What if we replaced politicians with randomly selected people? | Brett Hennig

翻译人员: Yuntao Li 校对人员: Junyi Sha

I want to talk about one of the big questions,

我想谈谈几个最大的问题之一，

perhaps the biggest question:

也许是最大的一个问题。

How should we live together?

我们该如何共存？

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

生活在同一城市的一群人，

or in the continent

或是在同一大陆的人们，

or even the whole globe,

亦或是整个地球上的所有人，

share and manage common resources?

该如何分享和管理共同的资源？

How should we make the rules that govern us?

我们该如何制定用来 约束我们的规则？

This has always been an important question.

这一直是个重要的问题。

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

而今天，我认为这个问题甚至 比以往任何时候都要重要。

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

如果我们想要解决不平等的加剧， 气候变化和难民危机这些问题，

just to name a few major issues.

当然这些只是一部分主要的问题，

It's also a very old question.

这也是一个很古老的问题。

Humans have been asking themselves this question

自从我们生活在一个有组织的社会，

ever since we lived in organized societies.

人类就一直在问自己这个问题。

Like this guy, Plato.

比如说，柏拉图，

He thought we needed benevolent guardians

他认为我们需要仁慈的监管者，

who could make decisions for the greater good of everyone.

能站在公众的角度 做出明智的决策，

Kings and queens thought they could be those guardians,

国王和王后认为 他们可以成为这样的监管者，

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

但是在无数的革命中， 他们往往成了遭到处决的对象。

And this guy, you probably know.

你可能认识这个人，

Here in Hungary, you lived for many years

在这里，匈牙利， 一个你生活过很多年的地方，

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

正在尝试用他的答案 来回答上面的问题。

His answer was brutal, cruel and inhumane.

而他的回答是野蛮的， 残忍的，毫无人性的。

But a different answer, a different kind of answer,

但是一个不一样的回答， 一种不一样的回答，

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

沉睡了大约2000年，

has had profound recent success.

在最近有了卓越的成功。

That answer is, of course, democracy.

当然，这个回答就是，民主。

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

如果我们快速地回顾一下 现代民主的历史，

it goes something like this.

就会发现它是这样的。

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

这条横轴代表着近两百年的时间，

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

这条纵轴代表着民主国家的数量。

And the graph does this,

那么图像就会是这样的。

the important point of which,

其中最重要的一点就是，

is this extraordinary increase over time,

在这段时间里民主国家的显著增长，

which is why the 20th century

这就是为什么20世纪

has been called the century of democracy's triumph,

被称为民主胜利的世纪，

and why, as Francis Fukuyama said in 1989,

这也是为什么，如同 弗朗西斯 · 福山（Francis Fukuyama）所说，

some believe that we have reached the end of history,

一些人认为我们已经 抵达了历史的尽头，

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

我们该怎么生活在一起 这个问题已经被回答了，

and that answer is liberal democracy.

答案就是自由民主制。

Let's explore that assertion, though.

但是，让我们再审视 一下这种说法，

I want to find out what you think.

我想知道你是怎么想的。

So I'm going to ask you two questions,

所以我要问你们两个问题，

and I want you to put your hands up

如果你表示同意

if you agree.

请举起你的手。

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

第一个问题是，你们认为生活在 民主制的社会一是件好事吗？

Who likes democracy?

你们喜欢民主吗？

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

如果你能想到一种更好的制度， 请你不要举手。

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

不要担心那些没有举手的人，

我相信他们非常有想法。

I'm sure they mean very well.

The second question is:

第二个问题是：

Who thinks our democracies are functioning well?

你们认为我们的 民主制运行得好吗？

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

快举手，你们当中 肯定有一个是政治家。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

没有？好吧。

No.

但是我想说的是， 如果自由民主制是历史的尽头，

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

那么举手的情况肯定 跟现场反差很大。

then there's a massive paradox or contradiction here.

Why is that?

为什么是这样？

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

第一个问题是理想化的民主，

它的特点都十分吸引人，

and all these qualities are very appealing.

But in practice, it's not working.

但是在现实中，它没什么作用。

And that's the second question.

这就引出了第二个问题。

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

我们的政治是有缺陷的， 我们的政治家是不被相信的，

and the political system is distorted by powerful vested interests.

我们的政治系统被既得利益所扭曲。

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

我认为有两种方法 来解决这样一个矛盾。

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

一个是我们放弃民主，因为它没有用

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

让我们来选举一些民粹主义的 煽动者，一些无视民主制度的人，

trample on liberal freedoms

来践踏自由，

and just get things done.

把这个问题赶快解决掉。

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

另一个选择，我认为， 是去修复这个有缺陷的民主。

to bring the practice closer to the ideal

让实际情况更加理想化，

and put the diverse voices of society in our parliaments

让社会不同的声音在议会中发声，

and get them to make considered, evidence-based laws

让他们去制定深思熟虑的， 循证的法律，

for the long-term good of everyone.

站在长远的角度出发， 使得每个人受益。

Which brings me to my epiphany,

这种想法使我顿悟，

my moment of enlightenment.

使我得到了启迪。

And I want you to get critical.

我想要你们用批判的思维，

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

来问问自己，接下来 我要说的想法为什么不行？

And then come and talk to me afterwards about it.

然后来跟我探讨一下。

Its technical name is "sortition."

它的学名叫做 ”随机选择”。

But its common name is "random selection."

但通常我们叫它 “抽签”。

And the idea is actually very simple:

这个过程其实非常的简单：

we randomly select people and put them in parliament.

我们随机从人群中选择 我们的议员，由他们组成议会。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

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

我们不妨来思考一下。

假设我们选择了你， 你，你还有你，

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

and a bunch of other random people,

以及其他的一些被抽到的人，

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

然后我们在接下来的几年里， 把你们加入议会，

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

当然我们会分阶级抽选， 以确保被抽到的人

和我们国家的经济分布 以及人口比例是匹配的，

the socioeconomic and demographic profile of the country

and was a truly representative sample of people.

而且是一个代表所有人的样本。

其中一半的人是女性。

Fifty percent of them would be women.

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

他们当中很多人是年轻人， 也有一些是老人，

a few would be rich,

极少的一部分是富人，

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

但是绝大多数都是普通人， 就像你和我一样。

This would be a microcosm of society.

这将会是整个社会的缩影。

And this microcosm would simulate how we would all think,

而且这个缩影 会模拟我们所有人的想法，

if we had the time, the information

如果我们有时间，信息和

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

良好的过程来解决 政治决定的道德难题。

虽然你可能不是被抽到的人，

And although you may not be in that group,

someone of your age, someone of your gender,

但是跟你同年龄的某人， 跟你同性别的某人，

someone from your location and someone with your background

跟你来自一个地方的某人， 跟你有着相同背景的某人，

would be in that room.

将会被抽到。

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

这些人做出的决定 是基于群体的智慧。

They would become more than the sum of their parts.

群体的智慧 会超过他们个人智慧的总和。

They would become critical thinkers

他们会是批判性的思考者，

with access to experts,

有着咨询专家的渠道，

who would be on tap but not on top.

他们会是利国利民， 而不是高高在上的，

And they could prove that diversity can trump ability

当他们面对一系列广泛的 社会问题的时候，

when confronting the wide array of societal questions and problems.

能够证明多样性 是可以胜过个人能力的。

It would not be government by public opinion poll.

这不是基于公众意见调查的政府，

It would not be government by referendum.

也不是基于全民公投的政府。

These informed, deliberating people would move beyond public opinion

这些消息灵通，深思熟虑的人 将会跨越公众意见的范畴，

to the making of public judgments.

制定出更好的决定。

However, there would be one major side effect:

然而，最大的一个副作用就是：

if we replaced elections with sortition

如果我们用抽签来取代选举，

and made our parliament truly representative of society,

以及让议会真正代表我们的社会，

it would mean the end of politicians.

这就意味着政治家的末日。

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

我敢肯定看到这一幕 我们都会很伤心。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Very interestingly,

非常有趣的是，

random selection was a key part of how democracy was done

随机选择就是 古雅典民主社会中

in ancient Athens.

一个关键的因素。

This machine, this device, is called a kleroteria.

这个仪器叫做 “kleroteria”，

It's an ancient Athenian random-selection device.

这是一个古雅典的抽签工具。

The ancient Athenians randomly selected citizens

古雅典人随机选择他们的公民，

to fill the vast majority of their political posts.

让他们担任大部分的政治职务。

They knew that elections were aristocratic devices.

他们知道选举是贵族统治的手段，

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

他们知道政治家这个职业 是应该被避免的。

And I think we know these things as well.

我认为我们也知道这些。

But more interesting than the ancient use of random selection

但是比古代抽签更有趣的是

is its modern resurgence.

它在当代的重生，

The rediscovery of the legitimacy of random selection in politics

人们重新发现随机选择 在政治领域的正确性，

has become so common lately,

最近这一现象 已经变得十分普遍，

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

有太多的例子可以说明这一现象。

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

当然，我清楚的知道， 在议会启动随机选择过程

to institute this in our parliaments.

一定会困难重重。

Try this -- say to your friend,

你可以试试跟你的朋友说：

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

“我认为我们应该推行 由抽签来选择议员。”

“你在跟我开玩笑吧？”

"Are you joking?

What if my neighbor gets chosen?

”如果我的邻居被选上了怎么办？”

The fool can't even separate his recycling."

“这个傻子甚至连 垃圾分类回收都不会。”

But the perhaps surprising but overwhelming and compelling evidence

但是令人欣喜，有具有说服力的证据，

from all these modern examples

都来自于当代的例子，

is that it does work.

说明其实这种制度是有效的。

如果你给人们责任， 他们就会变得负责。

If you give people responsibility, they act responsibly.

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

别曲解我的意思，这并不是万能药。

The question is not: Would this be perfect?

但问题的关键不在于 这种制度是否是完美的。

Of course not.

这当然不是完美的，

People are fallibly human,

人们是会犯错误的，

and distorting influences will continue to exist.

过去扭曲的影响还会持续存在。

The question is: Would it be better?

问题的关键是， 这种制度是更好的吗？

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

至少对于我来说， 答案明显是肯定的。

Which gets us back to our original question:

这也把我们带回到最初的问题，

How should we live together?

我们该如何生活在一起？

And now we have an answer:

现在我们已经有了一个答案，

with a parliament that uses sortition.

就是随机选择议员的议会。

But how would we get from here to there?

但是我们该如何 将现有制度变成那样呢？

How could we fix our broken system

我们应该如何修复 这个有缺陷的民主，

and remake democracy for the 21st century?

并在21世纪翻新我们的民主制度？

Well, there are several things that we can do,

有几件事情是我们能做的。

事实上，这些事已经在发生了。

and that are, in fact, happening right now.

We can experiment with sortition.

我们可以对抽签制度进行试验，

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

把它引入学校， 工作单位以及其他的机构，

like Democracy In Practice is doing in Bolivia.

就像 “democracy in practice” 在玻利维亚做的那样。

We can hold policy juries and citizens' assemblies,

我们可以举办 公民陪审团和公民集会，

like the newDemocracy Foundation is doing in Australia,

就像 “newDemocracy Foundation“ 在澳大利亚做的那样，

like the Jefferson Center is doing in the US

就像杰弗逊中心在美国做的那样，

and like the Irish government is doing right now.

就像爱尔兰政府现在做的那样。

We could build a social movement demanding change,

我们可以发起一个 要求改变的社会运动。

which is what the Sortition Foundation is doing in the UK.

就像 “ Sortition Foundation” 在英国做的那样。

And at some point, we should institute it.

然后在未来的某个时候， 我们应该将这种制度创立起来。

Perhaps the first step would be a second chamber in our parliament,

也许第一步，就是建立一个第二议会，

full of randomly selected people --

全部由被抽签的人构成——

一个公民议院，你也可以这么说。

a citizens' senate, if you will.

There's a campaign for a citizens' senate in France

在法国已经有了这样的运动，

and another campaign in Scotland,

在苏格兰也是。

and it could, of course, be done right here in Hungary.

这当然也可以在这里， 匈牙利，得到实现。

That would be kind of like a Trojan horse right into the heart of government.

这就像是把一个特洛伊木马 插入了政府的心脏。

And then, when it becomes impossible

然后，当不可能

to patch over the cracks in the current system,

修补现有的漏洞的时候，

we must step up and replace elections with sortition.

我们必须站出来， 用抽签来取代选举。

I have hope.

我对此充满希望。

Here in Hungary, systems have been created,

在匈牙利，历史上有各种

and systems have been torn down and replaced

不同的制度被创立，

in the past.

或被撤下和取代。

Change can and does happen.

改变可以发生，改变也正在发生，

It's just a matter of when and how.

这是只时间和方式的问题。

Thank you. (Hungarian) Thank you.

谢谢， （匈牙利语）谢谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）