and it comes in part from a deep dilemma

民主陷入了一種窘境， 它深深紮根於這個世界。

in which it is embedded.

因這種窘境的存在，毫無疑問，

It's increasingly irrelevant to the kinds of decisions

使得民主的通行，步履遲緩。

we face that have to do with global pandemics,

解決問題的方案，越來越不著邊際：

a cross-border problem;

國與國間互相影響的事，

with HIV, a transnational problem;

比如抗擊全球流行病；

with markets and immigration,

國際上的事，比如關於HIV的問題；

something that goes beyond national borders;

經濟、移民，這些跨國的、需要國家間通氣的事；

with terrorism, with war,

又如恐怖主義、戰爭等等，

all now cross-border problems.

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。

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

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。

of interdependence,

今天，我們生活在二十一世紀，

and brutal interdependent problems,

這是一個需要彼此、依賴彼此的世紀。

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

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。

we are faced with political institutions

當我們尋求政治問題、民主問題的解決方案時，

designed 400 years ago,

我們所面對的是一大堆四百年前

autonomous, sovereign nation-states

組織起來的政府機構；

with jurisdictions and territories

我們面對的是一些個有法律、有領土的

separate from one another,

自治國家、君主制國家。

each claiming to be able to solve the problem

這些機構、國家，分散於全世界

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

誰都說自己能處理好自己人民的問題

of problems and challenges,

我們活在二十一世紀，活在一個國際化的、

17th-century world of political institutions.

充滿問題與挑戰的世界

In that dilemma lies the central problem of democracy.

卻也生活在十七世紀的政府機構之下。

And like many others, I've been thinking about

民主的核心問題就隱藏在這樣的現狀之中。

what can one do about this, this asymmetry

老式的政府機構（比如民族國家政府）愈發衰弱

between 21st-century challenges

新時代的挑戰也在產生

and archaic and increasingly dysfunctional

我也和別人一樣，

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

思考過如何解決這二者帶來的不平衡

that we change the subject,

經過思考，我的建議是

that we stop talking about nations,

換個角度看這個問題

about bordered states,

我們不談國家、

and we start talking about cities.

不談劃分好的地界，

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

我們談城市，從城市入手。

we are talking about the political institutions

因為，我想，當我們談起城市的時候，

in which civilization and culture were born.

你會發現我們在談的

We are talking about the cradle of democracy.

是孕育了我們的文明和文化的政治機構；

We are talking about the venues in which

我們談論的是民主的搖籃；

those public spaces where we come together

我們談論的是全世界人民齊心協力

to create democracy, and at the same time

開創民主，

protest those who would take our freedom, take place.

抵制奪走我們的自由、

Think of some great names:

我們的家園的勢力。

the Place de la Bastille,

想想這些偉大的名稱：

Zuccotti Park,

法國的巴士底廣場、

Tahrir Square,

美國的祖科蒂公園、

Taksim Square in today's headlines in Istanbul,

埃及的解放廣場、

or, yes,

今日伊斯坦堡報紙頭條上的塔克西姆廣場，

Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

哦對了，

(Applause)

還有北京的天安門廣場

Those are the public spaces

（掌聲）

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

這些就是我們作為參與者、作為有權利的人民

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,

來行使我們的權利、寫下我們的歷史的地方

they're the most enduring.

城市不僅是最古老的的政治機構，

If you think about it,

還是最飽經滄桑的歲月見證者。

Constantinople, Istanbul, much older than Turkey.

想想看，

Alexandria, much older than Egypt.

君士坦丁堡、伊斯坦布爾，都比土耳其的年頭久遠得多

Rome, far older than Italy.

亞歷山大港，比埃及有更長的歷史

Cities endure the ages.

羅馬，義大利的老大哥

They are the places where we are born,

這些城市，還有好多城市，經久不衰。

grow up, are educated, work, marry,

我們各自在這些地方出生

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

我們各自在這些地方成長、受教育、工作、結婚

They are home.

祈禱、嬉戲、變老，然後，終有一天，離開這個世界。

Very different than nation-states,

這些地方是我們的家。

which are abstractions.

作為一國公民

We pay taxes, we vote occasionally,

爲了國家

we watch the men and women we choose rule

我們定期納稅、偶爾給個什麽選舉投個票。

rule more or less without us.

我們眼巴巴地看著這些 由我們選出來的女士、先生

Not so in those homes known as our towns

心中或多或少，總之並無我們地統治著國家。

and cities where we live.

但在我們土生土長的小城鎮裡可不是這樣

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

在我們長大的城市裡也不是這樣。

live in cities.

除此之外，在當前，全世界一半以上的人

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

都居住在城市里

More than three out of four people

在第一世界，城鎮居民的比例大約為78%

live in urban institutions, urban places,

四分之三以上的人民

in cities today.

分別住在城市裡的各個地方

So cities are where the action is.

分別住在城市裡的各個地方

Cities are us. Aristotle said in the ancient world,

城市決定了國家的動向，

man is a political animal.

而我們就是城市。在古代，亞理士多德曾說

I say we are an urban animal.

人類是政治的動物。

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

而我說，我們是城市的動物。

So to come back to the dilemma,

我們是生活在城市裡的物種，我們的家就是城市。

if the dilemma is we have old-fashioned

回到一開始我們說的那個“窘境”，

political nation-states unable to govern the world,

如果說，這窘境就是我們擁有著

respond to the global challenges that we face

過時政權和國家而無法“以政，治世”

like climate change,

在這種情況下，如果想治理全球面臨的共同挑戰，

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

比如說，氣候變化的問題，

for mayors and the citizens and the peoples they represent

那，也許到了市長們來接管這個世界的時候了。

to engage in global governance.

因為市長們是市民們、人民們真真正正的代表，

When I say if mayors ruled the world,

他們拿得起全球問題。

when I first came up with that phrase,

說起讓市長們接管世界，

it occurred to me that actually, they already do.

當我第一次想出這種說法時，

There are scores of international, inter-city,

我突然想起來，其實他們早就開始這麼做了。

cross-border institutions, networks of cities

其實，在國際社會、兄弟城市、

in which cities are already, quite quietly,

跨國機構、城市網絡中，

below the horizon, working together

眾多城市

to deal with climate change, to deal with security,

早已默默無聞地開始了

to deal with immigration,

共同處理氣候變化、安全問題、

to deal with all of those tough,

移民問題

interdependent problems that we face.

等等諸多棘手的

They have strange names:

共同問題。

UCLG,

這些城市都有個奇怪的名字：

United Cities and Local Governments;

UCLG

ICLEI,

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

the International Council for Local Environmental Issues.

ICLEI

And the list goes on:

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

Citynet in Asia; City Protocol, a new organization

遠遠不止這些，還有：

out of Barcelona that is using the web

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，

to share best practices among countries.

這個組織通過網絡，

And then all the things we know a little better,

來分享不同城市成功的實踐案例）。

the U.S. Conference of Mayors,

還有些我們更熟悉一些的組織：

the Mexican Conference of Mayors,

美國市長會the U.S. Conference of Mayors、

the European Conference of Mayors.

墨西哥市長會the Mexican Conference of Mayors、

Mayors are where this is happening.

歐洲市長會the European Conference of Mayors。

And so the question is,

市長們成就了這些組織。

how can we create a world

我想問大家一個問題：

in which mayors and the citizens they represent

我們如何創造一個

play a more prominent role?

市長們和市長們所代表的市民們

Well, to understand that,

扮演著突出地位的角色的世界？

we need to understand why cities are special,

要想把事情說清楚，

why mayors are so different

我們就要明白爲什麽城市這麼重要、這麼特別、

than prime ministers and presidents,

與總理、總統們相比，

because my premise is that a mayor and a prime minister

爲什麽市長們就這麼與衆不同。

are at the opposite ends of a political spectrum.

因為我的前提是市長和前二者

To be a prime minister or a president,

各自處於同一政治派別的不同立場。

you have to have an ideology,

要想當總理或者總統，

you have to have a meta-narrative,

你得有思想、

you have to have a theory of how things work,

你得會用理論解釋理論、

you have to belong to a party.

你得能說明白萬事萬物的運作規律、

Independents, on the whole,

你還得有個政治歸屬，也就是不能是當無黨派人士。

don't get elected to office.

沒幾個人聽說過

But mayors are just the opposite.

哪個獨行俠是辦公室英雄

Mayors are pragmatists, they're problem-solvers.

而市長們正印證了這一點。

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

市長們個個能說會道、八面玲瓏。

they're out of a job.

他們的工作就是把事情做完，如果做不完，

Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia said,

他們就沒工作了。

we could never get away here in Philadelphia

費城的納特市長曾經說過，

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.

我們不能眼看著華盛頓的失業率只升不降、

Why? Because potholes have to get filled,

坐視不管、麻木不仁。

because the trains have to run,

爲什麽？因為路面的坑窪要有人填補，

because kids have to be able to get to school.

因為火車還得有人讓它運行，

And that's what we have to do,

因為孩子們還得上學， 得有人教他們知識、教他們做人。

and to do that is about pragmatism

而這些就是我們的使命，

in that deep, American sense,

想做好這些，就得深諳美國人說話的藝術，

reaching outcomes.

想做好這些，就得深諳美國人說話的藝術，

Washington, Beijing, Paris, as world capitals,

要不你怎麼做出結果？

are anything but pragmatic,

華盛頓、北京、巴黎，都是世界級的首都城市。

but real city mayors have to be pragmatists.

而要想治理好這些城市，花言巧語是不行的

They have to get things done,

但是真正的市長，恰恰懂得怎麼運用“花言巧語”

they have to put ideology and religion and ethnicity aside

他們得做事啊，

and draw their cities together.

他們得把什麽思想啊宗教啊 民族啊的差異都放在一邊，

We saw this a couple of decades ago

來把各自的城市團結在一起。

when Teddy Kollek, the great mayor of Jerusalem

二十年前，我們就目睹了這些事情：

in the '80s and the '90s,

偉大的耶路撒冷市長泰迪·克萊克（Teddy Kollek）

was besieged one day in his office

在八九十年代

by religious leaders from all of the backgrounds,

曾被一夥兒有著不同背景的宗教領袖

Christian prelates, rabbis, imams.

圍堵在辦公室裡。

They were arguing with one another

基督教主教、拉比教、阿訇教的教徒們，

about access to the holy sites.

擠在一起喋喋不休

And the squabble went on and on,

爭論著能抵達聖地的途徑到底是什麽

and Kollek listened and listened,

他們爭個不停

and he finally said, "Gentlemen,

克萊克耐心地聽了半天

spare me your sermons,

最終說道：“好了，先生們，

and I will fix your sewers."

你們歇會兒，我去給你們修下水道。“

(Laughter)

（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。”）

That's what mayors do.

（笑聲）

They fix sewers, they get the trains running.

這就是市長們的工作。

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

他們做的都是平常小事，

Boris Johnson in London calls himself an anarcho-Tory.

一千個人有一千種方法 （但目的都是爲了人民好）

Strange term, but in some ways, he is.

倫敦的波利斯·約翰遜自稱“無政府主義者-托尼”

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

這詞兒挺怪，但他也算是這樣的人。

He rides to work on a bike,

他是自由主義者、無政府主義者。

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

他騎自行車上班，

Bloomberg in New York was a Democrat,

但是他在一些方面也挺傳統。

then he was a Republican,

紐約的布魯姆伯格是個民主黨支持者

and finally he was an Independent, and said

可後來又加入共和黨了。

the party label just gets in the way.

最終，他退出了黨派，說

Luzhkov, 20 years mayor in Moscow,

入黨就那麼回事。

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

當了二十年莫斯科市長的魯什科夫

in fact refused to be defined by the party

雖然他在建立聯合黨（United Party）為普京貢獻過一份力量

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

但其實他並不被這個黨派所承認

not under Gorbachev, but under Putin,

最終，他不是在勃列日涅夫手下

who wanted a more faithful party follower.

也不是在戈爾巴喬夫手下

So mayors are pragmatists and problem-solvers.

而是在渴望一個更衷心的黨羽的普京的手下丟了工作。

They get things done.

所以，市長們都得會說話、會辦事。

But the second thing about mayors

他們就是辦事的嘛。

is they are also what I like to call homeboys,

但是，關於市長們，我還想說的事是

or to include the women mayors, homies.

我很喜歡叫他們老街坊、老夥計

They're from the neighborhood.

考慮到我們還有女市長們，那我就叫他們老街坊吧。

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

他們是我們的鄰居

Ed Koch used to wander around New York City

他們是我們社區的一員，大夥互相都認識。

saying, "How am I doing?"

艾德·科赫（Ed Koch）過去常在紐約城內溜達

Imagine David Cameron

見人就問：“你覺得我是個好市長嗎？”

wandering around the United Kingdom

想想，這事兒放在卡梅倫身上

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

他滿英國溜達

Or Putin. Or any national leader.

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。

He could ask that because he knew New Yorkers

或者普京、或者任何其他的國家領導人都一樣。

and they knew him.

但艾德·科赫就能這麼問，因為他了解紐約人，

Mayors are usually from the places they govern.

紐約人也都了解他。

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

市長們通常都選自他們管轄的地區，

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

外來政客是很難成為當地市長的。

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

你能在別的州為競選參議院議員拉選票

And as a result, mayors and city councillors

但是你要是想為當市長， 還是別這麼做了，這麼做行不通。

and local authorities

諸如此類，市長、城市議員和地方代表，

have a much higher trust level,

諸如此類，市長、城市議員和地方代表，

and this is the third feature about mayors,

才更讓市民們信服。

than national governing officials.

而這也是國家領導人不具有而

In the United States, we know the pathetic figures:

市長具有的第三項職能——更強的民心民意。

18 percent of Americans approve of Congress

在美國，有個可悲的統計數據：

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,

18%的美國人支持國會和國會的作為。

the figures for the Presidency run about 40, 45,

而且，就算是民眾青睞的總統奧巴馬

sometimes 50 percent at best.

民眾的對他的支持率也只有40%到45%

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

有時候走運了，能到50%，也就這樣了。

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

而最高法院的民眾支持率大幅下跌，跟過去沒法比。

do you trust your mayor?"

但你要是問“你信任你的市議員嗎？”

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

或者“你信任你的市長嗎？”

because they're from the neighborhood,

投贊成票的會激增到70%到75%，甚至有80%

because the people they work with are their neighbors,

爲什麽這麼高？因為他們是市民們的鄰居

because, like Mayor Booker in Newark,

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。

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

比如說，紐沃克市的市長布克

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

他就是那種走路去上班的市長

that happened to Mayor Booker --

而且要是哪兒有火災了，他會衝進火場救人

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

他真的這麼做過。

because he sees it.

要是街上有搶劫，他也能見義勇為，除暴安良

No head of state would be permitted

因為只要是他看見的事，他就不會不管。

by their security details to do it,

可是要是沒有保安條令的許可，

nor be in a position to do it.

哪個州的領導、大官，也不能做這些

That's the difference, and the difference

也不會去做這些

has to do with the character of cities themselves,

這就是差別

because cities are profoundly multicultural,

而且這種差別跟城市自己的風氣有關

open, participatory, democratic,

因為城市的文化都是複合的、多元的：

able to work with one another.

開放、熱心、民主、

When states face each other,

互助。

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

當國與國交流時，

When cities interact, they interact like this.

舉個例子，比如中美，它們是這樣的。

China and the U.S., despite the recent

但當城市相互交流時，它們是這樣的。

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

中美兩國，且不說最近兩國在加州舉辦的高層會議。

for number one.

兩國近來一直被各種憤怒、不滿、競爭禁錮

We heard more about who will be number one.

說白了，兩國在爭第一。

Cities don't worry about number one.

我們聽說過很多很多誰會是第一的說法

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

但城市，才不在乎誰是不是第一呢。

They work together in climate change, for example.

城市得彼此合作，而它們也真的在彼此合作。

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

不同的城市都在一起努力對抗氣候變化。舉個例子，

have been working together

像C40、ICLEI等等這些我剛才提到的組織

many, many years before Copenhagen.

在哥本哈根會議前的很多很多年

In Copenhagen, four or five years ago,

就已經開始共同奮鬥了