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。