    實行民主的關鍵。

  • This machine, this device, is called a kleroteria.

    這個機器,這種策略, 叫做「抽籤箱(kleroteria)」。

  • It's an ancient Athenian random-selection device.

    它是古雅典的一種隨機選擇策略。

  • The ancient Athenians randomly selected citizens

    古雅典人會隨機選擇公民,

  • to fill the vast majority of their political posts.

    來擔任大部分的政治職務。

  • They knew that elections were aristocratic devices.

    他們知道選舉是貴族式的手段。

  • They knew that career politicians were a thing to be avoided.

    他們知道,應該要 避免職業政治家的出現。

  • And I think we know these things as well.

    我想我們都非常清楚這些。

  • But more interesting than the ancient use of random selection

    但,還有比古時使用 隨機選擇更有趣的事,

  • is its modern resurgence.

    就是這個方式在現代再度復活。

  • The rediscovery of the legitimacy of random selection in politics

    近期,重新發現在政治上 採用隨機選擇的合法性

  • has become so common lately,

    變得非常常見,

  • that there's simply too many examples to talk about.

    常見到太多例子無法一一列舉。

  • Of course, I'm very aware that it's going to be difficult

    當然,我非常清楚,要在國會中

  • to institute this in our parliaments.

    進行這個方式是非常困難的。

  • Try this -- say to your friend,

    試試看對你的朋友說:

  • "I think we should populate our parliament with randomly selected people."

    「我認為我們應該安排 隨機選中的人入主國會。」

  • "Are you joking?

    「你在開玩笑嗎?

  • What if my neighbor gets chosen?

    如果我鄰居被選上怎麼辦?

  • The fool can't even separate his recycling."

    那個蠢蛋甚至不會 做資源回收分類。」

  • But the perhaps surprising but overwhelming and compelling evidence

    但所有這些現代的例子,

  • from all these modern examples

    都有驚人但具壓倒性說服力的證據,

  • is that it does work.

    證明它確實行得通。

  • If you give people responsibility, they act responsibly.

    如果你給人責任, 他們就會負責地行事。

  • Don't get me wrong -- it's not a panacea.

    別誤會我,它不是萬靈丹。

  • The question is not: Would this be perfect?

    問題並不是:這會很完美嗎?

  • Of course not.

    當然不完美。

  • People are fallibly human,

    人本來就很容易犯錯,

  • and distorting influences will continue to exist.

    失真扭曲的影響也將會一直存在。

  • The question is: Would it be better?

    問題是:它會比較好嗎?

  • And the answer to that question, to me at least, is obviously yes.

    這個問題的答案,至少對我而言, 很明顯是「會」。

  • Which gets us back to our original question:

    這就帶我們回到了原本的問題:

  • How should we live together?

    我們要如何生活在一起?

  • And now we have an answer:

    現在我們有了一個答案:

  • with a parliament that uses sortition.

    用抽簽制的國會。

  • But how would we get from here to there?

    但我們要如何從這裡到達那裡?

  • How could we fix our broken system

    我們要如何修好破損的體制,

  • and remake democracy for the 21st century?

    並為二十一世紀重製民主?

  • Well, there are several things that we can do,

    嗯,我們能做的事有幾件,

  • and that are, in fact, happening right now.

    且事實上,這些事已經在進行了。

  • We can experiment with sortition.

    我們可以針對抽簽做實驗。

  • We can introduce it to schools and workplaces and other institutions,

    我們可以將它導入學校、 工作場所,以及其他機構,

  • like Democracy In Practice is doing in Bolivia.

    就像實踐民主組織 (Democracy In Practice)

  • We can hold policy juries and citizens' assemblies,

    在玻利維亞所做的一樣。