"我熱愛權(quán)力。然而我對權(quán)力的喜愛就像一位藝術(shù)家那樣。如同一位想奏出美妙樂章的音樂家愛他的小提琴一般。"--拿破侖？波拿巴 "

    I love power. But it is as an artist that I love it. I love it as a musician loves his violin, to draw out its sounds and chords and harmonies." --Napoleon Bonaparte

    權(quán)力被形容成很多事物--至高無上的催欲劑、一位徹頭徹尾的腐蝕者、一位情婦、一把小提琴。但人們還是無法看清它的真面目。畢竟，國家元首與一位宗教要人手中掌握的權(quán)力截然不同。我們真的能把新聞記者與恐怖份子二者的影響力相提并論嗎？或者，從根本上講，權(quán)力就是"無為而治"?

    Power has been called many things. The ultimate aphrodisiac. An absolute corrupter. A mistress. A violin. But its true nature remains elusive. After all, a head of state wields a very different sort of power than a religious figure. Can one really compare the influence of a journalist to that of a terrorist? And is power unexercised power at all?

    在編訂"福布斯2009年最有權(quán)力人物排行榜"的最初期，在我們決定從四個方面定義"權(quán)力"本身之前，我們努力尋求這些問題的答案，甚至試圖弄懂更多。首先，我們會探討，這個人是否對其他民眾具有一定的影響力？排在榜單第11位的羅馬教皇本篤十六世，他本人是10多億民眾（相當(dāng)于世界人口總數(shù)的1/6）的精神領(lǐng)袖，而排在第8位的沃爾瑪首席執(zhí)行官邁克？杜克是全美最大的私企老板。

    In compiling our first ranking of the World's Most Powerful People we wrestled with these questions--and many more--before deciding to define power in four dimensions. First, we asked, does the person have influence over lots of other people? Pope Benedict XVI, ranked 11th on our list, is the spiritual leader of more than a billion souls, or about one-sixth of the world's population, while Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke （No. 8） is the largest private-sector employer in the United States.

    然后，我們對這些人手中的經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力進(jìn)行評估。與其他候選人相比，他們的經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力是否更勝一籌？對于國家元首們，我們用國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值來衡量，而對于那些首席執(zhí)行官們，我們就要借鑒世界2000強(qiáng)公司的年度排名，考察其在市場資本總值、利潤、資產(chǎn)、收入方面的綜合排名。在特定情況下，比如《紐約時報》執(zhí)行編輯比爾？凱勒（排名第51位）,我們評估與其他業(yè)內(nèi)人士相比，其手中掌控的經(jīng)濟(jì)資源。對于那些富豪們，比如比爾？蓋茨（排名第10位）,凈資產(chǎn)也是一項(xiàng)評估要素。

    Then we assessed the financial resources controlled by these individuals. Are they relatively large compared with their peers? For heads of state we used GDP, while for CEOs, we looked at a composite ranking of market capitalization, profits, assets and revenues as reflected on our annual ranking of the World's 2000 Largest Companies. In certain instances, like New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller （No. 51）, we judged the resources at his disposal compared with others in the industry. For billionaires, like Bill Gates （No. 10）, net worth was also a factor.

    接下來，我們評估其權(quán)力所影響的領(lǐng)域是否廣泛�！陡２妓埂分贿x取67人進(jìn)入排行榜，即相當(dāng)于從每1億人中選擇1位，因此挑選出的人必須在多個領(lǐng)域都具有廣泛的影響力。以頭銜眾多的意大利總理西爾維奧？貝盧斯科尼（排名第12）為例，他既是一位政治家，又是媒體壟斷者和足球勁旅AC米蘭的老板。

    Next we determined if they are powerful in multiple spheres. There are only 67 slots on our list--one for every 100 million people on the planet--so being powerful in just one area is not enough to guarantee a spot. Our picks project their influence in myriad ways. Take Italy's colorful prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi （No. 12） who is a politician, a media monopolist and owner of soccer powerhouse A.C. Milan.

    最后，我們認(rèn)為他們必須積極運(yùn)用權(quán)力。"宜家"家居創(chuàng)始人英格瓦爾？卡姆普拉德曾為歐洲首富，本來是榜單的不二人選，但由于他"無為而治",又被從榜單中剔除。而另一方面，獨(dú)斷專行的俄羅斯總理弗拉基米爾？普京也因頻繁施展權(quán)力位列榜單第3位。

    Lastly, we insisted that our choices actively use their power. Ingvar Kamprad, the 83-year-old entrepreneur behind Ikea and the richest man in Europe, was an early candidate for this list, but was excluded because he doesn't exercise his power. On the other hand, Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin （No. 3） scored points because he likes to throw his weight around.

    在計(jì)算最后排名時，《福布斯》的5位資深編輯，首先對所有候選人在以上四個權(quán)力領(lǐng)域各自打分，然后用每人的各單項(xiàng)得分相加取平均值作為綜合得分，最終用這一綜合得分來決定候選人的排名先后次序。

    To calculate the final rankings, five Forbes senior editors ranked all of our candidates in each of these four dimensions of power. Those individual rankings were averaged into a composite score, which determined who placed above （or below） whom.

    美國總統(tǒng)巴拉克？奧巴馬毫無懸念地以巨大優(yōu)勢打敗對手，成為世界上最有權(quán)力的人物。但也有一些小驚喜。前總統(tǒng)喬治？W?布什慘遭淘汰出局，而他的前輩比爾？ 克林頓卻位列第31位，排名遙遙領(lǐng)先一眾在任的政府首腦。蘋果公司創(chuàng)始人斯蒂夫？喬布斯輕松入選榜單，而加州明星州長阿諾德？施瓦辛格卻意外落選。

    U.S. President Barack Obama emerged, unanimously, as the world's most powerful person, and by a wide margin. But there were a number of surprises. Former President George W. Bush didn't come close to making the final cut, while his predecessor in the Oval Office, Bill Clinton, ranks 31st, ahead of a number of sitting heads of government. Apple's Steve Jobs easily made the list, while Arnold Schwarzenegger, the movie star governor of California did not.

    這個榜單只是引發(fā)討論的開端，而非結(jié)論。像墨西哥大毒梟華金？古茲曼（第41位）這樣卑劣的罪犯是否該被收入榜單呢？榜單中又遺漏了哪些人？這些問題值得思考。

    This ranking is intended to be the beginning of a conversation, not the final word. Do despicable criminals like billionaire Mexican drug lord Joaquín Guzmán （No. 41） belong on this list at all? Who did we overlook? These remain questions.