First there was one democracy —then 10, then 20.

一開始世界只有一個民主國家，接著十個、二十個出現了。

There were some setbacks, but people really seemed to want democracy.

中間也有過起伏跌宕，但整體看來人們是渴望民主的。

And eventually, most of them got one.

最後，幾乎所有的國家都落實了民主。

But 15 years ago, democracy stopped spreading, and it might not pick back up again.

但就在十五年前，民主停止了上升的趨勢，而且可能再也回不去從前的光景。

Even some places that seemed safely democratic turned out not to be.

甚至有些看起來安全變為民主的地方也並非如此。

And people are even getting worried about established democracies like the U.S.

有些人們甚至開始擔心像是美國那樣已建立的民主體制。

So is there something wrong with democracy?

所以民主真的是哪裡出錯了嗎？

I'm Max Fisher.　

我是 Max Fisher。

I'm Amanda Taub.

我是 Amanda Taub。

We're journalists at The New York Times.

我們是紐約時報的記者。

And this is The Interpreter.

歡迎收看Interpreter。

We can measure democracy kind of like a health score.

我們可以測量民主，就像我們可以測量健康指數一樣。

Over here, there are full democracies like the United States (US).

在這邊，有完全民主的國家，像美國。

And over there are dictatorships like North Korea.

而在那一邊則有獨裁主義的北韓。

So the further left a country is, the less democratic it is, and the further right a country, the more democratic it is.

所以越左的國家，就越不民主，而越靠右的國家，就越民主。

Now let's see what happens when we add how rich the countries are.

現在讓我們來看看，放上國家富裕程度的資訊後會發生什麼。

The higher on the graph, the richer the country, and the lower on the graph, the poorer the country.

在越上面的國家越富裕，而越靠近下方的國家則越貧窮。

Generally, countries have moved up and right.

總體而言，國家都在向上方和右方移動。

As they got richer, they became more democratic.

當他們越富裕，他們也隨之變得更民主。

You've got your Englands, your Latvias, your Indonesias.

看看英國、拉脫維亞、印尼。

You see a pattern?

你看出它們的規律了嗎？

Countries getting richer.

許多國家變得更富裕。

Countries getting more democratic.

它們也變得更民主。

But look at countries like China and Saudi Arabia.

但你再看看其他國家，像是中國和沙烏地阿拉伯

They got richer, but never got more democratic.

他們都變富裕了，可是卻沒有因此變得更民主。

Look at Russia and Venezuela.

再看看俄羅斯和委內瑞拉。

They got democratic, but then backslid, which wasn't supposed to happen.

他們變得民主了，但又突然開始走回頭路，理論上這是不會發生的。

So what's going on?

所以到底發生了什麼事？

China looked exactly like places we thought would become democracies next.

中國看起來正是一個我們認為會朝民主邁進的國家。

They built up the rule of law, civil society, and some institutions.

他們建立出法律制度、公民社會，和一些重要的機構。

Normally, those are the building blocks that eventually add up to democracy.

正常來說，就像蓋房子一樣，這些收集好的組件應該會使中國順利蓋出民主這座高塔。

But they were really designed to make citizens just happy enough to protect the authoritarian system from the will of the people.

然而這些系統、機構似乎都只是設計出來的，它們讓人民對生活滿意到剛好願意安分生活的程度，這是為了保護獨裁體制和延續人民對它的支持。

And whenever the government feels like it could lose control, it uses the other side of its strategy: violent oppression and coercion.

而當政府覺得情況快失控的時候，它就會反過來使用暴力鎮壓、恐嚇等策略。

We're seeing this in more places where dictators are learning how to stop democracy from forming.

我們在越來越多地方都會看見，獨裁者開始在學習如何阻止社會走向民主的方法。

And at the same time, some elected leaders are developing their own playbook for pulling democratic systems down from within.

同時，民選的領導者也開始發展出一套自己的玩法，從內部分解民主體制。

A handful of seemingly established democracies are sliding back towards dictatorship.

少數看似健全的民主社會似乎正再次走上專制的路。

These countries didn't have coups or invasions.

這些國家沒有出現政變或侵略的危機。

In each case, voters elected strongman leaders who dismantled their democracies from within.

在個別案例中，公民投票選出了能將民主從內部摧毀的強勢領袖。

Venezuela had been democratic for 40 years, then Hugo Chavez rose on a message that only he spoke for the people.

委內瑞拉成為民主國家已經四十年了，直到 Hugo Chavez 高呼一句「只有他能為民發聲」的口號。

People cheered as he accrued power for himself, jailed his opponents and tore down the democratic institutions that constrained him.

當他掌控了更多權力時，人民都為他歡呼，他甚至將他的反對者都關進監獄中，又將所有能限制他的民主機制全數摧毀。

And when the dust settled, Chavez was unchecked.

而當一切都塵埃落定時，Chavez 成為了完全的獨裁者。

Society descended into chaos that is getting worse every day.

社會走向混亂，日子一天比一天糟。

Other elected leaders are using similar tactics, but always bit by bit— in ways that aren't obvious and might even be popular at the time.

另外一個民選的領導也用了相似的招數，但他做得很有耐心，一步一步讓你幾乎無法察覺到，且他在當時也是很受歡迎的。

One of the most powerful forces that can turn people against democracy is polarization.

其中一個最能讓人民開始反對民主的強大力量就是分化社會。

When people feel scared enough of their political opponents, it feels more important to protect their side than it does to protect democracy.

當人們開始害怕與自己政治立場不同的人到一定程度時，他們便有可能會認為保護自己的陣營比保護民主本身還要重要。

Leaders can exploit that fear.

領導者這時就有了濫用人民的恐懼的機會。

So if you're Russian and you support Putin, you might blame society's problems on gay people or nefarious Western plots.

如果你是一個支持普丁的俄國人，你可能會將社會問題怪罪到同性社群或是某個西方人想出來的邪惡計畫。

If you're Turkish and support Erdogan, you fear the secular elites will impose military rule.

如果你是一個支持埃爾多安的土耳其人，你會害怕世俗的菁英推行軍事統治。

And we're seeing that kind of polarization and fear start to take hold in established democracies.

我們看見的是分化和恐懼的力量夾擊之下難以支持的民主體制。

"You are a racist, no good American."

「你是一個種族主義者，不是一個好的美國人」

"I was just called a racist."

「我剛剛被人說是種族主義者。」

Could it happen in the United States?

這在美國也可能發生嗎？

It still feels impossible.

感覺好像不可能。

And it might be.

但也有可能。

So far, the system is resilient.

到目前為止，民主還有一定的韌性。

But the warning signs are here.

但一些危險的徵象已經出現。

Polarization.

分化的社會。

Populism.

民粹主義。

Distrust of institutions.

對政府機構的不信任。

A desire for strongman leaders to smash the system.

人民對強勢領導能夠出現並一舉擊垮整個體制的渴望。

These things don't necessarily mean that democracy is doomed.

這些都並不一定是在表示民主註定滅亡。

But they show that in times of social stress, even a free people can dismantle their own democracy without realizing they're doing it.

但它們告訴我們，在生活壓力龐大的社會中，就連自由的人民都有可能在無意識下自行分解他們自己的民主。

Democracy is still a pretty new system of government.

民主仍是一個新生的政府體制。

That century-long trend might not have been a trend at all.

幾世紀漫長的上升趨勢也許根本不能被看作一個趨勢。

Just a few one-time moments that we mistook for inevitability.

而只是一些累積的一次性的意外，被誤以為是某種命中注定而已。

We want to believe it will last forever, but we can't be sure.

我們都想相信民主會持續到永遠，但事實是，我們誰也不能肯定。