Benjamin Barber: Why mayors should rule the world

譯者: Ralph Wang 審譯者: Bighead Ge

Democracy is in trouble, no question about that,

民主陷入了一種窘境， 它深深紮根於這個世界。

and it comes in part from a deep dilemma

因這種窘境的存在，毫無疑問，

in which it is embedded.

使得民主的通行，步履遲緩。

It's increasingly irrelevant to the kinds of decisions

解決問題的方案，越來越不著邊際：

we face that have to do with global pandemics,

國與國間互相影響的事，

a cross-border problem;

比如抗擊全球流行病；

with HIV, a transnational problem;

國際上的事，比如關於HIV的問題；

with markets and immigration,

經濟、移民，這些跨國的、需要國家間通氣的事；

something that goes beyond national borders;

又如恐怖主義、戰爭等等，

with terrorism, with war,

如上的問題，都不再是國家自己的問題， 而是跨越了國界的問題。

all now cross-border problems.

能解決這些問題的方案越來越少。 面對它們而制定的方案，效果也越來越差。

In fact, we live in a 21st-century world

今天，我們生活在二十一世紀，

of interdependence,

這是一個需要彼此、依賴彼此的世紀。

and brutal interdependent problems,

正因我們的相互依賴與需要，二十一世紀也是 一個有很多現實而殘酷的問題的世紀。

and when we look for solutions in politics and in democracy,

當我們尋求政治問題、民主問題的解決方案時，

we are faced with political institutions

我們所面對的是一大堆四百年前

designed 400 years ago,

組織起來的政府機構；

autonomous, sovereign nation-states

我們面對的是一些個有法律、有領土的

with jurisdictions and territories

自治國家、君主制國家。

separate from one another,

這些機構、國家，分散於全世界

each claiming to be able to solve the problem

誰都說自己能處理好自己人民的問題

of its own people.

誰都說自己能處理好自己人民的問題

Twenty-first-century, transnational world

我們活在二十一世紀，活在一個國際化的、

of problems and challenges,

充滿問題與挑戰的世界

17th-century world of political institutions.

卻也生活在十七世紀的政府機構之下。

In that dilemma lies the central problem of democracy.

民主的核心問題就隱藏在這樣的現狀之中。

And like many others, I've been thinking about

老式的政府機構（比如民族國家政府）愈發衰弱

what can one do about this, this asymmetry

新時代的挑戰也在產生

between 21st-century challenges

我也和別人一樣，

and archaic and increasingly dysfunctional

思考過如何解決這二者帶來的不平衡

political institutions like nation-states.

思考過如何解決這二者帶來的不平衡

And my suggestion is

經過思考，我的建議是

that we change the subject,

換個角度看這個問題

that we stop talking about nations,

我們不談國家、

about bordered states,

不談劃分好的地界，

and we start talking about cities.

我們談城市，從城市入手。

Because I think you will find, when we talk about cities,

因為，我想，當我們談起城市的時候，

we are talking about the political institutions

你會發現我們在談的

in which civilization and culture were born.

是孕育了我們的文明和文化的政治機構；

We are talking about the cradle of democracy.

我們談論的是民主的搖籃；

We are talking about the venues in which

我們談論的是全世界人民齊心協力

those public spaces where we come together

開創民主，

to create democracy, and at the same time

抵制奪走我們的自由、

protest those who would take our freedom, take place.

我們的家園的勢力。

Think of some great names:

想想這些偉大的名稱：

the Place de la Bastille,

法國的巴士底廣場、

Zuccotti Park,

美國的祖科蒂公園、

Tahrir Square,

埃及的解放廣場、

Taksim Square in today's headlines in Istanbul,

今日伊斯坦堡報紙頭條上的塔克西姆廣場，

or, yes,

哦對了，

Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

還有北京的天安門廣場

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Those are the public spaces

這些就是我們作為參與者、作為有權利的人民

where we announce ourselves as citizens,

這些就是我們作為參與者、作為有權利的人民

as participants, as people with the right

來行使我們的權利、寫下我們的歷史的地方

to write our own narratives.

來行使我們的權利、寫下我們的歷史的地方

Cities are not only the oldest of institutions,

城市不僅是最古老的的政治機構，

they're the most enduring.

還是最飽經滄桑的歲月見證者。

If you think about it,

想想看，

Constantinople, Istanbul, much older than Turkey.

君士坦丁堡、伊斯坦布爾，都比土耳其的年頭久遠得多

Alexandria, much older than Egypt.

亞歷山大港，比埃及有更長的歷史

Rome, far older than Italy.

羅馬，義大利的老大哥

Cities endure the ages.

這些城市，還有好多城市，經久不衰。

They are the places where we are born,

我們各自在這些地方出生

grow up, are educated, work, marry,

我們各自在這些地方成長、受教育、工作、結婚

pray, play, get old, and in time, die.

祈禱、嬉戲、變老，然後，終有一天，離開這個世界。

They are home.

這些地方是我們的家。

Very different than nation-states,

作為一國公民

which are abstractions.

爲了國家

We pay taxes, we vote occasionally,

我們定期納稅、偶爾給個什麽選舉投個票。

we watch the men and women we choose rule

我們眼巴巴地看著這些 由我們選出來的女士、先生

rule more or less without us.

心中或多或少，總之並無我們地統治著國家。

Not so in those homes known as our towns

但在我們土生土長的小城鎮裡可不是這樣

and cities where we live.

在我們長大的城市裡也不是這樣。

Moreover, today, more than half of the world's population

除此之外，在當前，全世界一半以上的人

live in cities.

都居住在城市里

In the developed world, it's about 78 percent.

在第一世界，城鎮居民的比例大約為78%

More than three out of four people

四分之三以上的人民

live in urban institutions, urban places,

分別住在城市裡的各個地方

in cities today.

分別住在城市裡的各個地方

So cities are where the action is.

城市決定了國家的動向，

Cities are us. Aristotle said in the ancient world,

而我們就是城市。在古代，亞理士多德曾說

man is a political animal.

人類是政治的動物。

I say we are an urban animal.

而我說，我們是城市的動物。

We are an urban species, at home in our cities.

我們是生活在城市裡的物種，我們的家就是城市。

So to come back to the dilemma,

回到一開始我們說的那個“窘境”，

if the dilemma is we have old-fashioned

如果說，這窘境就是我們擁有著

political nation-states unable to govern the world,

過時政權和國家而無法“以政，治世”

respond to the global challenges that we face

在這種情況下，如果想治理全球面臨的共同挑戰，

like climate change,

比如說，氣候變化的問題，

then maybe it's time for mayors to rule the world,

那，也許到了市長們來接管這個世界的時候了。

for mayors and the citizens and the peoples they represent

因為市長們是市民們、人民們真真正正的代表，

to engage in global governance.

他們拿得起全球問題。

When I say if mayors ruled the world,

說起讓市長們接管世界，

when I first came up with that phrase,

當我第一次想出這種說法時，

it occurred to me that actually, they already do.

我突然想起來，其實他們早就開始這麼做了。

There are scores of international, inter-city,

其實，在國際社會、兄弟城市、

cross-border institutions, networks of cities

跨國機構、城市網絡中，

in which cities are already, quite quietly,

眾多城市

below the horizon, working together

早已默默無聞地開始了

to deal with climate change, to deal with security,

共同處理氣候變化、安全問題、

to deal with immigration,

移民問題

to deal with all of those tough,

等等諸多棘手的

interdependent problems that we face.

共同問題。

They have strange names:

這些城市都有個奇怪的名字：

UCLG,

UCLG

United Cities and Local Governments;

城市和地方政府聯合組織 United Cities and Local Governments

ICLEI,

ICLEI

the International Council for Local Environmental Issues.

地方政治問題國際議會 the International Council or Local Environmental Issues

And the list goes on:

遠遠不止這些，還有：

Citynet in Asia; City Protocol, a new organization

亞洲城市組織Citinet in Asia、城市協議組織City Protocol（一個新成立的組織，

out of Barcelona that is using the web

這個組織通過網絡，

to share best practices among countries.

來分享不同城市成功的實踐案例）。

And then all the things we know a little better,

還有些我們更熟悉一些的組織：

the U.S. Conference of Mayors,

美國市長會the U.S. Conference of Mayors、

the Mexican Conference of Mayors,

墨西哥市長會the Mexican Conference of Mayors、

the European Conference of Mayors.

歐洲市長會the European Conference of Mayors。

Mayors are where this is happening.

市長們成就了這些組織。

And so the question is,

我想問大家一個問題：

how can we create a world

我們如何創造一個

in which mayors and the citizens they represent

市長們和市長們所代表的市民們

play a more prominent role?

扮演著突出地位的角色的世界？

Well, to understand that,

要想把事情說清楚，

we need to understand why cities are special,

我們就要明白爲什麽城市這麼重要、這麼特別、

why mayors are so different

與總理、總統們相比，

than prime ministers and presidents,

爲什麽市長們就這麼與衆不同。

because my premise is that a mayor and a prime minister

因為我的前提是市長和前二者

are at the opposite ends of a political spectrum.

各自處於同一政治派別的不同立場。

To be a prime minister or a president,

要想當總理或者總統，

you have to have an ideology,

你得有思想、

you have to have a meta-narrative,

你得會用理論解釋理論、

you have to have a theory of how things work,

你得能說明白萬事萬物的運作規律、

you have to belong to a party.

你還得有個政治歸屬，也就是不能是當無黨派人士。

Independents, on the whole,

沒幾個人聽說過

don't get elected to office.

哪個獨行俠是辦公室英雄

But mayors are just the opposite.

而市長們正印證了這一點。

Mayors are pragmatists, they're problem-solvers.

市長們個個能說會道、八面玲瓏。

Their job is to get things done, and if they don't,

他們的工作就是把事情做完，如果做不完，

they're out of a job.

他們就沒工作了。

Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia said,

費城的納特市長曾經說過，

we could never get away here in Philadelphia

我們不能眼看著華盛頓的失業率只升不降、

with the stuff that goes on in Washington,

我們不能眼看著華盛頓的失業率只升不降、

the paralysis, the non-action, the inaction.

坐視不管、麻木不仁。

Why? Because potholes have to get filled,

爲什麽？因為路面的坑窪要有人填補，

because the trains have to run,

因為火車還得有人讓它運行，

because kids have to be able to get to school.

因為孩子們還得上學， 得有人教他們知識、教他們做人。

And that's what we have to do,

而這些就是我們的使命，

and to do that is about pragmatism

想做好這些，就得深諳美國人說話的藝術，

in that deep, American sense,

想做好這些，就得深諳美國人說話的藝術，

reaching outcomes.

要不你怎麼做出結果？

Washington, Beijing, Paris, as world capitals,

華盛頓、北京、巴黎，都是世界級的首都城市。

are anything but pragmatic,

而要想治理好這些城市，花言巧語是不行的

but real city mayors have to be pragmatists.

但是真正的市長，恰恰懂得怎麼運用“花言巧語”

They have to get things done,

他們得做事啊，

they have to put ideology and religion and ethnicity aside

他們得把什麽思想啊宗教啊 民族啊的差異都放在一邊，

and draw their cities together.

來把各自的城市團結在一起。

We saw this a couple of decades ago

二十年前，我們就目睹了這些事情：

when Teddy Kollek, the great mayor of Jerusalem

偉大的耶路撒冷市長泰迪·克萊克（Teddy Kollek）

in the '80s and the '90s,

在八九十年代

was besieged one day in his office

曾被一夥兒有著不同背景的宗教領袖

by religious leaders from all of the backgrounds,

圍堵在辦公室裡。

Christian prelates, rabbis, imams.

基督教主教、拉比教、阿訇教的教徒們，

They were arguing with one another

擠在一起喋喋不休

about access to the holy sites.

爭論著能抵達聖地的途徑到底是什麽

And the squabble went on and on,

他們爭個不停

and Kollek listened and listened,

克萊克耐心地聽了半天

and he finally said, "Gentlemen,

最終說道：“好了，先生們，

spare me your sermons,

你們歇會兒，我去給你們修下水道。“

and I will fix your sewers."

（譯者覺得意思是“我不干涉你們的精神世界，但是你們別耽誤我保障你們物質生活的工作。”）

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

That's what mayors do.

這就是市長們的工作。

They fix sewers, they get the trains running.

他們做的都是平常小事，

There isn't a left or a right way of doing.

一千個人有一千種方法 （但目的都是爲了人民好）

Boris Johnson in London calls himself an anarcho-Tory.

倫敦的波利斯·約翰遜自稱“無政府主義者-托尼”

Strange term, but in some ways, he is.

這詞兒挺怪，但他也算是這樣的人。

He's a libertarian. He's an anarchist.

他是自由主義者、無政府主義者。

He rides to work on a bike,

他騎自行車上班，

but at the same time, he's in some ways a conservative.

但是他在一些方面也挺傳統。

Bloomberg in New York was a Democrat,

紐約的布魯姆伯格是個民主黨支持者

then he was a Republican,

and finally he was an Independent, and said

可後來又加入共和黨了。

最終，他退出了黨派，說

the party label just gets in the way.

入黨就那麼回事。

Luzhkov, 20 years mayor in Moscow,

當了二十年莫斯科市長的魯什科夫

though he helped found a party, United Party with Putin,

雖然他在建立聯合黨（United Party）為普京貢獻過一份力量

in fact refused to be defined by the party

但其實他並不被這個黨派所承認

and finally, in fact, lost his job not under Brezhnev,

最終，他不是在勃列日涅夫手下

not under Gorbachev, but under Putin,

也不是在戈爾巴喬夫手下

who wanted a more faithful party follower.

而是在渴望一個更衷心的黨羽的普京的手下丟了工作。

So mayors are pragmatists and problem-solvers.

所以，市長們都得會說話、會辦事。

They get things done.

他們就是辦事的嘛。

But the second thing about mayors

但是，關於市長們，我還想說的事是

is they are also what I like to call homeboys,

我很喜歡叫他們老街坊、老夥計

or to include the women mayors, homies.

考慮到我們還有女市長們，那我就叫他們老街坊吧。

They're from the neighborhood.

他們是我們的鄰居

They're part of the neighborhood. They're known.

他們是我們社區的一員，大夥互相都認識。

Ed Koch used to wander around New York City

艾德·科赫（Ed Koch）過去常在紐約城內溜達

saying, "How am I doing?"

見人就問：“你覺得我是個好市長嗎？”

Imagine David Cameron

想想，這事兒放在卡梅倫身上

wandering around the United Kingdom

他滿英國溜達

asking, "How am I doing?" He wouldn't like the answer.

見誰都問：“你對我的工作滿意嗎？”，他夠嗆能得到什麽滿意的回答。

Or Putin. Or any national leader.

或者普京、或者任何其他的國家領導人都一樣。

He could ask that because he knew New Yorkers

但艾德·科赫就能這麼問，因為他了解紐約人，

and they knew him.

紐約人也都了解他。

Mayors are usually from the places they govern.

市長們通常都選自他們管轄的地區，

It's pretty hard to be a carpetbagger and be a mayor.

外來政客是很難成為當地市長的。

You can run for the Senate out of a different state,

你能在別的州為競選參議院議員拉選票

but it's hard to do that as a mayor.

但是你要是想為當市長， 還是別這麼做了，這麼做行不通。

And as a result, mayors and city councillors

諸如此類，市長、城市議員和地方代表，

and local authorities

諸如此類，市長、城市議員和地方代表，

have a much higher trust level,

才更讓市民們信服。

and this is the third feature about mayors,

而這也是國家領導人不具有而

than national governing officials.

市長具有的第三項職能——更強的民心民意。

In the United States, we know the pathetic figures:

在美國，有個可悲的統計數據：

18 percent of Americans approve of Congress

18%的美國人支持國會和國會的作為。

and what they do.

18%的美國人支持國會和國會的作為。

And even with a relatively popular president like Obama,

而且，就算是民眾青睞的總統奧巴馬

the figures for the Presidency run about 40, 45,

民眾的對他的支持率也只有40%到45%

sometimes 50 percent at best.

有時候走運了，能到50%，也就這樣了。

The Supreme Court has fallen way down from what it used to be.

而最高法院的民眾支持率大幅下跌，跟過去沒法比。

But when you ask, "Do you trust your city councillor,

但你要是問“你信任你的市議員嗎？”

do you trust your mayor?"

或者“你信任你的市長嗎？”

the rates shoot up to 70, 75, even 80 percent,

投贊成票的會激增到70%到75%，甚至有80%

because they're from the neighborhood,

爲什麽這麼高？因為他們是市民們的鄰居

because the people they work with are their neighbors,

和市長們、市議員們一起工作的人民不是別人，正是他們的老街坊、老鄰居。

because, like Mayor Booker in Newark,

比如說，紐沃克市的市長布克

a mayor is likely to get out of his car on the way to work

他就是那種走路去上班的市長

and go in and pull people out of a burning building --

而且要是哪兒有火災了，他會衝進火場救人

that happened to Mayor Booker --

他真的這麼做過。

or intervene in a mugging in the street as he goes to work

要是街上有搶劫，他也能見義勇為，除暴安良

because he sees it.

因為只要是他看見的事，他就不會不管。

No head of state would be permitted

可是要是沒有保安條令的許可，

by their security details to do it,

哪個州的領導、大官，也不能做這些

nor be in a position to do it.

也不會去做這些

That's the difference, and the difference

這就是差別

has to do with the character of cities themselves,

而且這種差別跟城市自己的風氣有關

because cities are profoundly multicultural,

因為城市的文化都是複合的、多元的：

open, participatory, democratic,

開放、熱心、民主、

able to work with one another.

互助。

When states face each other,

當國與國交流時，

China and the U.S., they face each other like this.

舉個例子，比如中美，它們是這樣的。

When cities interact, they interact like this.

但當城市相互交流時，它們是這樣的。

China and the U.S., despite the recent

中美兩國，且不說最近兩國在加州舉辦的高層會議。

meta-meeting in California,

中美兩國，且不說最近兩國在加州舉辦的高層會議。

are locked in all kinds of anger, resentment, and rivalry

兩國近來一直被各種憤怒、不滿、競爭禁錮

for number one.

說白了，兩國在爭第一。

We heard more about who will be number one.

我們聽說過很多很多誰會是第一的說法

Cities don't worry about number one.

但城市，才不在乎誰是不是第一呢。

They have to work together, and they do work together.

城市得彼此合作，而它們也真的在彼此合作。

They work together in climate change, for example.

不同的城市都在一起努力對抗氣候變化。舉個例子，

Organizations like the C40, like ICLEI, which I mentioned,

像C40、ICLEI等等這些我剛才提到的組織

have been working together

在哥本哈根會議前的很多很多年

many, many years before Copenhagen.

就已經開始共同奮鬥了

In Copenhagen, four or five years ago,

四五年前，在哥本哈根，

184 nations came together to explain to one another

184個國家聚首，向彼此解釋

why their sovereignty didn't permit them

爲什麽本國的主權部門不允許他們

to deal with the grave, grave crisis of climate change,

一起處理這場人類自掘墳墓一樣的氣候危機。

but the mayor of Copenhagen had invited

但是哥本哈根的市長，卻邀請到了

200 mayors to attend.

二百位市長與會。

They came, they stayed, and they found ways

他們參加會議，共同商討

and are still finding ways to work together,

直到今天也仍致力於找尋在城市之間、通過城際組織共同的工作道路。

city-to-city, and through inter-city organizations.

直到今天也仍致力於找尋在城市之間、通過城際組織共同的工作道路。

Eighty percent of carbon emissions come from cities,

全球80%的碳排放源自城市

which means cities are in a position

這意味著城市正處於解決碳排放問題的關鍵位置

to solve the carbon problem, or most of it,

這意味著城市正處於解決碳排放問題的關鍵位置

whether or not the states of which they are a part

不管這些城市是否源於同一國家

make agreements with one another.

城市與城市做出了共同的決定

And they are doing it.

而它們也都在履行自己的承諾。

Los Angeles cleaned up its port,

洛杉磯清理了它的港口

which was 40 percent of carbon emissions,

也就是說，減少了港口40%的碳排放

and as a result got rid of about 20 percent of carbon.

洛杉磯也因此減少了20%的碳排放

New York has a program to upgrade its old buildings,

紐約有一項老建築翻新的工程

make them better insulated in the winter,

這項工程能加強建築物的冬天的保暖功能

to not leak energy in the summer,

也能防止夏天屋內空調冷氣的外滲

not leak air conditioning. That's having an impact.

工程反響甚好。

Bogota, where Mayor Mockus,

波哥大前市長莫克斯（Mockus）

when he was mayor, he introduced a transportation system

在任職期間，引進了一套交通系統

that saved energy, that allowed surface buses

這套交通系統很節能， 能讓公交車運行得像地鐵一樣高效

to run in effect like subways,

這套交通系統很節能， 能讓公交車運行得像地鐵一樣高效

express buses with corridors.

讓公交車佈滿了大街小巷。

It helped unemployment, because people could get across town,

這降低了失業率，因為人們能在城裡通行了。

and it had a profound impact on climate as well as

而且這個交通系統還像很多其他措施一樣，

many other things there.

對當地氣候起到了保護的作用。

Singapore, as it developed its high-rises

新加坡，有著眾多高科技的高層建築

and its remarkable public housing,

和可圈可點的公共住房政策

also developed an island of parks,

其實不光是這些，新加坡還發展了島嶼公園政策

and if you go there, you'll see how much of it

如果你到新加坡，你會看見遍地的優秀綠化

is green land and park land.

你會覺得新加坡是個名副其實的“花園城市”

Cities are doing this, but not just one by one.

城市都在發展，它們不是一個個地發展

They are doing it together.

而是一起發展

They are sharing what they do,

它們分享自己的經驗

and they are making a difference by shared best practices.

也通過這種分享讓世界日新月異

Bike shares, many of you have heard of it,

我想很多人都聽說過公用自行車

started 20 or 30 years ago in Latin America.

沒錯，這是一項二三十年前起源於拉美的項目

Now it's in hundreds of cities around the world.

現在全世界數以百計的城市都有這個項目

Pedestrian zones, congestion fees,

行人專用區、交通擁堵費、

emission limits in cities like California cities have,

以及像洛杉磯這種城市所設立的限制排放條款

there's lots and lots that cities can do

就連一些冥頑不化的國家拒絕這樣行動起來的時候

even when opaque, stubborn nations refuse to act.

許許多多城市也都做了非常多的好事

So what's the bottom line here?

那，城市這麼做的底線是什麽？

The bottom line is, we still live politically

底線就是，我們還是生活在這樣的政治制度下

in a world of borders, a world of boundaries,

生活在國界阻隔、充滿隔閡的世界里

a world of walls,

也就是一個高牆聳立的世界裡、

a world where states refuse to act together.

一個國與國拒絕一起行動起來的世界裡。

Yet we know that the reality we experience

然而，我們知道，我們正做著穿越國界的事

day to day is a world without borders,

每一天都是。

a world of diseases without borders

疾病不管你是哪國，到處流竄

and doctors without borders,

而我們的無國界衛生組織，

maladies sans frontières, Médecins Sans Frontières,

不管你是哪國，醫生都會救死扶傷。

of economics and technology without borders,

同樣地，經濟、科技跨越了國界

of education without borders,

教育跨越了國界

of terrorism and war without borders.

恐怖主義和戰爭也不分國界

That is the real world, and unless we find a way

這就是真實的世界。

to globalize democracy or democratize globalization,

如果我們不想方設法，要麼開創國際民主， 要麼就把全球化給民主化

we will increasingly not only risk

我們早晚有一天

the failure to address all of these transnational problems,

不光要冒著無法解決國際問題的風險

but we will risk losing democracy itself,

還要冒著失去民主的風險。

locked up in the old nation-state box,

如果我們不醒一醒，這些都將成為現實。

unable to address global problems democratically.

我們也將再也無法民主地解決國際事務。

So where does that leave us?

那，我們該怎麼辦？

I'll tell you. The road to global democracy

讓我來告訴大家，實現全球民主

doesn't run through states.

跟國家民主沒有關係

It runs through cities.

反而，跟城市民主有關係

Democracy was born in the ancient polis.

民主是在早期城邦中誕生的

I believe it can be reborn in the global cosmopolis.

我相信，民主定會在國際化大都市重生

In that journey from polis to cosmopolis,

在從城邦向國際化大都市轉變的過程中

we can rediscover the power

我們會重新發掘全球層次的民主的力量

of democracy on a global level.

我們會重新發掘全球層次的民主的力量

We can create not a League of Nations, which failed,

我們可以創造的不是已經沒落的國際聯盟

but a League of Cities,

而是城市聯盟

not a United or a dis-United Nations,

不是或聯合或不聯合的一眾國家

but United Cities of the World.

而是聯合起來的全世界的城市。

We can create a global parliament of mayors.

我們可以成立全球市長議會。

That's an idea. It's in my conception of the coming world,

這是個新主意，這是我關於未來新世界的概念。

but it's also on the table in City Halls

但這也是市政廳會議桌上的議題

in Seoul, Korea, in Amsterdam,

在韓國首爾、在阿姆斯特丹、

in Hamburg, and in New York.

在漢堡、在紐約

Mayors are considering that idea of how you can actually

市長們都在考慮著如何能真真正正地

constitute a global parliament of mayors,

組建起一個全球市長議會

and I love that idea, because a parliament of mayors

我愛死這個主意了，因為全球市長議會

is a parliament of citizens

事實上就是全球市民議會

and a parliament of citizens is a parliament of us,

也就是我們自己的議會——

of you and of me.

——你我的議會。

If ever there were citizens without borders,

如果真的有無國界的市民

I think it's the citizens of TED

我想，那肯定是TED人。

who show the promise to be those citizens without borders.

是誓願成為無國界市民的TED人。

I am ready to reach out and embrace

我已經準備好，張開懷抱

a new global democracy,

去迎接全球的民主

to take back our democracy.

我伸出雙手，來拿回本屬於我們的民主

And the only question is,

那麼

are you?

你呢？

Thank you so much, my fellow citizens.

謝謝各位市民的聆聽與關注，非常感謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Thank you. (Applause)

謝謝。（掌聲）