 |
| Pix Credit Xinhuanet 5 Dec 2021 |
"（一）制度痼疾积重难返; （二）民主实践乱象丛生; （三）输出所谓民主产生恶果 ((1) The system's chronic defects are difficult to overcome; (2) the practice of democracy is chaotic, and (3) exporting the so-called democracy produces evil results)" These are the principal judgments elaborated at length in the Chinese State Council White Paper: "The State of Democracy in the United States" (5 December 2021; Official English translation HERE); [美国民主情况] (original Chinese HERE).
This judgment is embedded in two fundamental propositions. The first is that the traditional expression of liberal democratic democracy, exercised through elections and plebiscites (exogenous democratic practices) may fatally limit full participation of the people in their government. The second is that the democratic character of a political system ought to be judged by its own people.
A functional democracy must have a full set of institutional procedures; more importantly, it should have full participation of the people. It must ensure democracy in terms of both process and outcomes. It must encompass both procedural and substantive democracy, both direct and indirect democracy. It must ensure both people’s democracy and the will of the State. If the people of a country are only called upon to vote and then are forgotten once they have cast their votes; if the people only hear high-sounding promises during an election campaign but have no say whatsoever afterwards; or if they are wooed when their votes are wanted but are ignored once the election is over, then such a democracy is not a true democracy. Whether a country is democratic should be judged and determined by its own people, not by a minority of self-righteous outsiders. ("The State of Democracy in the United States"). 一个行之有效的民主制度不仅要有完整的制度程序，而且要有完整的参与实践，能够做到过程民主和成果民主、程序民主和实质民主、直接民主和间接民主、人民民主和国家意志的相统一。如果人民只有在投票时被唤醒、投票后就进入休眠期，只有竞选时聆听天花乱坠的口号、竞选后就毫无发言权，只有拉票时受宠、选举后就被冷落，这样的民主绝不是真正的民主。一个国家是不是民主，应该由这个国家的人民来评判，而不是由外部少数人来指手画脚。(美国民主情况)
In contrast, the State Council elaborates might might be a system that at least in the Chinese context, comes closer to realizing the democratic ideal of full popular participation, now offered in English as whole process people's democracy (China: Democracy that Works (4 December 2021) official English Translation HERE); 中国的民主 (original Chinese HERE). This is a system of endogenous democracy grounded in consultation. In its "New Era" form it incorporates the insights of the 19th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party and its notions of consultative democracy (discussed in Chinese Constitutionalism in the “New Era”: The Constitution in Emerging Idea and Practice).
The development of "whole process people's democracy" from consultative democracy embeds a number of key concepts elaborated more fully in the State Council White paper. In that elaboration, the State Council tightly interweaves Chinese Marxist Leninist theory with the theory of democratic governance. These include (quoted from Part I of the White Paper original and official translation but note the interesting translation choices):
(1) "全过程人民民主，是中国共产党团结带领人民追求民主、发展民主、实现民主的伟大创造，是党不断推进中国民主理论创新、制度创新、实践创新的经验结晶。" ( " Whole-process people’s democracy is a creation of the CPC in leading the people to pursue, develop and realize democracy, embodying the Party’s innovation in advancing China’s democratic theories, systems and practices. " ).
(2) "全过程人民民主，充分彰显社会主义国家性质，充分彰显人民主体地位，使人民意志得到更好体现、人民权益得到更好保障、人民创造活力进一步激发。" (" Whole-process people’s democracy, giving full expression to the socialist nature of the state and the people’s principal position, serves to better represent the people’s will, protect their rights and fully unleash their potential to create. ")
(3) "全过程人民民主，具有完整的制度程序和完整的参与实践，使选举民主和协商民主这两种重要民主形式更好结合起来，"(" Whole-process people’s democracy is a complete system with supporting mechanisms and procedures, and has been fully tested through wide participation. It integrates two major democratic models – electoral democracy and consultative democracy. ").(4) "中国共产党的领导，是中国发展全过程人民民主的根本保证。在中国这样一个大国，真正把14亿多人民的意愿表达好、实现好并不容易，必须有坚强有力的统一领导。"("CPC leadership is the fundamental guarantee for whole-process people’s democracy. It is no easy job for a country as big as China to fully represent and address the concerns of its 1.4 billion people. It must have a robust and centralized leadership.")
Not that one didn't know this was coming (even in English). The CPC's journal, Qiushi (求是网 ), had published in English "Implementing Whole-Process Democracy for High-Quality Legislative Work in the New Era" in its July/August 2021 issue (discussing the Organic Law of the National People's Congress in terms of whole process democracy). Indeed, a recurring theme in the speeches of Xi Jinping during 2021 was centered on approaching answers to the question "what should democracy be? [ 民主应该什么样？] (in Chinese 民主应该什么样？习近平这样说 13 October 2021 求是网 (various paths to democratic expression in a curated collection of portions of speeches and addresses)).
Equally important, is the construction of the basic parameters of whole process democracy as a template that is not merely scalable but transposable within all national institutional organs. Whole process democracy is the expression of the from of basic political structure that is replicated not just within the organs of state but also in the constitution and working style of the vanguard itself. It is to the CPC that the system of whole process democracy delegates the leadership role of people centered development that follows the "mass line", that guides intra-CPC democratic practice and its adherence to law based governance of itself and of the nation (summarized in Part I White Paper then elaboredt throughout the rest of the document).
For the United States, the summit will offer an opportunity to listen, learn, and engage with a diverse range of actors whose support and commitment is critical for global democratic renewal. It will also showcase one of democracy’s unique strengths: the ability to acknowledge its imperfections and confront them openly and transparently, so that we may, as the United States Constitution puts it, “form a more perfect union.” In advance of the first summit, we are consulting with experts from government, multilateral organizations, philanthropies, civil society, and the private sector to solicit bold, practicable ideas around three key themes: Defending against authoritarianism; Addressing and fighting corruption; Promoting respect for human rights. Leaders will be encouraged to announce specific actions and commitments to meaningful internal reforms and international initiatives that advance the Summit’s goals. These pledges will include domestic and international initiatives that counter authoritarianism, combat corruption, and promote respect for human rights. Civil society will be represented on panels and in townhalls as a part of the official program. Their inclusion is based on a variety of factors including geographic representation, political context, and subject matter expertise. (Summit for Democracy)
It evidences well the working style of 21st century liberal democracy with its focus groups, influencers, and markets driven contests for control of the discursive and administrative machinery of state. It's essence is in fact critique, debate, and eventually resolution in a continuous system of disagreement within (if it works) system stabilizing taboo limits.
In this way, the process of disengagement, of decoupling, between liberal democratic ad Marxist Leninist camps--emerging economic and discursive imperial centers--continues to be perfected. It is most often marked by the evidences of economic decoupling (eg here: Didi shares plunge more than 20% on plan to delist from NYSE). Now even within the liberal camp of liberal democratic organs, the trajectories can no longer be demonized as a fantasy of a much despised (by that faction at least) Presidential administration. With this Summit for Democracy and the two State Council White papers, the normative and discursive decoupling has moved to a more advanced stage as well. For the est of the world, the consequences are likley more important than for the resident populations of either imperial center. For them, the projection of these decoupled visions of the world and its better operations will present constant choices and the challenges of navigation, as the periphery is pressured to choose sides and to order and reorder their own operations in the shadow of these choices.
The two State Council White papers--in the official English translation and in the original Chinese follow below.
The State of Democracy in the United States
Contents
Preamble
I. What is democracy?
II. The alienation and three malaises of democracy in the US
1. The system fraught with deep-seated problems
(1) American-style democracy has become “a game of money politics”
(2) “One person one vote” in name, “rule of the minority elite” in reality
(3) The checks and balances have resulted in a “vetocracy”
(4) The flawed electoral rules impair fairness and justice
(5) Dysfunctional democracy triggers trust crisis
2. Messy and chaotic practices of democracy
(1) The Capitol riot that shocks the world
(2) Entrenched racism
(3) Tragic mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic
(4) Widening wealth gap
(5) “Freedom of speech” in name only
3. Disastrous consequences of US export of its brand of democracy
(1) The “color revolutions” undermine regional and national stability
(2) The US imposition of its brand of democracy causes humanitarian tragedies
(3) The abuse of sanctions breaches international rules
(4) The “beacon of democracy” draws global criticism
Conclusion
Preamble
Democracy is a common value shared by all humanity. It is a right for all nations, not a prerogative reserved to a few. Democracy takes different forms, and there is no one-size-fits-all model. It would be totally undemocratic to measure the diverse political systems in the world with a single yardstick or examine different political civilizations from a single perspective. The political system of a country should be independently decided by its own people.
The United States’ system of democracy is derived from its own practices. This system is unique, not universally applicable, and it is far from perfect. However, over the years, the US, despite the structural flaws and problematic practice of its democratic system, has claimed itself as the “model of democracy”. It has incessantly interfered in other countries’ internal affairs and waged wars under the guise of “democracy”, creating regional turbulence and humanitarian disasters.
Based on facts and expert opinions, this report aims to expose the deficiencies and abuse of democracy in the US as well as the harm of its exporting such democracy. It is hoped that the US will improve its own system and practices of democracy and change its way of interacting with other countries. This is in the interest of not only the American people, but also the people of other countries. If no country seeks to dictate standards for democracy, impose its own political system on others or use democracy as a tool to suppress others, and when all countries can live and thrive in diversity, our world will be a better place.
I. What is democracy?
Democracy is a term that derives from the ancient Greek language. It means “rule by the people” or “sovereignty of the people”. As a form of government, democracy has been practiced for over 2,500 years, though in different forms, such as direct democracy of the ancient Athenian citizens and representative government in modern times. Democracy is a manifestation of the political advancement of humanity.
Democracy is not an adornment or publicity stunt; rather, it is meant to be used to solve problems faced by the people. To judge whether a country is democratic, it is important to see whether its people run their own country. In addition to voting rights, it is important to see whether people have the rights to extensive participation. It is important to see what promises are made in an election campaign and, more importantly, how many of those promises are honored afterwards. It is important to see what political procedures and rules are instituted by a country’s systems and laws and, more importantly, whether these systems and laws are truly executed. It is important to see whether the rules and procedures governing the exercise of power are democratic and, more importantly, whether power is truly put under the oversight and checks of the people.
A functional democracy must have a full set of institutional procedures; more importantly, it should have full participation of the people. It must ensure democracy in terms of both process and outcomes. It must encompass both procedural and substantive democracy, both direct and indirect democracy. It must ensure both people’s democracy and the will of the State. If the people of a country are only called upon to vote and then are forgotten once they have cast their votes; if the people only hear high-sounding promises during an election campaign but have no say whatsoever afterwards; or if they are wooed when their votes are wanted but are ignored once the election is over, then such a democracy is not a true democracy.
Whether a country is democratic should be judged and determined by its own people, not by a minority of self-righteous outsiders.
There is no perfect system of democracy in the world, nor is there a political system that fits all countries. Democracy is established and developed based on a country’s own history and adapted to its national context, and each country’s democracy has its unique value. Members of the international community should engage in exchanges and dialogues on democracy on the basis of equality and mutual respect, and work together to contribute to the progress of humanity.
II. The alienation and three malaises of democracy in the US
From a historical perspective, the development of democracy in the US was a step forward. The political party system, the representative system, one person one vote, and the separation of powers negated and reformed the feudal autocracy in Europe. The well-known French writer Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this in his book Democracy in America. The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, abolitionist movement, civil rights movement and affirmative action were highlights in the advancement of American democracy. The principle of “government of the people, by the people and for the people” articulated by Abraham Lincoln is recognized worldwide.
However, over the years, democracy in the US has become alienated and degenerated, and it has increasingly deviated from the essence of democracy and its original design. Problems like money politics, identity politics, wrangling between political parties, political polarization, social division, racial tension and wealth gap have become more acute. All this has weakened the functioning of democracy in the US.
The US has often used democracy as a pretext to meddle in other countries’ internal affairs, causing political chaos and social unrest in these countries, and undermining world peace and stability and social tranquility in other countries. This makes many people in the US and other countries wonder if the US is still a democracy. The world needs to take a closer look at the current state of democracy in the US, and the US itself should also conduct some soul-searching.
1. The system fraught with deep-seated problems
The US calls itself “city upon a hill” and a “beacon of democracy”; and it claims that its political system was designed to defend democracy and freedom at the time of its founding. Yet, the vision of democracy has lost its shine in the US today. The self-styled American democracy is now gravely ill with money politics, elite rule, political polarization and a dysfunctional system.
(1) American-style democracy has become “a game of money politics”
The American-style democracy is a rich men’s game based on capital, and is fundamentally different from democracy of the people.
Over a hundred years ago, Republican Senator from Ohio Mark Hanna said of American politics: “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember the second.” More than one hundred years have passed, and money has not only remained “the currency” in US politics, but also become even more indispensable. For example, the 2020 presidential election and Congressional elections cost some US$14 billion, two times that of 2016 and three times that of 2008; indeed, they are known as the most expensive elections in American history. The cost of the presidential election reached another record high of US$6.6 billion, and the Congressional elections cost over US$7 billion.
The fact that the American people have to face is that money politics has penetrated the entire process of election, legislation and administration. People in fact only have a restricted right to political participation. The inequality in economic status has been turned into inequality in political status. Only people with enough capital can enjoy their democratic rights provided by the Constitution. Money politics have increasingly become an “irremovable tumor” in American society and a mockery of democracy in the US.
A US Senator had a sharp observation, “Congress does not regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress.” According to statistics, winners of 91% of US Congressional elections are the candidates with greater financial support. Big companies, a small group of rich people, and interest groups are generous with their support and have become the main source of electoral funding. And those so-called representatives of the people, once elected, often serve the interests of their financial backers. They speak for vested interests rather than the ordinary people.
In March 2020, Robert Reich, Professor of Public Policy at University of California, Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, published a book entitled The System, Who Rigged It, How We Fix It. According to him, the American political system has been hijacked by a tiny minority over the past four decades. Political donations are almost seen as “legitimate bribery”. They enable the rich to have more political clout. During the 2018 midterm elections, the huge political donations, mostly coming from the top 0.01% ultra-rich of the American population, accounted for over 40% of campaign finance. Money politics and lobby groups are restricting channels for ordinary Americans to speak out, whose voices expressing genuine concerns are overshadowed by a handful of interest groups. The oligarchs would enrich themselves with the power they have got while totally ignoring the interests of ordinary Americans.
On 23 September 2020, in an interview with Harvard Law Today, Harvard Law School Professor Matthew Stephenson said that the US is by no means the world leader in clean government, and certain practices related to lobbying and campaign finance that other countries would consider corrupt are not only permitted but constitutionally protected in the US.
(2) “One person one vote” in name, “rule of the minority elite” in reality
The US is a typical country dominated by an elite class. Political pluralism is only a facade. A small number of elites dominate the political, economic and military affairs. They control the state apparatus and policy-making process, manipulate public opinion, dominate the business community and enjoy all kinds of privileges. Since the 1960s in particular, the Democrats and Republicans have taken turns to exercise power, making the “multiparty system” dead in all but name. For ordinary voters, casting their votes to a third party or an independent candidate is nothing more than wasting the ballot. In effect, they can only choose either the Democratic candidate or the Republican one.
In the context of Democratic-Republican rivalry, the general public’s participation in politics is restricted to a very narrow scope. For ordinary voters, they are only called upon to vote and are forgotten once they have cast their ballots. Most people are just “walk-ons” in the theater of election. This makes “government by the people” hardly possible in US political practice.
Noam Chomsky, a political commentator and social activist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, points out that the US is a “really existing capitalist democracy”, where there is a positive correlation between people’s wealth and their influence on policy-making. For the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale, they have no influence on policy whatsoever. They are effectively disenfranchised.
Ray La Raja, Professor at the University of Massachusetts, notes in an article for The Atlantic that America’s current system is democratic only in form, not in substance. The nominating process is vulnerable to manipulation by plutocrats, celebrities, media figures and activists. Many presidential primary voters mistakenly back candidates who do not reflect their views.
(3) The checks and balances have resulted in a “vetocracy”
American political scientist Francis Fukuyama points out in his book Political Order and Political Decay that there is an entrenched political paralysis in the US. The US political system has far too many checks and balances, raising the cost of collective action and in some cases making it impossible altogether. Fukuyama calls the system a “vetocracy”. Since the 1980s, the “vetocracy” of the US has become a formula for gridlock.
The US democratic process is fragmented and lengthy, with a lot of veto points where individual veto players can block action by the whole body. The function of “checks and balances”, which was purportedly designed to prevent abuse of power, has been distorted in American political practice. Political polarization continues to grow as the two parties drift further apart in political agenda and their areas of consensus have reduced significantly. An extreme case is the fact that “the most liberal Republican now remains significantly to the right of the most conservative Democrat”. Antagonism and mutual inhibition have become commonplace, “vetocracy” has defined American political culture, and a vindictive “if I can’t, you can’t either” mentality has grown prevalent.
Politicians in Washington, D.C. are preoccupied with securing their own partisan interests and don’t care at all about national development. Vetoing makes one identify more strongly with their peers in the same camp, who may in turn give them greater and quicker support. Consequently the two parties are caught in a vicious circle, addicted to vetoing. Worse still, the government efficacy is inevitably weakened, law and justice trampled upon, development and progress stalled, and social division widened. In the US today, people are increasingly identifying themselves as a Republican or a Democrat instead of as an American. The negative impacts of identity politics and tribal politics have also spilled over into other sectors of American society, further exacerbating “vetocracy”.
According to a Pew Research Center report in October 2021 based on a survey of 17 advanced economies (including the US, Germany and the Republic of Korea), the US is more politically divided than the other economies surveyed. Nine in ten US respondents believe there are conflicts between people who support different political parties, and nearly 60% of Americans surveyed think their fellow citizens no longer disagree simply over policies, but also over basic facts.
Jungkun Seo, Professor of Political Science at Kyung Hee University, observes that as political polarization intensifies in the US, the self-cleaning process of American democracy, which aims to drive reform through elections, will no longer be able to function properly. With the Senate trapped in a filibuster, the US Congress no longer serves as a representative body for addressing changes in American society through legislation.
(4) The flawed electoral rules impair fairness and justice
The US presidential election follows the time-honored Electoral College system, where the president and vice president are not elected directly by popular vote, but by the Electoral College consisting of 538 electors. The candidate who achieves a majority of 270 or more electoral votes wins the election.
The flaws of such an electoral system are self-evident. First, as the president-elect may not be the winner of the national popular vote, there is a lack of broader representation. Second, as each state gets to decide its own electoral rules, this may create confusion and disorder. Third, the winner-takes-all system exacerbates inequality among states and between political parties. It leads to a huge waste of votes and discourages voter turnout. Voters in “deep blue” and “deep red” states are often neglected, while swing states become disproportionately more important where both parties seek to woo more supporters.
There have been five presidential elections in US history in which the winners of nationwide popular vote were not elected the president. The most recent case was the 2016 presidential election in which Republican candidate Donald Trump won 62.98 million popular votes or 45.9% of the total, while Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won 65.85 million or 48% of popular votes. Although Trump lost the popular vote, he won 304 electoral votes while Clinton secured only 227, which gave Trump his presidency.
Another flaw of the electoral system widely acknowledged by the US public is gerrymandering. In 1812, Governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry signed a bill in the interest of his own party, creating in his state an odd-shaped electoral district that was compared to a salamander. Such practice was later called gerrymandering, which refers to an unfair division of electoral districts in favor of a particular party to win as many seats as possible and cement its advantage.
The US conducts a census every ten years. Following the completion of the census, redistricting or the redrawing of electoral district boundaries will take place under the principle of maintaining roughly equal population in every voting district while considering demographic shifts. Under the US Constitution, each state legislature has the power to redistrict. This leaves room for the majority party in state legislatures to manipulate the redrawing of electoral districts. Two principal tactics are often used in gerrymandering. One is “packing”, i.e. concentrating the opposition party’s voters in a few districts, thus giving up these districts to secure the others. The other is “cracking”, i.e. splitting up areas where the opposition party’s supporters are concentrated and incorporating them into neighboring districts, thus diluting votes for the opposition party.
On 27 September 2021, the Democratic-governed state of Oregon became the first in the country to complete redistricting. Electoral districts firmly in the hands of the Democratic Party have increased from two to four, and swing districts reduced from two to one. This means that the Democratic Party can control 83% of the state’s congressional districts with 57% of voters. On the contrary, the Republican-controlled state of Texas, with new electoral district boundaries determined on 25 October 2021, has seen districts held by Republicans grow from 22 to 24 and swing districts shrink from six to one. The Republican Party now occupies 65% of state House seats with just 52.1% of voters.
According to a YouGov poll in August 2021, just 16% of US adult citizens say they think their states’ congressional maps would be drawn fairly, while 44% say they think the maps would be drawn unfairly and another 40% of adults say they are unsure if the maps will be fair. As US politics grows more polarized, both the Republican and Democratic parties are seeking to maximize their own interests, and gerrymandering becomes the best approach.
The superdelegate system of the Democratic Party is also an impediment to fair election. The superdelegates include major Democratic leaders, members of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic members of Congress, and incumbent Democratic governors, and are seated automatically. The superdelegates may support any candidate they choose or follow the will of the Party leadership without giving any consideration to the wishes of the general public.
The late political analyst Mark Plotkin wrote on The Hill that the “Democrats’ superdelegate system is unfair and undemocratic”, and “the process of eliminating this elitist exercise should immediately begin”.
(5) Dysfunctional democracy triggers trust crisis
The American-style democracy is more like a meticulously set up scene in Hollywood movies where a bunch of well-heeled characters publicly pledge commitment to the people, but actually busy themselves with behind-the-scene deals. Political infighting, money politics, and vetocracy make it virtually impossible for quality governance to be delivered as desired by the general public. Americans are increasingly disillusioned with US politics and pessimistic about the American-style democracy.
A Gallup survey in October 2020 shows that only 19% of the Americans surveyed are “very confident” about the presidential election, a record low since the survey was first conducted in 2004.
In November 2020, an online Wall Street Journal report argues that the 2020 general election can be seen as the culmination of a two-decade decline in faith in democracy in the US.
According to a poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, only 16% of Americans say democracy is working well or extremely well; 45% think democracy isn’t functioning properly, while another 38% say it’s working only somewhat well. A Pew Research Center survey finds that just 20% of Americans say they trust the federal government just about always or most of the time.
A Brookings online article in May 2021 indicates that the certification of the 2020 election results by all 50 states still leaves 77% of Republican voters questioning the legitimacy of President Biden’s election victory due to allegations of voter fraud. This is the first time such things happen since the 1930s.
A CNN poll in September reveals that 56% of Americans think democracy in the US is under attack; 52% reply they are just a little or not at all confident that elections reflect the will of the people; 51% say it’s likely that elected officials in the next few years will overturn the results of an election their party did not win.
A 2021 Pew survey conducted among 16,000 adults in 16 advanced economies and 2,500 adults in the US shows that 57% of international respondents and 72% of Americans believe that democracy in the US has not been a good example for others to follow in recent years.
2. Messy and chaotic practices of democracy
That democracy in the US has gone wrong is reflected not only in its system design and general structure, but also in the way it is put into practice. The US is not a straight A student when it comes to democracy, still less a role model for democracy. The gunshots and farce on Capitol Hill have completely revealed what is underneath the gorgeous appearance of the American-style democracy. The death of Black American George Floyd has laid bare the systemic racism that exists in American society for too long, and spurred a deluge of protests rippling throughout the country and even the whole world.
While the COVID-19 pandemic remains out of control in the US, the issue of mask-wearing and vaccination has triggered further social division and confrontation. Dividends of economic growth are distributed unfairly, and income growth has stalled for most ordinary people for a long period of time. The American-style democracy can hardly uphold public order and ethics, nor advance public well-being to the fullest.
(1) The Capitol riot that shocks the world
On the afternoon of 6 January 2021, thousands of Americans gathered on Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C. and stormed the Capitol building in a bid to stop the joint session of the Congress from certifying the newly-elected president. The incident interrupted the transfer of US presidential power, leaving five dead and over 140 injured. It is the worst act of violence in Washington, D.C. since 1814 when the British troops set fire to the White House, and it is the first time in more than 200 years that the Capitol was invaded. Senate Republican leader described it as a “failed insurrection”. A scholar from the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) exclaims that the US is not nearly as unique as many Americans believe, and that the Capitol riot should put an end to the notion of American exceptionalism, of an eternal shining city on a hill.
The assault on the Capitol has undermined the three major bedrocks of the American-style democracy.
First, “democracy” in the US is not democratic as it claims. The refusal of some US politicians to recognize the election results and their supporters’ subsequent violent storming of the Capitol building have severely undercut the credibility of democracy in the US.
Second, “freedom” in the US is not free as it claims. Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms suspended the personal accounts of some US politicians, a de facto announcement of their “death on social media”. This has bust the myths of “freedom of speech” in the US.
Third, the “rule of law” in the US is not bound by the law as it claims. The totally different attitudes taken by US law enforcement agencies toward the “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) protests and the Capitol riot are yet another reminder of the double standards in the US “rule of law”.
The assault on the Capitol sent shock waves throughout the international community. While deploring the violence, many people also expressed disappointment at the US.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson tweeted that what happened in the US Capitol were “disgraceful scenes”.
French President Emmanuel Macron said that “in one of the world’s oldest democracies ... a universal idea — that of ‘one person, one vote’ — is undermined.”
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa commented that it “shook the foundations” of democracy in the US.
Former Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono tweeted that the political farce in the US offers much food for thought, and that there is no perfect democracy, especially when it comes to its practices.
(2) Entrenched racism
Racism is an indelible blot on democracy in the US. While advocating “all men are created equal”, the founding fathers of the US left the institution of slavery untouched in the Constitution of 1789. Today, although racial segregation has been ostensibly abolished in the US, white supremacy is still rife and rampant across the country. Discrimination against Black Americans and other racial minorities remains a systemic phenomenon.
American society has experienced relapses of its malaise of racial discrimination from time to time. On 25 May 2020, George Floyd, a Black American, lost his life in Minnesota because of law enforcement violence by the police. “I can’t breathe” — Floyd’s desperate plea for life before his death — sparked public outrage. Afterwards, protests and demonstrations erupted in about 100 cities across the 50 states of America, demanding justice for Floyd and protesting against racial discrimination. The demonstrations continued more than 100 days after the incident.
What happened to George Floyd is merely an epitome of the tragic plight of Black Americans over the past centuries. Sandra Shullman, Past President of the American Psychological Association, says that America is in “a racism pandemic”. The dream of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. remains unrealized. According to an editorial of The Indian Express, a mainstream newspaper of India, American racism has endured, subverting the country’s deepest democratic institutions in the process.
In February 2021, Stanford News, a website of Stanford University, carried an article examining systemic racism in the US. The article suggests that in education, youth of color are more likely to be closely watched; in the criminal justice system, people of color, particularly Black men, are disproportionately targeted; and in the economy and employment, from who moves forward in the hiring process to who receives funding from venture capitalists, Black Americans and other minority groups are discriminated against in the workplace and economy-at-large. A study by the University of Washington finds that around 30,800 people died from police violence between 1980 and 2018 in the US, which is about 17,100 higher than the official figure. It also indicates that African Americans are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police violence than white Americans.
The anger erupting across America is not just Black anger, but across racial lines. An article published on the website of The Jerusalem Post of Israel notes that American Jews are concerned about right-wing antisemitism and violence driven by white supremacist groups. According to annual surveys conducted by the American Jewish Committee, in 2020, 43% US Jews feel less secure than a year ago, and in 2017, 41% say antisemitism is a serious problem in the US, up from 21% in 2016, 21% in 2015, and 14% in 2013.
The bullying of Americans of Asian descent is increasing in the US. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, there have been growing cases of Asian Americans humiliated or attacked in public places. Statistics from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation indicate that hate crimes against people of Asian descent rose by 76% in the US in 2020. From March 2020 to June 2021, the organization Stop Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders Hate received over 9,000 incident reports. A survey of young Asian Americans on the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) website shows that in the past year, a quarter of young Asian Americans became targets of racial bullying, nearly half of the respondents expressed pessimism about their situation, and a quarter of the respondents expressed fear about the situation of themselves and their families.
(3) Tragic mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic
With the best health and medical resources in the world as it claims, the US has been a total mess when it comes to COVID response. It has the world’s highest numbers of infections and deaths.
According to figures released by Johns Hopkins University, as of the end of November 2021, confirmed COVID-19 cases in the US had exceeded 48 million, and the number of deaths had surpassed 770,000, both the highest in the world.
On 8 January this year, 300,777 new confirmed cases were reported, a record single-day increase since the COVID-19 outbreak in the US. On 13 January alone, 4,170 Americans died of COVID-19, far exceeding the death toll of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
At the end of November, the average daily increase of confirmed cases in the US had climbed to over 70,000, and daily death toll to over 700.
One in every 500 Americans have died of COVID-19. Up to now, COVID-19 deaths in the US have surpassed its total death toll from the 1919 Influenza Pandemic, and its combined deaths in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan.
If the US had taken a science-based response, a lot more lives could have been saved. The pandemic, as epidemiologist and former head of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention William Foege put it, is a “slaughter”.
The pandemic has taken a heavy toll on the US economy. The rate and scale of business shutdown and unemployment in the country are beyond imagination, leaving a large number of Americans jobless. People’s anxiety and sense of powerlessness has been exacerbated by growing factors of social instability.
The COVID Hardship Watch released by the US Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on 29 July 2021 suggests that while there have been improvements over the situation in December 2020, hardship is widespread for Americans in the first half of 2021. Some 20 million adults live in households that have not got enough to eat, 11.40 million adult renters are behind on rent, facing the risk of being evicted.
As indicated in the statistics released by the US Census Bureau, by 5 July 2021, at least one member in 22% of all households with underage dependents had lost their source of income.
US consumer confidence has dropped substantially, and progress in job market recovery has stalled. Institutions such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Oxford Economics have significantly revised down growth forecasts for the US economy. At the same time, the pandemic, coupled with three rounds of massive economic stimulus plans, among other factors, has caused port congestion and supply shortages, pushing inflation higher. In October of this year, US CPI surged by 6.2% from a year earlier, marking a year-on-year rise of no less than 5% for six consecutive months, and a record high since 2008.
The root cause of the continued spread of the coronavirus in the US is not a dearth of science, but the refusal to trust and rely on science. For the sake of elections, some politicians have prioritized partisan interests over national interests, politicized pandemic response, and focused on shifting blames on others. The federal and state governments have failed to galvanize a concerted response to the pandemic, and are mired in infighting instead. As a result, pandemic response measures have been severely politicized. The choices with regard to vaccination and mask-wearing have become a bone of contention between the parties and among the people. There appears a growing trend of anti-intellectualism.
A report by the French newspaper Le Monde observes that the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the fragility of democracy in the US. The extremely expensive health system, reserved for the rich and leaving the poorest without social security, has made this country, yet one of the most developed in the world, fall behind due to social injustice. This is a typical case of a democratic drift that makes it impossible to effectively manage a crisis.
Stanford News notes that, in the area of public health, the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted communities of color and has highlighted the health disparities between Black Americans, whites and other demographic groups.
(4) Widening wealth gap
The US is more polarized than any other Western country in terms of wealth distribution. Its Gini coefficient has increased to 0.48 in 2021, almost the highest in 50 years. As revealed by reports of the Institute for Policy Studies, a US think tank, the combined wealth of US billionaires soared 19-fold between 1990 and 2021, while over this same period, US median wealth only increased 5.37%. The harsh reality in the US is the rich is becoming richer, and the poor poorer.
According to Fed’s October 2021 statistics, the middle 60% of US households by income, defined as the “middle class”, saw their combined assets drop to 26.6% of national wealth as of June this year, the lowest in three decades, while the first 1% had a 27% share, surpassing the “middle class”.
A report by UC Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez shows that in terms of average annual income, America’s top 10% rich earn over nine times as much as the bottom 90%; the wealthiest 1% are about 40 times more than the bottom 90%; and the ultra-wealthy top 0.1% are 196 times of the bottom 90%.
The stimulus policy that the US has introduced in response to COVID-19 has, while pushing up stock markets, further widened the gap between the rich and the poor. The wealth of US billionaires has grown US$1.763 trillion, or 59.8%, over the 16 months since the COVID outbreak in the US. The wealthiest 10% now own 89% of all US stocks, registering a new historic high.
The wealth polarization in the US is inherent to its own political system and the interests of the capital that its government represents. From the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, to the recent “Harambe stares down Wall Street’s Charging Bull”, the American people have never stopped condemning the widening wealth gap. Yet, nothing has changed. Those governing the US choose to do nothing about the growing wealth inequality. And the pandemic has further exposed a rule in American society — capital first and the rich first.
(5) “Freedom of speech” in name only
In the US, the media is juxtaposed with the executive, the legislative and the judiciary as the “fourth branch of government” and journalists are considered “uncrowned kings”. Though US media organizations claim to be independent from politics and serve freedom and truth, they are actually serving financial interests and party politics.
A few media conglomerates maintain control of the US news media and have morphed into a political force with outsize influence.
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the federal government is required to relax regulation over the ownership of media outlets. This has led to an unprecedented wave of mergers and a crippling erosion of the diversity and independence of the US media. The drastic reduction in the number of media outlets has enabled a few companies to expand into monopolies.
In the US, a few media conglomerates are now in control of over 90% of media outlets, netting them an annual profit even higher than the gross domestic product (GDP) of some developing countries.
These media behemoths, while eager to make more business footprints, have extended their reach into American politics, attempting to sway political processes through lobbying, public relations campaign or political donations.
The US media monopolies have become “invisible killers” of civil and political rights.
Robert McChesney, a leading US scholar in the studies of political economy of communications and professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, notes in his book Rich Media, Poor Democracy that media companies, profit-driven by nature, confine people to the world of entertainment programs, depriving their access to diversified information, distracting their interest in public affairs, diminishing their ability to distinguish between right and wrong, and muting their voice in the decision-making of social policies. In an American society dominated by media narratives, traditional notions of civic and political involvement have shriveled. Depoliticization has turned democracy into a political game without citizens.
A report in Miami’s New Herald argues that as the media is controlled by the elite and conglomerates, people are not able to distinguish between facts and political propaganda.
The US media is no longer a “gatekeeper” of democracy. The political wrangling between the Left and Right in the US media has further entrenched the estrangement and division between the two parties and between the elite and the mass public. It has aggravated political polarization in the US, pushing the political Left further left and the Right further right. And it has fueled the spread of extremist ideologies and populism in the US.
According to a study by Sejong Institute, a think tank in the Republic of Korea, over 80% of conservative voters in the US see news reports by mainstream media outlets, such as New York Times, as false information and have a biased trust in media. Voters believe in only a few media outlets and would ignore communications at the national level. Levelheaded discussions and consensus-building have been replaced by megaphone politics and negative partisan strife.
The Digital News Report 2021 issued by the University of Oxford and Reuters Institute indicates that among 92,000 online news consumers surveyed in 46 markets, those in the US have the lowest level of trust in news, a mere 29%.
In the information age when traditional media is on the decline, social media has become a new favorite for the general public. Yet, like traditional media, social media is also under the control of big capital and interest groups. To increase their website traffic, social media sites use algorithms to create “information cocoons”, leaving extreme content unchecked and uncontrolled. This drives users toward self-reinforcing their existing views, exacerbates identity politics, and further divides public opinion.
In October 2021, former Facebook employee Frances Haugen leaked tens of thousands of pages of explosive internal documents of Facebook. She disclosed to Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) that Facebook would not hesitate to sacrifice public interests to keep users on its platform and make profits. Facebook has become a main platform for social extremists and is fraught with hate speech, disinformation and misinformation. Action is only taken on 3-5% of hate and about 0.6% of violence and incitement on the platform.
3. Disastrous consequences of US export of its brand of democracy
Without regard to huge differences in the level of economic development and in the historical and cultural backgrounds of countries around the world, the US seeks to impose its own political system and values on other nations. It pushes for what it calls “democratic transition”, and instigates “color revolution”.
It wantonly interferes in other countries’ internal affairs and even subverts their governments, bringing about disastrous consequences for those countries. In other words, the US has attempted to model other countries after its own image and export its brand of democracy. Such attempts are entirely undemocratic and at odds with the core values and tenets of democracy. Without producing the expected chemistry, the American-style democracy has turned out to be a “failed transplant” that plunges many regions and countries into turmoil, conflicts and wars.
(1) The “color revolutions” undermine regional and national stability
The US has a habit of interfering in other countries’ internal affairs in the name of “democracy” and seeking regime change to install pro-US governments.
A former senior CIA official once talked about making people “what we want them to be” and “follow our directions”, and the possibility of confusing people’s minds, changing their values, and making them believe in the new values before they know it.
Former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo openly admitted “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”
The US has developed a system of strategies and tactics for “peaceful evolution”. It would start with “cultural exchanges”, economic assistance, and then public opinion shaping to foster an atmosphere for “color revolution”. It would exaggerate the mistakes and flaws of incumbent governments to foment public grievances and anti-government sentiments.
In the meantime, it would brainwash local people with American values and make them identify with America’s economic model and political system. It would also cultivate pro-US NGOs and provide all-round training to opposition leaders. It would seize the opportunity of major elections or emergencies to overthrow targeted governments through instigating street political activities.
In recent history, the US has pushed for the neo-Monroe Doctrine in Latin America under the pretext of “promoting democracy”, incited “color revolution” in Eurasia, and remotely controlled the “Arab Spring” in West Asia and North Africa. These moves have brought chaos and disasters to many countries, gravely undermining world peace, stability and development.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, people have long been under no illusion about “the American-style democracy”. Any attempt of the US to promote its self-styled “model of democracy” would be only self-defeating and self-humiliating.
In 1823, the US issued the Monroe Doctrine, declaring “America for the Americans” and advocating “Pan-Americanism”.
In the following decades, the US, under the excuse of “spreading democracy”, repeatedly carried out political interference, military intervention, and government subversion in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The US pursued a policy of hostility toward socialist Cuba and imposed blockade against the country for nearly 60 years, and subverted the government of Chile under Salvador Allende. These were blatant acts of hegemonism. “My way or no way.” That’s the US logic.
Since 2003, Eastern Europe and Central Asia have seen the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia, the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine, and the “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan. The US State Department openly admitted playing a “central role” in these “regime changes”.
In October 2020, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service revealed that the US planned to instigate “color revolution” in Moldova.
The “Arab Spring” that started in 2010 was an earthquake that shook the entire Middle East. The US orchestrated the show behind the scene, and played a key role. The New York Times revealed in 2011 that a small core of American government-financed organizations were promoting democracy in “authoritarian” Arab states. A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the “Arab Spring” revolts received training and financing from US organizations like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House.
Mustafa Ahmady, an African and international affairs specialist in Ethiopia, contributed an article to Ahram Online entitled “Promised Lands”, explaining that it was largely due to Obama’s famous statement “Now means now” that furious Egyptian protesters overthrew Mubarak, and that they paid a heavy price as a result of the political change.
Seeing what the US had done, the Arab people have come to realize that the US wants to force a stereotyped model of democracy on them regardless of their own will.
In countries forced to copy and paste American values, there is no sign of true democracy, true freedom, or true human rights. What have been left in these countries are prevailing scenes of persisting chaos, stagnation and humanitarian disasters.
The US export of its values has disrupted the normal development process in the recipient countries, hindered their search for a development path and model befitting their national conditions, brought political, economic and social turmoils, and destroyed, one after another, what used to be other peoples’ beautiful homelands. The turmoils, in turn, have given rise to terrorism and other long-term challenges that threaten and jeopardize regional and even global security.
As suggested by the French website Le Grand Soir, democracy has long become a weapon of massive destruction for the US to attack countries with different views.
The US applies different standards in assessing democracy of its own and other countries. It praises or belittles others entirely according to its own likes or dislikes. Following the Capitol attack on 6 January 2021, an American politician compared the incident of violence to the 9/11 terror attack, calling it a “shameful assault” on the US Congress, constitution and democracy. It is ironic that in June 2019 the same politician called the violent demonstrations at the Hong Kong Legislative Council building as a “beautiful sight to behold” and commended the rioters for their “courage”. What a blatant double standard.
(2) The US imposition of its brand of democracy causes humanitarian tragedies
The US export of its brand of democracy by force has led to humanitarian disasters in many countries. The 20-year US war in Afghanistan has left the country devastated and impoverished. A total of 47,245 Afghan civilians and 66,000 to 69,000 Afghan soldiers and police who had nothing to do with 9/11 attacks were killed in US military operations, and more than 10 million people were displaced. The war destroyed the foundation for Afghanistan’s economic development and reduced Afghans to destitution.
In 2003, the US launched military strikes against Iraq for its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. The civilian death toll of the Iraq war is between 200,000 and 250,000, including over 16,000 directly killed by the US military. More than a million people lost their homes. Moreover, the US troops seriously violated international humanitarian principles, as evidenced by the frequent incidence of prisoner abuse. Until now the US has not been able to produce any credible proof of Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.
According to records available, 33,584 civilians were killed in war and conflict in Syria between 2016 and 2019. Among the victims, 3,833 were directly killed in bombings by the US-led coalition and half of them were women and children. The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) reported on 9 November 2018 that the “most accurate air strike in history” launched by US forces on Raqqa alone killed 1,600 Syrian civilians.
In 2018, the US launched airstrikes on Syria again for the purpose of, what they called, preventing the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. But the “evidence” of the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government turned out to be a fake video footage directed and produced by the White Helmets, an organization funded by intelligence agencies of the US and other countries.
(3) The abuse of sanctions breaches international rules
Unilateral sanction is a “big stick” the US wields in dealing with other countries. Over many years, the US has exercised its financial hegemony and abused its technological clout to carry out frequent, unilateral bullying against other countries.
The US has enacted some draconian laws, such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, and the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, and issued a series of executive orders to target and sanction specific countries, entities or individuals.
The ambiguous rules contained in these acts and executive orders, such as the “minimum contacts principle” and “doctrine of effects”, are in fact a willful expansion of the jurisdiction of US domestic laws.
These acts and executive orders make it possible for the US to abuse its domestic channels for prosecution and exercise “long-arm jurisdiction” over entities and individuals in other countries. The two most prominent examples are the case of French company Alstom and that of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou.
Statistics show that the Trump administration had imposed over 3,900 sanction measures, which means the US wielded its “big stick” three times a day on average. As of fiscal year 2021, the entities and individuals on US sanction lists topped 9,421, 933% higher compared to the previous fiscal year.
The US unwarranted unilateral sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction” have gravely undermined the sovereignty and security of other countries, severely impacting their economic development and people’s wellbeing. The sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction” constitute a gross violation of international law and basic norms of international relations.
The US sanctions against other countries have continued unabated into 2021.
The US administration, in collaboration with its European allies, have ramped up containment and suppression against Russia, imposed blanket sanctions allegedly in response to the Navalny incident and alleged Russian cyber attacks and interference in US elections, among others, and launched a diplomatic war by the expulsion of Russian diplomats.
With regard to issues such as the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline project and the digital service tax, the US has not hesitated to sanction even its European allies.
Following the entry into force of the China-US phase one trade agreement, the US has taken further measures to suppress and contain China. It has placed over 940 Chinese entities and individuals on its restricted lists. According to statistics from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US Department of the Treasury, as of 19 October 2021, a total of 391 entities and individuals from China (including Hong Kong and Macao) have been sanctioned by the US.
In an article published in the September/October 2021 issue of Foreign Affairs, Daniel Drezner, Professor at Tufts University and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, criticizes successive US administrations for using “sanctions as the go-to solution for nearly every foreign policy problem.” He notes that sanctions not only are ineffective, but also “exert a humanitarian toll”, and that the United States of America has become the “United States of Sanctions”.
US unilateral sanctions are a continuous, grave violation of human rights of Americans and other peoples. The worst example is the protracted US blockade against Cuba.
For more than 60 years, in total disregard of the many resolutions of the UN General Assembly, the US has continued its comprehensive blockade against Cuba based on its embargo policies and domestic laws such as the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act.
The Cuba blockade is the longest and cruelest systemic trade embargo, economic blockade and financial sanctions in modern history. The blockade has been gravely detrimental to Cuba’s economic and social development, causing US$100 billion direct losses to Cuba’s economy.
US blockade and sanctions against Iran began in late 1970s. Over the past 40-plus years, US unilateral sanctions have increased in both intensity and frequency. They have gradually evolved into a rigorous sanction regime that covers finance, trade and energy, and are targeted at both entities and individuals. The purpose is to intensify pressure on Iran from all dimensions.
In May 2018, the US government announced its unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and soon after resumed and expanded sanctions against Iran. Many countries and relevant entities have been forced to give up their cooperation with Iran. A large number of foreign oil enterprises left the country. Iran’s manufacturing industry has been unable to keep up normal operations. The country has suffered economic slowdown, coupled with heightened inflation and massive currency depreciation.
The US has imposed sanctions on Belarus, Syria and Zimbabwe, among others, over the years, and ratcheted up “maximum pressure” against the DPRK, Venezuela, etc.
(4) The “beacon of democracy” draws global criticism
The people of the world have a discerning eye. They see very well the flaws and deficiencies of democracy in the US, hypocrisy in exporting US “democratic values”, and US acts of bullying and hegemony around the world in the name of democracy.
A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson once noted that the US is accustomed to posing as the “global beacon of democracy” and urging everyone else to take a humane approach to what they call “peaceful protests”, but adopting completely opposite measures at home. She further noted that the US is “not a beacon of democracy”, and that the US administration “would do well to, first of all, listen to its own citizens and try to hear them, instead of engaging in witch-hunts in their own country and afterwards talking hypocritically about human rights in other countries”. The US is in no position to lecture other countries on human rights and civil liberties, she noted.
In May 2021, Latana, a German polling agency, and the Alliance of Democracies founded by former NATO Secretary General and former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, released a Democracy Perception Index which is based on a survey of over 50,000 people in 53 countries. The findings reveal that 44% of respondents are concerned that the US may pose a threat to democracy in their country, 50% of Americans surveyed are concerned that the US is an undemocratic country, and 59% of US respondents think that their government acts in the interest of a small group of people.
In June 2021, Brian Klaas, Associate Professor of Politics at University College London, contributed an article to The Washington Post entitled “The world is horrified by the dysfunction of American democracy”. The article quotes data from Pew Research Center, which suggest that “America is no longer a ‘shining city upon a hill’” and that most US allies see democracy in the US as “a shattered, washed-up has-been”, and that 69% of respondents in New Zealand, 65% in Australia, 60% in Canada, 59% in Sweden, 56% in the Netherlands and 53% in the United Kingdom do not think that the US political system works well. More than a quarter of people surveyed in France, Germany, New Zealand, Greece, Belgium and Sweden believe that American democracy has never been a good example to follow.
A report by the polling agency Eupinions indicates that the EU’s confidence in the US system has declined, with 52% of respondents believing the US democratic system does not work; 65% and 61% of respondents in France and Germany hold the same view.
In September 2021, Martin Wolf, a renowned British scholar, pointed out in his article “The strange death of American democracy” contributed to The Financial Times that the US political environment has reached an “irreversible” point, and “the transformation of the democratic republic into an autocracy has advanced”.
In November 2021, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, a Sweden-based think tank, released The Global State of Democracy listing the US as a “backsliding democracy” for the first time. The Secretary General of the institute said that “the visible deterioration of democracy in the United States” is “seen in the increasing tendency to contest credible election results, the efforts to suppress participation (in elections), and the runaway polarization”.
Indian political activist Yogendra Yadav points out that the United States is not “an exemplar of democracy”, that the world has realized that the US needs to reflect on its democracy and learn from other democracies.
Mexican magazine Proceso comments that behind a seemingly free and democratic facade, the US system of democracy has major flaws.
Sithembile Mbete, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Sciences at the University of Pretoria, writes in an article published in Mail and Guardian that “many of the markers of free and fair elections — a universal voters’ roll, centralized election management, uniform rules and regulations — are absent in the American system. Much of what we Africans have been trained to recognize as good electoral conduct has never existed in the US.”
Conclusion
America: no longer the beacon on the hill
— The Times of Israel
What is now imperative for the US is to get to work in real earnest to ensure its people’s democratic rights and improve its system of democracy instead of placing too much emphasis on procedural or formal democracy at the expense of substantive democracy and its outcome.
What is also imperative for the US is to undertake more international responsibilities and provide more public goods to the world instead of always seeking to impose its own brand of democracy on others, use its own values as means to divide the world into different camps, or carry out intervention, subversion and invasion in other countries under the pretext of promoting democracy.
The international community is now faced with pressing challenges of a global scale, from the COVID-19 pandemic, economic slowdown to the climate change crisis. No country can be immune from these risks and challenges. All countries should pull together. This is the best way forward to overcome these adversities.
Any attempt to push for a single or absolute model of democracy, use democracy as an instrument or weapon in international relations, or advocate bloc politics and bloc confrontation will be a breach of the spirit of solidarity and cooperation which is critical in troubled times.
All countries need to rise above differences in systems, reject the mentality of zero-sum game, and pursue genuine multilateralism.
All countries need to uphold peace, development, equity, justice, democracy and freedom, which are common values of humanity.
It is also important that all countries respect each other, work to expand common ground while shelving differences, promote cooperation for mutual benefit, and jointly build a community with a shared future for mankind.
美国民主情况2021-12-05 10:00目 录
序言
一、何为民主
二、美国民主的异化及三重弊害
（一）制度痼疾积重难返
1、美式民主沦为“金钱政治”
2、名为“一人一票”，实为“少数精英统治”
3、权力制衡变成“否决政治”
4、选举规则缺陷损害公平正义
5、民主制度失灵引发信任危机
（二）民主实践乱象丛生
1、国会暴乱震惊全球
2、种族歧视根深蒂固
3、疫情失控酿成惨剧
4、贫富分化不断加剧
5、“言论自由”名不副实
（三）输出所谓民主产生恶果
1、“颜色革命”危害地区和国家稳定
2、强推所谓民主造成人道悲剧
3、滥用制裁破坏国际规则
4、“民主灯塔”招致全球批评
结束语
序言
民主是全人类的共同价值，是各国人民的权利，而不是哪个国家的专利。实现民主有多种方式，不可能千篇一律。用单一的标尺衡量世界丰富多彩的政治制度，用单调的眼光审视人类五彩缤纷的政治文明，本身就是不民主的。每个国家的政治制度应由这个国家的人民自主决定。
美国民主制度是美国一国实践的结果，具有独特性，不具普遍性，更远非尽善尽美。但长期以来，美国无视自身民主制度的结构性缺陷与国内民主实践的不足，自诩为“民主样板”，频频打着民主的旗号肆意干涉他国内政、发动对外战争，引发地区动荡和人道主义灾难。
本报告旨在通过列举事实和专家观点，梳理美国民主制度的弊端，分析美国国内民主实践的乱象和对外输出民主的危害，希望美国完善自身民主制度和实践，对外改弦易辙。这既有利于美国人民，也有利于世界人民。如果没有哪个国家试图垄断民主标准，没有哪个国家试图把本国政治制度强加于人，没有哪个国家试图把民主当作工具打压别国，各国各美其美、美美与共，这个世界会更美好。
一、何为民主
民主一词源自古希腊语，本意是“人民统治”、“主权在民”。作为一种政体形式，民主迄今已有2500多年历史，涵盖了从古代雅典公民直接民主政府到现代代议制政府等多种形式，是人类政治文明发展的结果。
民主不是装饰品、不是宣传品，而是要用来解决人民需要解决的问题的。一个国家民主不民主，关键在于是不是真正做到了人民当家做主。要看人民有没有投票权，更要看人民有没有广泛参与权；要看人民在选举中得到了什么口头许诺，更要看选举后这些承诺实现了多少；要看制度和法律规定了什么样的政治程序和政治规则，更要看这些制度和法律是不是真正得到了执行；要看权力运行规则和程序是否民主，更要看权力是否真正受到人民监督和制约。
一个行之有效的民主制度不仅要有完整的制度程序，而且要有完整的参与实践，能够做到过程民主和成果民主、程序民主和实质民主、直接民主和间接民主、人民民主和国家意志的相统一。如果人民只有在投票时被唤醒、投票后就进入休眠期，只有竞选时聆听天花乱坠的口号、竞选后就毫无发言权，只有拉票时受宠、选举后就被冷落，这样的民主绝不是真正的民主。
一个国家是不是民主，应该由这个国家的人民来评判，而不是由外部少数人来指手画脚。
世界上没有哪一套民主制度是完美的，不存在适用于一切国家的政治制度模式。各国民主制度的建立和民主进程的发展都有其历史性和民族性，都有自身独特价值。国际社会应在相互尊重、平等相待基础上就民主问题进行交流对话，共同为全人类进步作出更大贡献。
二、美国民主的异化及三重弊害
历史上，美国民主的发展有其进步性，政党制、代议制、一人一票、三权分立等是对欧洲封建专制的否定和革新。法国著名思想家托克维尔在其《论美国的民主》一书中也对此予以积极评价。《独立宣言》、“权利法案”、废奴运动、民权运动、平权运动等成为了美国民主进程中的亮点。林肯的“民有、民治、民享”三原则更是脍炙人口。
但是，随着时间的推移，美国的民主制度逐渐异化和蜕变，已经越来越背离民主制度的内核和制度设计的初衷。金钱政治、身份政治、政党对立、政治极化、社会撕裂、种族矛盾、贫富分化等问题愈演愈烈，民主制度的功能出现衰退。
美国还以民主为名频频干涉他国内政，引发地区国家政局动荡和民不聊生，破坏世界和平稳定和各国社会安定。美国和世界上的许多人都在问，美国还是一个“民主国家”吗？世界需要对美国的民主情况作深入检视，美国自己也需要好好反躬自省。
（一）制度痼疾积重难返
美国一贯以“山巅之城”、“民主灯塔”自称，标榜其自诞生之初就设计了一套为保障民主自由而生的政治体制。然而，民主这一理念同今天的美国已经貌合神离。从金钱政治到精英统治，从政治极化到制度失灵，美式民主已身染沉疴。
1、美式民主沦为“金钱政治”
美式民主是建立在资本基础上的“富人游戏”，与人民民主有着本质区别。
100多年前，美国俄亥俄州共和党联邦参议员马克·汉纳这样形容美国政治：“在政界，有两样东西很重要，第一是金钱，第二个我就不记得了。”100多年后再看，金钱依旧是美国政治的“硬通货”，而且作用更无可替代。以2020年美国总统和国会选举为例，此次选举总支出高达140亿美元，是2016年的2倍和2008年的3倍，被称为“史上最烧钱的大选”。其中，总统选举花费再创历史纪录，达到66亿美元；国会选举花销超过70亿美元。
美国民众不得不面对的事实是，金钱政治贯穿美国选举、立法、施政的所有环节，实际上限制了民众的参政权利，经济地位的不平等已经转变为政治地位的不平等，只有口袋里有足够多资本的人才能享受宪法规定的民主权利。金钱政治越来越成为美国社会难以根除的一颗“毒瘤”，成为美国民主的莫大讽刺。
一位美国联邦参议员一针见血地指出：“有些人认为美国国会控制着华尔街，然而真相是华尔街控制着美国国会”。据统计，91%的美国国会选举都是由获得最多资金支持的候选人赢得，而大企业、少数富人以及利益集团出手更加阔绰，成为选举资金的主要来源。这些所谓“民意代表”成功当选后，往往为其背后的金主服务，化身既得利益的代言人，而不是为普通民众发声。
2020年3月，加州大学伯克利分校公共政策教授、美国前劳工部长罗伯特·莱克出版《系统：谁操纵它，我们如何修复它》一书。该书认为，过去40多年，美国的政治系统被极少一部分人操控。政治献金几乎被视为“合法的贿赂”，让富人拥有了更强大的政治影响力。2018年中期选举中，巨额政治献金占到了竞选资金的40%以上，这些巨额资金主要来自占美国总人口0.01%的富豪。金钱政治和游说团体正在扭曲美国普通民众发声的渠道，绝大多数人表达真实意愿的声音都被少数利益集团盖过了。这些寡头又用手中的权力来充实自己的财富，而普通民众的利益则被抛诸脑后。
2020年9月23日，哈佛大学法学院教授马修·史蒂芬森在接受“今日哈佛法律”采访时表示，美国在廉政方面绝不是世界领袖，游说、政治献金等做法在其他国家被认为是腐败，但在美国不仅被允许，还受宪法法律保护。
2、名为“一人一票”，实为“少数精英统治”
美国是一个典型的由精英阶层主导的国家，“多元政治”只是一种表面现象，精英们把持政治、经济、军事等方面的统治地位，操控国家机器，制定规章制度，把握舆论风向，主导商业公司，行使各种特权，等等。特别是自19世纪60年代以来，民主、共和两党轮流“坐庄”分享国家权力，多党制名存实亡。普通选民把选票投给第三党或独立候选人等于浪费投票机会，只能在两党推出的候选人之间做出非此即彼的选择。
在“驴象之争”背景下，两党始终将大众政治参与限定在狭小范围。对于普通选民而言，选举时召之即来，选举后挥之即去，大多数人都只是选举游戏的“群众演员”，“民治”在美国政治实践中很难有所体现。
美国麻省理工学院政治评论家与社会活动家诺姆·乔姆斯基指出，美国是“真实存在的资本主义民主”，美国人对政策制定的影响力与他们的财富水平之间呈正相关性，约70%的美国人对政策制定没有任何影响，他们在收入水平、财富等方面处于劣势，相当于被剥夺了参政权利。
美国马萨诸塞州大学教授贾拉拉贾在《大西洋月刊》发表文章表示，美国目前的民主只是形式上的民主，而不是实质民主。总统选举的全国范围初选完全受富人、名人、媒体和利益集团的操纵，民众投票支持的总统参选人往往不真正代表民意。
3、权力制衡变成“否决政治”
美国政治学家弗朗西斯·福山在其专著《政治秩序与政治衰退》中指出，美国存在根深蒂固的政治瘫痪现象，美国的政治体制中有太多的制衡，以致集体行动的成本大大增加，有时甚至寸步难行。这是一种可被称为“否决制”的体制。20世纪80年代以来，美国的“否决制”变成了通往政治僵局的“灵丹妙药”。
美国民主程序分散、冗长，存在大量否决点，个别否决行为即可影响体系行动，所谓“相互制衡蕴涵纠偏能力”的预设在实际操作中日益走样。美国政治极化加剧，两党诉求大相径庭，共识不断压缩，甚至出现“最自由的共和党人也比最保守的民主党人大大右倾”的极端状况，对立制约已成家常便饭，“否决政治”成为政治生态，“我办不成事也不能让你办成”蔚然成风。
华盛顿的政客关注的是保住党派利益，国家发展的宏图伟略早已抛诸脑后。否决对手会加强自身阵营身份认同，身份认同的加强又迅速巩固自身阵营支持力量，美国两党痴迷于“否决”，陷入难以自拔的恶性循环，其结果必然是政府效能被弱化、公正法治被践踏、发展进步被迟滞、社会分裂被放大。当今美国，“我是美国人”正渐次被“我是共和党人”“我是民主党人”所替代，“身份政治”“部落政治”向美社会各层面恶性传导加剧“否决政治”。
2021年10月美国智库皮尤研究中心对美国、德国、韩国等17个发达经济体所做调查结果显示，美国被视为政治极化最严重国家，90%的美国受访者认为不同党派的支持者之间存在严重分歧，近六成美国受访者认为民众不仅在政策领域意见相左，在基本事实方面也难以达成共识。
韩国庆熙大学政治学教授徐正健指出，美国政治两极化愈演愈烈，依靠选举推进改革的民主主义自净程序无法正常运行。美国国会参议院陷入“冗长辩论”议事程序陷阱，不能发挥立法应对社会变化的代议机构作用。
4、选举规则缺陷损害公平正义
美国总统选举遵循古老的选举人团制度，总统和副总统并非由选民直接选出，而是由选举人团投票决定。美国现有选举人票538张，赢得超过一半选举人票（270张）的候选人即当选总统。这种选举制度弊端十分明显：一是当选总统可能无法赢得多数普选票，代表性不足；二是具体选举规则由各州自行决定，易发生乱象；三是“赢者通吃”制度加剧各州地位不平等、各党地位不平等，造成巨大选票浪费并抑制投票率，深蓝州、深红州选民往往遭忽视，摇摆州获得相对非对称重要性，成为两党竞相拉拢的对象。
美国历史上出现过5次赢得了全国普选票却输掉总统选举的情况。最近的一次是，2016年大选共和党总统候选人唐纳德·特朗普获得6298万多张普选票，得票率45.9%。民主党总统候选人希拉里·克林顿获得6585万多张普选票，得票率48%。特朗普虽然输掉普选票，但赢得304张选举人票，希拉里仅获得227张选举人票，特朗普以选举人票数优势当选总统。
美国民众公认的选举制度另一大弊病是“杰利蝾螈”。1812年，马萨诸塞州州长杰利为谋求本党利益，签署法案将州内一个选区划成类似蝾螈的极不规则形状。这种做法后被称为“杰利蝾螈”，即指通过不公平的选区划分，帮助本党赢得尽可能多的议席，巩固优势地位。美国每10年进行一次人口普查，然后按“各选区人口大致相等”原则并结合人口变化情况重新划分选区。美国宪法将划分选区的权力赋予各州立法机构，为州议会多数党“杰利蝾螈”提供操作空间。“杰利蝾螈”主要靠两种操作，一是“集中”，即尽可能将反对党选民集中划入少数特定选区，牺牲这些选区以换取其他选区绝对安全；二是“打散”，即将反对党选民相对集中的地区拆分划入周边不同选区，从而稀释反对党选票。
民主党主政的俄勒冈州于2021年9月27日在全美率先完成选区重新划分，民主党牢牢控制的选区由原来的2个增至4个，“摇摆选区”由2个减至1个，这意味着该党可凭借57%的实际选民占比，控制该州83%的国会选区。反之，共和党控制的得克萨斯州于今年10月25日确定新的选区划分，牢牢控制的选区由原来的22个增至24个，“摇摆选区”由原来的6个减为1个，共和党可凭借52.1%的实际选民占比，占据该州65%的国会众议院席位。
2021年8月YouGov舆观调查网民调显示，仅16%选民认为本州能够公平划分选区，44%认为不能，其余40%表示不确定。随着美政治极化加剧，两党均竭力谋求自身利益最大化，“杰利蝾螈”成为不二选择。
民主党的“超级代表”制度也阻碍选举公平。“超级代表”由民主党主要领袖、全国委员会成员、参议院和众议院所有民主党议员、民主党现任州长组成，提前“内定”产生，其投票意向完全根据个人喜好和党内高层意志，无法反映民意。《国会山报》政治专家马克·普洛特金撰文表示，美国总统选举民主党党内初选中的“超级代表”制度既不公正也非民主。这样的“精英做法”应该立即被废除。
5、民主制度失灵引发信任危机
美式民主如同好莱坞刻意布置的场景，展现的都是精心打造的人设，台前大喊人民、背后大搞交易，党同伐异、金钱政治、否决政治根本不能带来民众所希望的高质量治理。美国民众对美国政治愈发反感，对美式民主愈发消极。
2020年10月，美国盖洛普民调公司调查显示，对总统选举非常有信心的美国受访者比例仅有19%，创下自2004年以来该调查的最低纪录。11月，《华尔街日报》网站指出，在2020年大选中，人们对美国民主制度的信心下降到20年来最低点。
根据美联社—NORC公共事务研究中心的一项民意调查，只有16%的美国人表示民主运作良好或非常好，45%的美国人认为民主运作不正常，而另外38%的美国人认为民主运作得不太良好。美国皮尤研究中心调查显示，仅有20%的美国人一直或多数时候都信任联邦政府。
2021年5月，布鲁金斯学会网站撰文指出，在2020年大选结束后，美国全部50个州认证选举结果，但仍有77%的共和党选民以选票欺诈为由质疑拜登当选总统的合法性。这是自20世纪30年代以来第一次。9月，美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）民调显示，56%的美国民众认为美国民主“正在遭受攻击”，52%认为选举没有或很少反映民意，51%认为未来几年美国官员可能因本党败选而推翻选举结果。
2021年，皮尤对16个发达经济体的1.6万人和2500名美国人的调查结果显示，57%的国际受访者和72%的美国人认为美国已经不是可供他国效仿的“民主典范”。
（二）民主实践乱象丛生
美国民主的异化不仅表现在制度设计等结构性层面，更体现在其实践中。美国不是民主的优等生，更遑论“民主典范”。国会山的枪声与闹剧彻底揭开美式民主的华丽外衣。黑人弗洛伊德之死揭露了美国社会长期存在的系统性种族歧视，激起全美乃至全世界此起彼伏的抗议浪潮。新冠疫情持续失控，是否戴口罩、打疫苗成为社会分裂和对立的新导火索。经济发展红利分配不均，普通民众收入长期停滞。美式民主难以有效维护公序良俗，无法充分提供公共福祉。
1、国会暴乱震惊全球
2021年1月6日下午，数千名美国民众聚集在华盛顿国会山并强行闯入国会大厦，以阻止美国国会联席会议确认美国新当选总统。事件导致美总统权力过渡进程中断并造成5人死亡，140多人受伤。此次事件是自1814年白宫遭英军纵火焚烧以来华盛顿最严重的暴力事件，200余年来国会大厦首次被占领。美国国会参议院共和党领袖将这一事件称为“失败的叛乱”。美国对外关系委员会学者惊呼，美国不像许多美国人想的那样与众不同，国会暴乱事件应给“美国例外论”和“山巅之城”的说法画上句号。
冲闯国会事件动摇了美式民主制度三大基石。一是所谓“民主”并不民主。美国一些政客拒绝承认选举结果，其支持者暴力冲闯国会大厦，重挫美国民主“公信力”。二是所谓“自由”并不自由。推特、脸书等社交媒体冻结美国一些政客的个人账号，宣布其“社交性死亡”，戳破美“言论自由”的假象。三是所谓“法治”并不法治。美执法部门对待“黑人的命也是命”示威抗议和冲闯国会事件态度一严一宽，不同执法尺度再次暴露美“法治”的双标本性。
冲闯国会事件震惊了国际社会，“哀其不幸，怒其不争”。英国首相约翰逊发推特表示，美国国会发生的事件非常可耻。法国总统马克龙讲话称，在世界最古老民主国家之一的美国，“一人一票”的普世价值正遭受重创。南非总统拉马福萨表示，这动摇了美国民主的基础。印尼前总统苏西洛发推特表示，美国政治闹剧值得深思，没有完美的民主制度，民主实践更不完美。
2、种族歧视根深蒂固
种族主义问题是美国民主无法磨灭的耻辱烙印。美国的开国元勋一边说着“人人生而平等”，一边却在1789年施行的宪法中保留了蓄奴制度。时至今日，美国虽然表面上废除了种族隔离制度，但白人至上主义甚嚣尘上，对黑人等少数族裔的歧视依然系统性存在。
美国的种族问题每隔一段时间就会“复发”。2020年5月25日，明尼苏达州警察暴力执法导致黑人弗洛伊德不治身亡。弗洛伊德死前“我无法呼吸”的绝望哀求点燃了汹涌民愤，全美50个州上百个城市随后爆发游行示威，为弗洛伊德伸张正义，抗议种族歧视问题。直到事件发生百余天后，有关游行仍在持续。
弗洛伊德的遭遇只是美国黑人百年来悲惨境遇的缩影。正如美国心理学会主席舒尔曼所说，美国始终处于一场种族主义的大流行病中，民权运动领袖马丁·路德·金的梦想至今并未实现。印度主流媒体《印度快报》发表社论称，美国的种族主义颠覆了美民主制度。
2021年2月，斯坦福大学新闻网发表文章检视美各领域系统性种族歧视：在教育领域，有色人种儿童在学校受到更为密切的监视；在司法领域，有色人种尤其是黑人更容易成为被针对的目标；在经济和就业领域，从应聘职位到获取贷款，黑人等其他少数族裔群体在职场和整体经济环境中受到歧视。美国华盛顿大学研究报告显示，1980年至2018年间，美国约有30800人因警察暴力死亡，这一数字比官方公布的人数多出约17100人，其中非洲裔因警察暴力死亡的可能性是白人的3.5倍。
美各地爆发的愤怒不只来自黑人，已跨越种族界限。以色列《耶路撒冷邮报》网站刊文指出，美国犹太人对白人至上主义团体驱动的右翼反犹主义和暴力行为感到担忧。美国犹太人委员会年度民调显示，2020年43%的在美犹太人认为其安全感比上一年更低，2017年有41%的人认为反犹主义在美国是一个严重问题，该比率远高于2016年的21%、2015年的21%和2013年的14%。
美国国内对亚裔群体的欺凌也在不断加剧。新冠疫情暴发以来，亚裔美国人在公共场合遭受羞辱甚至攻击的事件此起彼伏。美国联邦调查局公布的数据显示，2020年全美针对亚裔的仇恨犯罪案件数量上升76%。从2020年3月到2021年6月，“停止仇恨亚裔美国人”组织接到了9000多起投诉报告。美国全国广播公司网站一项针对美国亚裔年轻人的调查显示，在过去1年中，四分之一的美国亚裔年轻人成为种族欺凌目标，近一半受访者对自身所处境遇表示悲观，四分之一的受访者对自己及家人所处的境遇表示恐惧。
3、疫情失控酿成惨剧
美国号称具有世界上最丰富的医疗资源，应对新冠肺炎疫情却一片混乱，成为世界上确诊人数和死亡人数最多的国家。
截至2021年11月底，根据约翰斯·霍普金斯大学统计数据，美国累计报告新冠肺炎确诊病例超过4800万例，累计死亡逾77万例，两项数据均名列世界第一。今年1月8日，美国单日新增新冠肺炎确诊病例300777例，达到疫情在美暴发以来最高；1月13日，4170名美国人因感染新冠肺炎去世，远超“9·11”恐怖袭击事件丧生人数。11月末，美国日均新增确诊病例数量超过7万例，新增死亡病例逾700例，美国平均每500人就有1人死于新冠肺炎。截至目前，美国新冠病亡人数已超越1919年大流感病亡人数，也超过美在一战、二战、朝鲜战争、越南战争、伊拉克战争、阿富汗战争死亡人数之和。如果美国能够科学应对，很多人不必付出生命代价。美国流行病学家、疾病控制与预防中心原负责人威廉·福格认为“这是一场屠杀”。
疫情重创美国经济。美国企业倒闭和失业潮发生速度及规模超乎想象，大量民众长期失业，社会不稳定因素增加等加剧了美国人的焦虑感和无力感。美国预算与政策优先事项中心2021年7月29日的《新冠困境报告》显示，尽管情况比2020年12月有所改善，但2021年上半年美国人生活困难情况依旧十分普遍，仍有2000万成年人所在家庭没有足够食物，1140万成年租房者无法按时交纳房租，面临被赶出租屋的风险。美国人口普查局数据显示，截至2021年7月5日，有未成年人的家庭中至少有一人失去收入来源的比例仍高达22%。美民众消费信心大幅下滑，就业市场复苏放缓。高盛、摩根士丹利、牛津经济研究院等机构纷纷显著下调美经济增长预期。同时，疫情、三轮大规模经济刺激计划等因素叠加导致美港口拥堵和供应短缺，进而推升美通货膨胀率。今年10月，美消费者价格指数（CPI）同比上涨6.2%，连续6个月同比上涨幅度达到或超过5%，创2008年来最大涨幅。
疫情在美延宕，症结并非在于美国没有科学，而是不信科学、不用科学。美国一些政客为了选举，将党派利益置于国家利益之上，将抗疫问题政治化，一门心思对外“甩锅”推责。美联邦与各州一盘散沙，不仅形不成合力，反而彼此争斗。在这个大背景下，抗疫举措已被严重政治化，疫苗打与不打、口罩戴与不戴都成为了政党、民众争执的焦点，反智主义甚嚣尘上。
法国《世界报》报道指出，新冠疫情危机揭示了美国民主制度的脆弱性。美国把昂贵的医疗卫生体系留给富人，放任贫穷者被剥夺社会保障，使美国这一世界上最发达国家因社会不公而变得落伍，这是民主偏差导致无法有效管控疫情的经典案例。斯坦福大学新闻网指出，在医疗卫生领域，新冠疫情对有色人种造成了更严重的影响，凸显了白人和有色人种之间健康水平差距。
4、贫富分化不断加剧
美国是贫富分化最严重的西方国家。2021年美国基尼系数升至0.48，几乎是半个世纪以来的新高。美国智库政策研究院报告称，1990年至2021年，美国亿万富翁的总体财富增长了19倍，而同期美国中位数财富只增加了5.37%。这揭示了美国“富者愈富、穷者愈穷”的残酷现实。
美联储2021年10月统计数据显示，截至今年6月，美国收入在中间60%的“中产阶级”拥有的财富在国家总财富中占比已经跌至26.6%，创过去30年来新低，而收入前1%的富人却拥有27%的国家财富，超过了“中产阶级”。
加州大学伯克利分校经济学家伊曼努尔·萨兹发表的统计数据显示，美国前10%富人人均年收入是后90%人口的9倍多，前1%富人人均年收入是后90%人口的40倍，而前0.1%富人人均年收入是后90%人口的196倍之多。
新冠疫情暴发以来，美国实施“大水漫灌”政策，在推高股市的同时也进一步拉大了贫富差距。美国亿万富翁拥有的总资产增加了1.763万亿美元，涨幅高达59.8%。排名前10%的美国富人持有89%的美国股票，创下历史新高。
美国的贫富分化是由美国政治制度及其政府所代表的资本利益所决定的。从“占领华尔街”运动，到近期的“大猩猩”对视华尔街铜牛事件，美国民众对贫富分化的声讨从未停止，但现状毫无改变。美国治理者放任贫富差距扩大，疫情之下，资本优先、富人先行的社会规则更加横行。
5、“言论自由”名不副实
在美国，媒体被称为与行政、立法、司法三权并立的“第四权力”，记者更是被誉为“无冕之王”。美国媒体虽然标榜独立于政治、为自由和真相服务，但早已服务于金钱和党派政治。
少数传媒集团垄断美国新闻业，成为一手遮天的政治力量。1996年美国颁布了《电信法》，要求联邦政府放松媒体所有权监管，由此掀起史无前例的兼并狂潮，对美国媒体的多样性和独立性造成毁灭性打击。随着美国媒体数量锐减，少数几家公司不断做大，形成垄断巨头。今天的美国，少数几家企业控制90%以上的媒体，年收益甚至超过某些发展中国家的经济总量。这些媒体“巨无霸”一边大肆扩张商业版图，一边将触手伸向美国政坛，通过游说公关和竞选献金左右政治进程。
被垄断的美国媒体成为公民政治权利的“隐形杀手”。美国传播政治经济学派代表人物、伊利诺伊大学香槟分校教授罗伯特·麦克切斯尼在《富媒体穷民主》一书中指出，出于追逐利润的本性，媒体公司将民众封锁在娱乐节目的世界中，使民众失去获取多元化信息的渠道、关心公共问题的兴趣以及明辨是非的能力，在社会政策制定过程中逐渐失声。民主政治文化在媒体高度发达的美国社会变得极度萎缩，“政治疏离”导致民主成为一种“没有公民”的政治游戏。迈阿密《新先驱报》报道称，在精英和财团控制的媒体诱导下，民众已无法辨别哪些是事实真相，哪些是政治宣传。
美国媒体不再是民主的“守门员”。媒体行业的“左右之争”无形中加深了美国两党之间、精英与平民之间的隔阂与分歧，造成“左的更左”、“右的更右”，并导致极端思想和民粹主义在美国登堂入室。
韩国智库世宗研究所刊文指出，超过80%的美国保守派选民将《纽约时报》等主流媒体报道视为虚假消息，对媒体的信任呈偏向性。选民只听信特定媒体，无视国家层面沟通，大喊大叫、消极党争代替了冷静讨论和共识。牛津大学—路透社新闻研究所发布《2021全球数字新闻洞察报告》指出，在对46个国家的92000名新闻消费者调查后发现，美国民众对媒体的信任度排名垫底，受调查人群中仅有29%的民众信任媒体。
在传统媒体衰落的信息时代，社交媒体一跃成为公众“新宠”，但也免不了复制传统媒体被大资本和利益集团控制的老路。社交媒体公司为了赚取流量，利用算法为用户编织起“信息茧房”，对提供的极端内容不加管控，从而导致使用者日益自我固化，身份政治和民意撕裂更加严重。
2021年10月，前脸书公司员工豪根公布了数万份关于脸书公司内部运作的爆炸性文件。豪根向美国哥伦比亚广播公司透露，脸书公司为了保持用户粘度，不惜牺牲公众利益而攫取利润。脸书平台是社会极端分子的主要阵地，充斥着仇恨言论、虚假信息和错误信息，而只有3%至5%的仇恨以及约0.6%的暴力和煽动性言论得到管控。
（三）输出所谓民主产生恶果
美国政府不顾世界上不同国家和地区在经济发展水平和历史文化方面存在的巨大差异，将自己的政治制度和价值理念强加于人，推行“民主改造”，策划“颜色革命”，肆意干涉他国内政，甚至颠覆他国政权，造成灾难性后果。美国按照自己的形象塑造其他国家、“输出民主”的行为本身就不民主，从根本上违背了民主的核心价值理念。美式民主嫁接之地，不但没有产生“化学反应”，反而引发“水土不服”，导致许多地区和国家深陷动荡、冲突和战争泥潭。
1、“颜色革命”危害地区和国家稳定
美国惯于打着所谓“民主价值”的旗号，大肆干涉别国内政、甚至策动政权更迭、扶持亲美政府。前美国中央情报局高官曾宣称“把人们塑造成为我们需要的样子，让他们听我们的。只要把脑子弄乱，我们就能不知不觉改变人们的价值观念，并迫使他们相信一种经过偷换的价值观念”。美国前国务卿蓬佩奥曾公开表示：“我曾担任美国中央情报局局长。我们撒谎、我们欺骗、我们偷窃。我们还有一门课程专门来教这些。这才是美国不断探索进取的荣耀。”
美国已形成了一整套实施“和平演变”的套路：首先借所谓“文化交流”、经济援助、控制舆论等方式，为发动“颜色革命”制造舆论氛围，尽量夸大现政权的错误、弊端，以激起群众的不满和反政府情绪；同时，向民众灌输美国的价值观，使人们认同美国的经济政治制度；培养大量非政府组织，全方位培训反对派领导人，抓住重要选举或突发事件的时机，通过各种街头政治活动，推翻当地政权。
历史上，美国借“推广民主”之名在拉美推行“新门罗主义”，在欧亚地区煽动“颜色革命”，在西亚北非国家遥控“阿拉伯之春”，给多国带来混乱和灾难，严重损害世界和平、稳定和发展。
在拉美和加勒比地区，“美式民主”的美颜滤镜早已破碎，美国“民主典范”的自我表演充满了尴尬。1823年，美国发表“门罗宣言”，宣称“美洲是美洲人的美洲”，鼓噪“泛美主义”。此后，美国无数次打着“传播民主”的旗号，对拉美和加勒比地区进行政治干涉、军事介入和政权颠覆。无论是敌视封锁社会主义古巴近60年，还是颠覆智利阿连德政府等，都是“顺我者昌，逆我者亡”的霸权行径。
2003年起，东欧、中亚地区接连发生格鲁吉亚“玫瑰革命”、乌克兰“橙色革命”和吉尔吉斯斯坦“郁金香革命”。美国国务院公开承认在这些“政权更迭”中发挥了“中心作用”。2020年10月，俄罗斯对外情报局披露美国计划在摩尔多瓦掀起“颜色革命”。
始于2010年的“阿拉伯之春”造成整个中东地区的强烈震荡，而美国在其中扮演着幕后“操盘手”的重要角色。2011年《纽约时报》披露，少数由美国政府资助的核心组织正在“专制的”阿拉伯国家推广民主。参与“阿拉伯之春”的若干组织和个人曾从美国“国际共和研究所”“国际事务民主协会”和“自由之家”获得培训和资助。埃塞俄比亚非洲和国际事务专家穆斯塔法·阿哈马迪在“金字塔在线”网站发表文章《应许之地》指出，埃及人民在奥巴马“现在就意味着现在”的口号煽动下推翻了穆巴拉克，但埃及人民也因政局变动付出了沉重代价。美国的所作所为使阿拉伯人民认识到，美国希望将一种刻板的民主模式强加于阿拉伯人，而不管他们的意愿如何。
环顾被美国强行“推销”价值观的国家，真正的民主、自由、人权不见踪迹，持久混乱、发展停滞和人道主义灾难却随处可见。美国对多国的价值观输出，阻断了这些国家正常的发展进程，阻碍了这些国家探索适合本国国情的发展道路和模式，给当地带来政治、经济、社会的强烈动荡，毁灭了一个个曾经美好的家园，滋生恐怖主义等长期后患，威胁和破坏地区乃至全球安全。正如法国《大晚报》所指出的，“民主”在美国手中早已成为对异见国家的“大规模杀伤性武器”。
美国在评价国内外民主方面秉持不同标准，是褒是贬由美国自说自话、随心所欲。2021年1月6日，美国发生冲闯国会山事件后，有位美国政客将其比作“9·11”恐怖袭击，声称这是对美国国会、宪法和民主“可耻的攻击”。但讽刺的是，2019年6月，此人却将发生在香港立法会的暴力示威活动描绘成“一道美丽的风景线”，并对暴徒展现出的“勇气”大加赞赏，暴露出赤裸裸的“双重标准”。
2、强推所谓民主造成人道悲剧
美国强制输出所谓民主，酿成多国人道灾难。美国发动长达20年的阿富汗战争让阿富汗满目疮痍，民生凋敝。据统计，总共47245名阿富汗平民以及6.6万至6.9万名与“9·11”事件无关的阿富汗军人和警察在美军行动中丧生，1000多万人流离失所。阿富汗战争毁坏阿经济发展基础，让阿富汗人民一贫如洗。
2003年，美国以所谓伊拉克持有大规模杀伤性武器为由，对伊拉克发动军事打击。战争导致的平民死亡人数有20万至25万人，其中美军直接致死的超过16000人，并造成100多万人无家可归。美军还严重违反国际人道主义原则，频频制造“虐囚”事件。时至今日，美国也拿不出所谓“伊拉克持有大规模杀伤性武器”的证据。
2016年至2019年，叙利亚有记载死于战乱的平民达33584人。其中，美国领导的联军轰炸直接致死3833人，有半数是妇女和儿童。美国公共电视网2018年11月9日报道，仅美军对拉卡市发动的所谓“史上最精确的空袭”，就导致1600名叙平民被炸死。
2018年，美国以“阻止叙利亚政府使用化学武器”为由，再次对叙展开空中打击。但后来所谓叙利亚政府使用化学武器的证据，被证明只不过是美国等国情报部门资助的“白头盔”组织自编自演的摆拍视频而已。
3、滥用制裁破坏国际规则
单边制裁是美国的对外大棒。长期以来，美国滥用自身金融霸权和技术优势，频频采取单边霸凌行径。美国制订了《国际紧急经济权力法》《全球马格尼茨基人权问责法》《以制裁反击美国敌人法》等国内恶法并炮制了一系列行政令直接对特定国家、组织或个人进行制裁，以“最低联系原则”“效果原则”等模棱两可的规则任意扩大美国内法管辖范围，还滥用国内司法诉讼渠道对其他国家实体和个人搞“长臂管辖”，其中最典型的案例就是“阿尔斯通案”和“孟晚舟案”。据统计，特朗普政府累计实施逾3900项制裁措施，相当于平均每天挥舞3次“制裁大棒”。截至2021财年，美净制裁实体和个人高达9421个，较2000财年增长933%。美实施非法单边制裁与“长臂管辖”，严重损害他国主权安全，严重影响有关国家国计民生，严重违反国际法和国际关系基本准则。
2021年以来，美对外制裁没有收手。美国政府联合欧洲盟国加大对俄罗斯遏制打压，以纳瓦尔内事件、俄对美网络攻击、干预美大选等为由对俄实施全面制裁，并发动外交战，驱逐俄外交人员。在“北溪-2”天然气管道项目和数字税等问题上，美国制裁欧洲盟友也毫不客气。自中美第一阶段经贸协议生效以来，美国不断对华采取打压遏制措施，将940多个中国实体和个人列入各类限制清单。根据美财政部外国资产控制办公室数据，截至10月19日，美制裁含香港、澳门在内的中国实体和个人数量达391个。
美国塔夫茨大学教授、布鲁金斯学会高级研究员丹尼尔·德雷兹纳今年9月在《外交》杂志发表文章，批评美国历届政府将制裁作为解决外交问题的首选方案，非但起不到效果，还造成人道主义灾难，称“美利坚合众国”已成为“制裁合众国”。
美国实施单方面制裁，持续严重侵犯本国及他国人民的人权。其中最恶劣的例子就是对古巴持续实施封锁。60多年来，美国罔顾联合国大会的多项决议，基于通过禁运政策和《托里切利法》《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法》等国内法构筑起针对古巴的全面封锁体系，实施了现代历史上持续时间最长、程度最严厉的系统性贸易禁运、经济封锁和金融制裁，严重损害古经济社会发展，令古蒙受直接经济损失逾千亿美元。
自上世纪70年代末，美国对伊朗开始了长期封锁和制裁。40多年来，美单边制裁力度和频度不断加大，逐步形成以金融、贸易、能源和实体个人等多领域制裁为主要手段的严密体系，对伊朗施加全方位、多管齐下的制裁压力。2018年5月，美国政府单方面退出伊朗核问题全面协议，随后重启并新增一系列对伊制裁。许多国家和相关实体被迫放弃与伊合作，大批国外石油企业陆续撤出伊，伊制造业难以正常运行，经济增速下滑，同时造成通胀高企、货币大幅贬值。
美国还对白俄罗斯、叙利亚、津巴布韦等国实施多年制裁，加大对朝鲜、委内瑞拉等国“极限施压”。
4、“民主灯塔”招致全球批评
全球民众的眼睛是雪亮的，对于美国民主存在的种种缺陷、美国输出“民主价值观”的虚伪性以及美借民主之名在全球横行霸道看得一清二楚。
俄罗斯外交部发言人指出，美国早已习惯于自诩为“世界民主灯塔”，要求别国人道对待和平请愿，但在自己国内却采取截然相反的做法，美国根本不是照亮民主的灯塔。美国政府首先应倾听本国民众呼声，不要一边在国内搞“猎巫行动”，一边还道貌岸然地大谈别国人权问题。美国在人权和公民自由问题上根本没资格对别国指手画脚。
2021年5月，德国民调机构拉塔纳和由北约前秘书长、丹麦前首相拉斯穆森创建的民主国家联盟基金会在53个国家对5万多人进行的“2021年民主认知指数”调查结果显示，44%的受访者担心美国对本国民主构成威胁，50%的美国受访者担心美国是非民主国家，59%的美国受访者认为美国政府只代表少数集团利益。
2021年6月，英国伦敦大学政治学副教授克拉斯在《华盛顿邮报》发表文章《美国民主失灵令世界震惊》。文章援引的皮尤民调显示，美国不再是“山巅之城”，美多数盟友将美国民主视为“破碎的过往”，新西兰、澳大利亚、加拿大、瑞典、荷兰和英国分别有69%、65%、60%、59%、56%和53%的民众认为美国政治体制运行得不太好或者很不好。法国、德国、新西兰、希腊、比利时、瑞典等国均有超过四分之一的民众认为“美国从来都不是民主典范”。
民调机构“欧盟观点”发布的报告显示，欧盟对美国制度的信心下滑，52%的人认为美国民主制度无效，这一比例在法国和德国分别为65%和61%。
2021年9月，英国知名学者马丁·沃尔夫在《金融时报》发表文章《美国民主的奇异消亡》指出，美国的政治环境已走到快无法挽回的程度，民主共和国进一步向专制主义转变。
2021年11月，瑞典智库“国际民主及选举协助研究所”发布年度报告《2021年全球民主现状》，将美国首次列入“退步的民主国家名单”。该组织秘书长表示，美国民主状况明显恶化，体现为对可信的选举结果提出质疑的趋势愈发明显、对参与选举的压制以及日益严重的极化现象。
印度政治活动家亚达夫指出，美国并非“民主典范”，世界认识到美式民主急需自我反思，美国需向其他民主国家学习。墨西哥《进程》杂志评论称，在看似民主自由的表象下，美国民主制度存在巨大缺陷。南非比勒陀利亚大学政治学系高级讲师姆贝特在《邮卫报》上撰文称，自由和公平选举的许多标志，比如普遍的选民名册、集中的选举管理、统一的规则和条例，其实在美国系统中是缺失的。非洲人所接受民主培训中的良好选举行为在美国从未存在。
结束语
山巅之城的美国，灯塔效应不再。
——《以色列时报》
当下的美国，对内应切实保障民众的民主权利、完善自身民主制度，对外应承担更多的国际责任，提供更多的公共产品，而不是对内只讲程序民主、形式民主而忽视实质民主和结果民主，对外将美式民主强加于人，以价值观为手段划分阵营，打着民主的旗号行干涉、颠覆、侵略之实。
当前，国际社会正在应对新冠肺炎疫情、经济增长放缓、气候变化危机等全球性紧迫挑战。面对这些风险和挑战，谁都无法独善其身，团结合作是最有力的武器。把民主一元化、绝对化、工具化、武器化，人为制造集团政治和阵营对立，这与同舟共济的精神背道而驰。
各国应该超越不同制度分歧，摒弃零和博弈思维，践行真正的多边主义，弘扬和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由的全人类共同价值，相互尊重、求同存异、合作共赢，共同构建人类命运共同体。
______________________________
The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China
Contents
I. Whole-Process People’s Democracy Under CPC Leadership
II. A Sound Institutional Framework
Preamble
Democracy is a common value of humanity and an ideal that has always been cherished by the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese people.
This year marks the centenary of the CPC. Since its founding in 1921, the Party has taken wellbeing for the Chinese people and the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation as its abiding goals, and has made continuous efforts to ensure the people’s status as masters of the country. China is a country with a feudal history dating back several thousand years that descended into a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society after the Opium War of 1840. Over the past hundred years, the Party has led the people in realizing people’s democracy in China. The Chinese people now truly hold in their hands their own future and that of society and the country.
The people’s status as masters of the country is the essence of people’s democracy. Since the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012, with a deeper understanding of China’s path to democracy and the political system, the Party has developed whole-process people’s democracy as a key concept and striven to translate it and relevant democratic values into effective institutions and concrete actions.
Whole-process people’s democracy integrates process-oriented democracy with results-oriented democracy, procedural democracy with substantive democracy, direct democracy with indirect democracy, and people’s democracy with the will of the state. It is a model of socialist democracy that covers all aspects of the democratic process and all sectors of society. It is a true democracy that works.
Democracy is a concrete phenomenon that is constantly evolving. Rooted in history, culture and tradition, it takes diverse forms and develops along the paths chosen by different peoples based on their exploration and innovation.
The best way to evaluate whether a country’s political system is democratic and efficient is to observe whether the succession of its leaders is orderly and in line with the law, whether all the people can manage state and social affairs and economic and cultural undertakings in conformity with legal provisions, whether the public can express their requirements without hindrance, whether all sectors can efficiently participate in the country’s political affairs, whether national decision-making can be conducted in a rational and democratic way, whether people of high caliber in all fields can be part of the national leadership and administrative systems through fair competition, whether the governing party is in charge of state affairs in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and whether the exercise of power can be kept under effective restraint and supervision.
Democracy is not a decorative ornament, but an instrument for addressing the issues that concern the people. Whether a country is democratic depends on whether its people are truly the masters of the country; whether the people have the right to vote, and more importantly, the right to participate extensively; whether they have been given verbal promises in elections, and more importantly, how many of these promises are fulfilled after elections; whether there are set political procedures and rules in state systems and laws, and more importantly, whether these systems and laws are truly enforced; whether the rules and procedures for the exercise of power are democratic, and more importantly, whether the exercise of power is genuinely subject to public scrutiny and checks.
Democracy is the right of the people in every country, rather than the prerogative of a few nations. Whether a country is democratic should be judged by its people, not dictated by a handful of outsiders. Whether a country is democratic should be acknowledged by the international community, not arbitrarily decided by a few self-appointed judges. There is no fixed model of democracy; it manifests itself in many forms. Assessing the myriad political systems in the world against a single yardstick and examining diverse political structures in monochrome are in themselves undemocratic.
In the richly diverse world, democracy comes in many forms. China’s democracy is thriving alongside those of other countries in the garden of civilizations. China stands ready to contribute its experience and strength to global political progress through cooperation and mutual learning.
I. Whole-Process People’s Democracy Under CPC Leadership
China is a diligent and wise nation with a long history. It has created a brilliant political civilization. All of five thousand years ago, ancient Chinese began to explore the concept that people are the foundation of a state. Their ideas contained the seeds of what we know today as democracy. However, over the centuries of feudal autocracy, the people were always the oppressed and exploited underclass.
After the 1840s, China gradually descended into a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society. There was no popular democracy at all and the country was on the verge of collapse. The people stood up and fought to salvage their country. Revolution and reform were attempted, and many plans for saving the country were introduced, none of which succeeded.
Following the Revolution of 1911, the Chinese people made numerous attempts to introduce the Western political systems, including the parliamentary system, multiparty system, and presidential system, all of which ended in failure.
The rise of the New Culture Movement championing democracy and science, the victory of the October Revolution in Russia, the May 4th Movement, and the spread of Marxism in China, began to awaken the Chinese people, and progressive individuals gained a deeper understanding of democracy and came up with new ideas.
The founding of the CPC in 1921 was like a beacon, illuminating the way towards democracy in China.
During the New Democratic Revolution (1919-1949), the Party led the people in their tenacious fight for democracy, resisting oppression and exploitation in the course of their struggle. Ultimately, victory was secured in the revolution.
On October 1, 1949, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was founded. This marked the ultimate transformation of the country from the rule of feudal autocracy, which had been in existence for several thousand years, to a people’s democracy. It proclaimed that the Chinese people had stood upright. It ushered in a new era for democracy in China. It turned a dream into reality – the people running their own country.
During socialist revolution and reconstruction (1949-1978), the CPC united and led the people in:
• building and consolidating state power;
• completing the socialist transformation of the means of production;
• promulgating the first Constitution of the PRC;
• establishing the system of people’s congresses, the system of CPC-led multiparty cooperation and political consultation, and the system of regional ethnic autonomy.
The political structure, economic foundation, legal principles, and institutional framework for the people to run their country were all put in place and have since developed steadily. China’s tower of democracy was built on strong foundations and stands tall.
In the years of reform, opening up and socialist modernization after 1978, the Party led the people in advancing socialist democracy and the rule of law, sticking to the path of socialist political progress with Chinese characteristics.
It ensured the Party’s leadership, the people’s status as masters of the country, and law-based governance, and advanced reform of the political structure in an active and steady manner. The system of people’s congresses was consolidated and developed. The system of CPC-led multiparty cooperation and political consultation, the system of regional ethnic autonomy, the system of community-level self-governance, and other basic political systems were improved.
The political and institutional guarantees and material conditions for developing democracy were reinforced.
Since the Party’s 18th National Congress in 2012, socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era. The CPC Central Committee with Xi Jinping at the core has built a keen understanding of how the principal challenge facing Chinese society has changed. It has worked hard to respond to the people’s new requirements and expectations for democracy. After drawing on past experience in maintaining order and stability across the world, and reviewing China’s progress in democracy, the CPC decided to develop whole-process people’s democracy, beginning a new stage of democracy. Some of the most important achievements are:
• strengthening the CPC’s overall leadership, reforming Party and government institutions, and reinforcing the Party’s leadership over the development of whole-process people’s democracy;
• modernizing China’s governance system and capacity;
• establishing and upholding the fundamental, basic, and important systems of Chinese socialism, with a more complete institutional framework to ensure the people’s status as masters of the country;
• advancing democratic elections, consultations, decision-making, management, and oversight, progressing electoral democracy and consultative democracy side by side, and expanding the people’s orderly political participation and the scope of democracy;
• consolidating the people’s principal position in the country’s political and social life;
• leveraging the institutional strengths of Chinese socialism;
• promoting political stability, unity and vitality;
• building a nationwide force towards the country’s goals in the new era;
• achieving a strategic success in the fight against the Covid-19 epidemic;
• ending absolute poverty, and completing the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects.
China has addressed major risks and set out on a new journey towards a modern socialist country and common prosperity, demonstrating the viability and strength of whole-process people’s democracy. The Chinese people have greater confidence in China’s democracy, and can now look forward to a bright future.
Whole-process people’s democracy is a creation of the CPC in leading the people to pursue, develop and realize democracy, embodying the Party’s innovation in advancing China’s democratic theories, systems and practices. The Party’s history of struggle is a course of rallying the people and leading them to explore, establish and develop whole-process people’s democracy. It is a logical outcome of history, theory and practice based on the strenuous efforts of the people under the leadership of the Party. It is a requisite for maintaining the very nature of the Party and fulfilling its fundamental purpose.
Whole-process people’s democracy, giving full expression to the socialist nature of the state and the people’s principal position, serves to better represent the people’s will, protect their rights and fully unleash their potential to create. Whole-process people’s democracy has formed and developed in a nationwide effort, led by the CPC, to strive for national independence, the country’s prosperity, and the people’s liberation and wellbeing. It is rooted in this vast land, nourished by the culture and traditions of the Chinese civilization, and draws on the achievements of human civilization. Suited to the conditions in China and embraced by the people, it has solid foundations and a bright future.
Whole-process people’s democracy is a complete system with supporting mechanisms and procedures, and has been fully tested through wide participation. It integrates two major democratic models – electoral democracy and consultative democracy. It operates a democratic system covering a population of more than 1.4 billion from 56 ethnic groups of a vast country, making possible the wide and sustained participation of all its people. Whole-process people’s democracy has distinctive Chinese characteristics; it also exemplifies common values and contributes China’s ideas and solutions to the political progress of humanity.
CPC leadership is the fundamental guarantee for whole-process people’s democracy. It is no easy job for a country as big as China to fully represent and address the concerns of its 1.4 billion people. It must have a robust and centralized leadership.
Committed to people-centered development and ensuring their principal status to run the country, the CPC governs for the people and by relying on the people. The CPC plays to the full its role as overall leader and coordinator in all areas of endeavor in every part of the country, to ensure that the people run the country effectively and that the people’s democracy is an overarching philosophy, principle and policy in the country’s political and social life.
The CPC follows the mass line – it is committed to doing everything for the people and relying on them, and follows the principle of “from the people, to the people”. It maintains close ties with the people and pools their wisdom and strength.
The CPC upholds democracy within the Party and practices democratic elections, decision-making, management and oversight, to better serve the development of people’s democracy. The CPC has improved its mechanism for selecting and appointing officials, enabling outstanding individuals in all sectors to enter the Party leadership teams and the government, and ensuring that the leadership of the Party and the state rests in the hands of those loyal to Marxism, the Party, and the people.
The CPC upholds law-based governance of the country. It exercises leadership over legislation, guarantees law enforcement, supports judicial justice, and plays an exemplary role in abiding by the law. Through advancing the rule of law, the Party ensures that its policies are effectively implemented and that the people run the country as its masters.
II. A Sound Institutional Framework
In China, the people’s status as masters of the country is the bedrock of all the systems of the country, and underlies the operation of all the systems for state governance. Whole-process people’s democracy involves complete institutional procedures. These well-coordinated and comprehensive institutional procedures serve to put into place diverse, open, and well-organized democratic channels to ensure that the Party’s policies and the state will are integrated with the people’s aspirations, and that the people are masters of the country.
1. The Governing System of the People’s Democratic Dictatorship
The Constitution describes China as a socialist country governed by a people’s democratic dictatorship that is led by the working class and based on an alliance of workers and peasants. The fundamental nature of the state is defined by the people’s democratic dictatorship.
China upholds the unity of democracy and dictatorship to ensure the people’s status as masters of the country. On the one hand, all power of the state belongs to the people to ensure that they administer state affairs and manage economic and cultural undertakings and social affairs through various channels and in various ways in accordance with the Constitution and laws; on the other hand, China takes resolute action against any attempt to subvert the country’s political power or endanger public or state security, to uphold the dignity and order of law and safeguard the interests of the people and the state. Democracy and dictatorship appear to be a contradiction in terms, but together they ensure the people’s status as masters of the country. A tiny minority is sanctioned in the interests of the great majority, and “dictatorship” serves democracy.
2. The Governing Structure of the System of People’s Congresses
The system of people’s congresses, an organizational form of political power compatible with the governing system of the people’s democratic dictatorship, is China’s fundamental political system, and the ultimate approach and optimal solution to guaranteeing the people’s status as masters of the country. It is also an important institutional support to whole-process people’s democracy. Under this system, all power of the state belongs to the people to guarantee their status as masters of the country. At the same time, it integrates the Party’s leadership, the people’s principal position, and the rule of law, to help the country avoid the historical cycle of rise and fall of ruling orders apparent through the centuries of imperial dynasty. Under this system, all the major political relationships with a bearing on the nation’s future are properly managed, and all social undertakings operate under the effective centralized organization of the state. This maintains national unity and ethnic solidarity, and ensures that vigor, stability and order prevail in the country’s political life.
The people exercise state power effectively through people’s congresses; people’s congresses exercise state power collectively on behalf of the people. The National People’s Congress (NPC) is the highest organ of state power. Local people’s congresses at all levels are local agencies of state power. All administrative, supervisory, judicial, and procuratorial organs of the state are created by the people’s congresses, to which they are responsible and by which they are supervised.
The people’s congresses have four main functions and powers:
• Legislation. The NPC and its Standing Committee exercise the legislative power of the state. The NPC exercises the powers and functions to amend the Constitution and enact and amend basic laws governing criminal offenses, civil affairs, state agencies and other matters;
• Appointment and removal of officials. The NPC exercises the powers and functions to appoint or remove the president and vice president(s) of the PRC, the premier, vice premier(s) and other members of the State Council, the chairperson and other members of the Central Military Commission, the chairperson of the National Supervisory Commission, the president of the Supreme People’s Court, and the procurator-general of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate;
• Decision-making. The NPC exercises the powers and functions to examine and approve major issues significant to national development and the interests of the people, such as the plan for national economic and social development and the report on its implementation, and state budget and the report on its implementation;
• Supervision. The NPC and its Standing Committee exercise the right of overseeing the enforcement of the Constitution and the work of the State Council, the National Supervisory Commission, the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate.
Local people’s congresses and their standing committees exercise corresponding powers and functions as prescribed by law. The system of people’s congresses makes extensive democracy possible by empowering people’s congresses at all levels, to ensure that the people hold and exercise state power, and that they keep the nation’s future firmly in their hands.
The deputies to people’s congresses are fully representative of the people. They come from all regions, ethnic groups, sectors and social groups, and function at national, provincial, city, county and township levels. At the end of 2020, 2.62 million people were serving as deputies to people’s congresses at all levels nationwide. Among them, those at county and township levels accounted for 94.5 percent of the total. Making full use of their close connections with the people, these deputies diligently fulfill their duties by soliciting and submitting the people’s suggestions and advice through various forms and channels.
The annual people’s congresses are first held from the grassroots upwards at township, county, city, and provincial levels and then at the highest national level, to take full cognizance of the people’s aspirations and report them to upper levels. Since the launch of reform and opening up in 1978, about 3,000 NPC deputies have gathered in the presence of the Party and state leaders at the NPC session each year to discuss plans for national development and problems affecting people’s lives, and to put the people’s expectations at the top of the agenda on state matters. Many of the motions and proposals put forward by deputies have been carefully reviewed and then included into policy decisions of state organs.
The system of people’s congresses has provided institutional guarantee for the CPC to lead the people in effectively running the country. It enables the Party to turn its proposals into state policies, and to place the candidates recommended by Party organizations into positions as state leaders through statutory procedures. It also empowers the organs of state governance to exercise the Party’s leadership over the country and society, to uphold the authority of the Party and the state, and to safeguard the unity and solidarity of the Party and the country. The system of people’s congresses is the optimal choice, in accord with China’s national conditions and realities. It embodies the socialist nature of the state and guarantees the people’s principal position and national rejuvenation. It must be fully implemented, further enriched, and maintained as a long-term institution.
3. The System of Multiparty Cooperation and Political Consultation Under CPC Leadership
The system of multiparty cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CPC is a basic element of China’s political framework. The Constitution stipulates, “The system of multiparty cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the Communist Party of China will continue and develop long into the future.” A new model grown out of the soil of China, it also learns from other countries and absorbs the fruits of their political achievements.
In China, there are no opposition parties. But China’s political party system is not a system of one-party rule. Nor is it one in which multiple parties vie for power and govern in turn. It is a multiparty cooperation system in which the CPC exercises state power. In addition to the CPC, there are eight other political parties.[1] The other parties participate fully in the administration of state affairs under the leadership of the CPC.
Under the shared banner of people’s democracy, and respecting the principles of long-term coexistence, mutual oversight, sincerity, and sharing the rough times and the smooth, the CPC and the other parties have created a new political party system with distinctive Chinese features and strengths.
The CPC is the governing party, and the other parties accept its leadership. They cooperate closely with the CPC and function as its advisors and assistants. Through forums, talks, and written and other forms of consultation, the CPC consults with the other parties and prominent individuals without affiliation to any political party (non-affiliates) on major national and local policies and matters. It willingly accepts the democratic scrutiny of the other parties and the non-affiliates. In the exercise of state power, the CPC works together with the other parties and the nonaffiliates. Members of the other parties and the non-affiliates account for a certain percentage of the total numbers of deputies to people’s congresses, the standing committees of people’s congresses, and the special committees of people’s congresses at all levels. Some of them occupy leading posts in state organs. The other parties and the non-affiliates actively deliberate on and participate in the administration of state affairs. They are valued advisors on key national programs and contributors to the development of the country.
Panel 1 Political Consultation
Since the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012, the CPC Central Committee has organized or entrusted relevant departments to organize more than 170 consultative forums. On these occasions, it has engaged in consultation with the other parties and the non-affiliates and solicited their opinions on matters of great importance such as the CPC Central Committee reports to CPC national congresses and the Political Bureau reports to plenary sessions of the CPC Central Committee. It has called for their advice on amendments to the Constitution, on the drafting of medium and long-term plans for economic and social development, and on candidates for positions as leaders of the state. Its goal is to ensure more informed and democratic decision-making on major issues. Central committees of the other parties, together with the non-affiliates, have conducted in-depth field work and made more than 730 written proposals, many of which have become major state policies. Proceeding from reality, CPC local committees at all levels conduct consultations with corresponding local organizations of the other parties on important local issues, creating a driving force for the development of the local economy and society.
The Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) serves as a key element of the multiparty mechanism. A specialized body for socialist consultative democracy, the CPPCC promotes unity, strengthens multiparty cooperation, and practices people’s democracy in the process of political consultation. It maintains the traditions of the past, and keeps pace with the times. It reflects the distinctive features and strengths of China’s socialist democracy – problems are solved through consultation. It is a key component of the state governance system, and a distinctively Chinese political institution.
Through the institutions of the CPPCC, representatives from all political parties, people’s organizations, ethnic groups, and social sectors engage in political consultation. They carry out their routine duties through mechanisms such as plenary sessions, meetings of the standing committee, meetings of chairpersons, meetings of special committees, forums on specific subjects, and consultative seminars, and make proposals, conduct inspections and field surveys, and report on social conditions and public opinions on a regular basis. In this way, they conduct extensive, constructive consultations on an equal footing and in an orderly manner, and put forward opinions and suggestions on important national strategies and policies and major economic and social matters. The CPC collects these opinions and suggestions and adopts those which are sound, while the other participants accept the Party’s propositions and promote its guidelines and policies. In doing so, they increase trust and dispel doubts, convey the will of the people and draw on their wisdom, and build the broadest consensus, so as to form a shared ideological foundation for collective endeavors.
When the annual sessions of the NPC and the CPPCC National Committee (Two Sessions) are held concurrently each year, members of the CPPCC National Committee submit proposals for deliberation. They also sit in on NPC sessions to participate in the discussions on the amendments to laws and on the work reports of the central government, the Supreme People’s Court, and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. This mechanism ensures that all the people can play a part in overseeing the work of the government, and forms China’s own model of democracy based on the Two Sessions.
Panel 2 Biweekly Consultative Forums Convened by the CPPCC National Committee
Biweekly consultative forums convened by the CPPCC National Committee constitute an important innovation in China’s consultative democracy. Forums on specific topics are the standard model, attended by specific participating groups and relevant Party and government departments. They integrate consultations on specific subjects, consultations on the handling of proposals, and consultations with relevant Party and government departments and with specific social groups. The biweekly consultative forums are designed to solicit advice and proposals on major economic and social development issues, leveraging the role of the CPPCC as an important channel and a specialized body for socialist consultative democracy. In total, 132 such forums were held between October 22, 2013 and November 6, 2021.
The system of multiparty cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CPC is an extensive and reliable means of representing and fulfilling the interests of the maximum number of people of all ethnic groups and social sectors. It avoids the drawbacks of the old political party system that stood for only a small number of people and interest groups. It unites all political parties and the non-affiliates towards a common goal, effectively mitigating the risks of inadequate oversight in one-party rule, and the problems of continual transfers of governing parties and destructive competition in multiparty political systems. Through standardized institutional procedures and arrangements, it pools ideas and suggestions to ensure informed and democratic decision-making. It avoids the weakness of Western-style political party systems: When making decisions and exercising governance, political parties act in their own interests or the interests of the classes, regions and groups they represent, provoking division in society.
4. Broad Patriotic United Front
The united front is an important structure through which the CPC earns popular support and pools strengths. In practicing people’s democracy, the Party has always placed the united front in an important position, striving to achieve great unity and solidarity and balance commonality and diversity. The Party has made coordinated efforts to unite the other political parties, the non-affiliates, intellectuals who are not CPC members, members of ethnic minorities and religious groups, people working in non-public sectors, people belonging to new social groups, compatriots in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, and overseas Chinese and returned Chinese nationals. It has combined all the forces that can be united and mobilized all positive factors to build a broad consensus, expand common ground, and achieve convergence of interests. In order to pool the wisdom and strength of the Chinese nation to the full, it has systematically promoted harmonious relations between political parties, between ethnic groups, between religions, between social groups and between Chinese people at home and overseas.
The CPPCC is an organization of the Chinese people’s patriotic united front. It is composed of representatives from 34 sectors, including the CPC, the other political parties, the non-affiliates, people’s organizations, ethnic minority groups and other sectors, compatriots from the Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions and Taiwan, returned Chinese nationals, and specially invited public figures. The First Session of the 13th National Committee of the CPPCC was attended by over 2,100 members, 60.2 percent of whom are non-CPC members. This demonstrates its important function as a center of unity and solidarity. It allows us to mobilize all positive factors and forces that cherish patriotism and support the CPC’s leadership, and build a strong alliance for the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation by seeking common ground while setting aside differences.
5. The System of Regional Ethnic Autonomy
China is a unified multiethnic state. The CPC’s ethnic policies are built upon the goals of forging a keen sense of national identity, maintaining territorial integrity and national unification, and achieving common development and prosperity through the joint efforts of all ethnic groups. The system of regional ethnic autonomy means that areas with large ethnic minority populations can practice regional autonomy, establish autonomous organs, and exercise the power of self-government under the unified leadership of the state. This basic political system is specified in the country’s Constitution and its Law on Regional Ethnic Autonomy.
China’s regional ethnic autonomy is autonomy under the unified leadership of the state. Territorial integrity and national unification are preconditions and foundations for regional ethnic autonomy, which combines unification with autonomy and ethnic factors with regional factors, and are thoroughly suited to China’s realities. All ethnic autonomous areas are inseparable parts of the country, and all autonomous organs of these areas are local governments subject to the unified leadership of the central government.
Regional ethnic autonomy provides institutional and policy guarantees to ensure that ethnic minority citizens enjoy rights to equality and freedom, and to economic, social and cultural services. On all standing committees of people’s congresses of the 155 ethnic autonomous areas, there are citizens from the local ethnic groups assuming the office of chair or vice chair; all governors, prefectural commissioners, and heads of counties of ethnic autonomous areas are citizens from the ethnic groups. The central government assists all ethnic minority areas in accelerating their economic and cultural development based on the characteristics and needs of the ethnic minorities there.
The system of regional ethnic autonomy has greatly increased the sense of pride and responsibility of people of all ethnic groups and stimulated their enthusiasm, initiative and creativity in jointly steering the course to a bright future. Under this institutional framework, communication and exchanges between ethnic groups, and socialist ethnic relations characterized by equality, unity, mutual assistance and harmony, have expanded. Ethnic unity has been reinforced, and a strong sense of national identity has been forged.
6. The System of Community-Level Self-Governance
Due to China’s huge population and vast territory, there is great diversity in community-level governance. China applies a system of community-level self-governance represented by villagers autonomy, urban residents autonomy, and employees congresses. Under the leadership and support of community-level Party organizations, local residents directly exercise the democratic right to manage their own affairs by serving the community, undertaking self-education, and exercising public scrutiny. This effectively ensures that the people’s rights are genuinely respected.
Villagers and urban residents exercise self-governance. Under the leadership of community-level Party organizations, residents in China’s rural villages and urban communities establish villagers committees and residents committees, and directly exercise their democratic right to handle public affairs and public services in residential areas to which they belong:
• They hold democratic elections in which they elect villagers and residents committees.
• They conduct democratic consultation on local affairs in various forms.
• They practice democratic decision-making in handling community public affairs and public services through committee meetings and congresses.
• They carry out democratic management – they discuss and decide on their own rules on self-governance and codes of conduct and self-regulation, and run their affairs accordingly.
• They exercise democratic oversight – they elect village and urban community affairs oversight committees to supervise the handling of their community affairs and guarantee information disclosure.
As of the end of 2020, all the 503,000 administrative villages in China had established villagers committees, and all the 112,000 urban communities in the country had established residents committees.
Employees in enterprises and public institutions exercise democratic rights. Enterprises and public institutions practice a system of democratic management whose basic form is employees congresses, so that workers and staff can play an active role in decision-making on important matters concerning their immediate interests. They are implementing a system of employees serving as board directors and board supervisors. They have all employed a system featuring open access to enterprise affairs and are experimenting with practices that include open days to communicate with leaders, employee-employer consultations, and letters and messages to senior executives. These efforts are designed to mediate labor relations, listen to workers’ voices, protect their lawful rights and interests, and collect complaints and suggestions on the operations, management and development of these entities. Corporate trade union committees are the operating mechanism of employees congresses. At present, there are 2.81 million primary-level trade unions in China, covering 6.55 million enterprises and public institutions.
Democratic innovations demonstrate great vitality. The Chinese people have explored and initiated numerous popular and pragmatic grassroots practices – residents councils, residents workshops, democratic discussions and hearings, courtyard discussions, neighborhood meetings, offline roundtables and online group chats. They have arranged for representatives of Party committees, deputies to the people’s congresses, and CPPCC members to visit rural and urban communities. All these down-to-earth and pragmatic forms of democracy encourage people to voice their opinions and suggestions and conduct extensive consultation on matters related to their vital interests. This helps to coordinate the interests of multiple stakeholders, mitigate conflict, and maintain social stability and harmony at the grassroots level. Many successful grassroots experiences and practices have eventually turned into national policies, injecting new vitality into the development of China’s democracy.
Panel 3 The Fengqiao Model
In the early 1960s, the officials and citizenry of Fengqiao Town in Zhejiang Province began a drive to solve problems in situ rather than passing them up to higher authorities. As a result, social order was well maintained and people lived in peace. The practice has developed over the intervening decades, and is now a model for promoting community-level governance and social harmony. What is commendable is that the local people, under the leadership of the Party, are able to solve small problems within their village, and serious ones within the town, so as to maintain social stability and promote development.
The system of community-level self-governance has strengthened the public’s ability to understand and practice democracy, demonstrating that China’s democracy is extensive and genuine. Community-level self-governance energizes all the “cells” of society. It makes grassroots governance more vibrant and efficient, and provides a solid institutional guarantee for a grassroots governance system in which responsibilities are shared and duly fulfilled, and achievements are enjoyed by all.
III. Concrete and Pragmatic Practices
Whole-process people’s democracy in China is a complete system with supporting mechanisms and procedures, and has been fully tested through wide participation. China’s whole-process people’s democracy is a combination of electoral democracy and consultative democracy, and is applied through a combination of elections, consultations, decision-making, management and oversight. It covers the economic, political, cultural, social, eco-environmental and other fields, with a focus on national development, social governance and people’s lives.
Whole-process people’s democracy is a comprehensive and coordinated system involving extensive and regular participation, ensuring that the people’s voices are heard and their wishes are represented in every aspect of China’s political and social life. Whole-process people’s democracy prevents individuals from manipulating the political process to win elections, and leaves no room for politicians to shower promises while campaigning and break them all once elected.
1. Democratic Election
By exercising their right to vote in elections, the people elect those who represent their will to hold and exercise power. This is an important form of democracy in China, and a clear demonstration of the people’s status as masters of the country.
Elections in China are extensive and cover all aspects of the country’s political and social life. They include elections to government institutions, villagers and urban residents committees, and employees congresses in enterprises and public institutions.
Elections in China are based on equality, and the people’s right to
vote and stand for election is fully guaranteed. Each person can cast one vote, and all votes are of equal value.
Elections in China are genuine and not manipulated by financial interests. Voters are free to vote for the candidates they trust.
Elections in China are progressing in a positive direction with the progress of the economy and society.
Elections to state organs. These include elections to the NPC and the local people’s congresses at all levels, and those in which deputies to people’s congresses elect leading officials of state organs at the corresponding levels. All citizens of the PRC who have reached the age of 18 – with the exception of those persons deprived of political rights in accordance with the law – have the right to vote and stand for election.
In accordance with the principles of universal suffrage, equal rights, multiple candidates, and secret ballot, deputies to people’s congresses at the township and county levels are elected directly by the public. Deputies to people’s congresses at the city, provincial and national levels are elected by people’s congresses at the next level below. All deputies are elected for a term of five years. Leading officials of state organs at various levels are appointed or elected by people’s congresses at the corresponding levels.
Panel 4 The World’s Largest Community-Level Elections
In 2016 and 2017, more than 900 million voters participated in the elections to people’s congresses at the township and county levels – the world’s largest direct elections.
The elections involved more than 32,000 townships and 2,850 counties. Nearly 2.48 million deputies were directly elected to people’s congresses at the two levels, and on this basis, new leaderships of state organs at these two levels were elected.
Community-level elections. Elections at the grassroots level are the most extensive and dynamic form of democracy in China. They include elections of villagers committees, urban residents committees, and employees congresses in enterprises and public institutions.
Villagers and urban residents committees are composed of chairpersons, vice chairpersons and members, and the elections are held simultaneously with those at the township and county levels.
Employees congresses – elected by all employees – are the bodies through which employees exercise their democratic management rights and make their own decisions in enterprises and public institutions.
China’s democratic elections are adapted to the country’s national conditions and stage of socio-economic development. Over recent decades, the Electoral Law of the National People’s Congress and Local People’s Congresses has been amended progressively. The ratio of deputy representation in people’s congresses has been optimized – in 1953 there was an imbalance between urban areas and rural areas that gave urban residents eight times more representation than rural residents. By 1995 this ratio had fallen to 4:1, and by 2010 there was parity – urban and rural residents had equal levels of representation.
As the understanding of democracy has grown, so has the number of people participating in elections. Since the initiation of reform and opening up, China has held 12 direct elections to people’s congresses at the township level and 11 direct elections to those at the county level, with a current participation rate of about 90 percent.
2. Democratic Consultation
Whenever a problem occurs, those concerned should always hold deliberations in good faith. Matters involving many people are discussed by all those involved; to reach the greatest common ground based on the wishes and needs of the whole of society is the essence of people’s democracy. The Chinese people widely exercise their right to vote in elections and undertake extensive deliberations before major decisions are made. Democratic consultation is a special feature of democracy in China.
Democratic consultation has been established on the basis of solid cultural, theoretical, practical and institutional foundations. It derives from the best of traditional Chinese culture, including such ideas as aspiring for the common good, mutual understanding and inclusiveness, and seeking common ground while setting aside differences.
It comes from years of tenacious struggle by the Chinese people led by the CPC.
It originates from the political system created by all parties, organizations, ethnic groups, social groups and people from all walks of life since the founding of the PRC.
It also stems from China’s continuous innovation in its state institutions since reform and opening up.
Democratic consultation takes many forms. In making and implementing decisions on major issues concerning reform, development and stability, and on matters bearing on the vital interests of the people, China conducts extensive consultations in all fields and at levels through various channels, including proposals, conferences, discussions, seminars, hearings, assessments, consultations, the internet, and opinion polls.
On matters that have a bearing on the interests of everyone, extensive consultations will be held throughout the whole of society; on matters that concern the interests of people in one specific region, consultations will be held locally; on matters that affect the interests of certain groups of people, consultations will be held among those groups; and on matters that concern the interests of a community, consultations will be held within the community.
The system of democratic consultation has improved. To promote the broad-based, multilevel and institutionalized development of consultative democracy, China has explored and expanded consultation channels to include consultations carried out by political parties, people’s congresses, government departments, CPPCC committees, people’s organizations, social organizations, and communities.
• The CPC and other political parties carry out consultations on major documents of the CPC National Congress and the Central Committee, the revision of the Constitution, the formulation and revision of major laws, the selection of candidates for state leaders, medium and long-term programs of socio-economic development, annual plan of socio-economic development, and major issues related to reform, development and stability, the united front, and multiparty cooperation.
• In exercising their functions and powers, people’s congresses at all levels engage in deliberations with government departments, social organizations, experts and academics, and the general public.
• Governments at all levels, when performing their duties, strengthen communication with deputies to people’s congresses, members of CPPCC committees, and representatives from the other political parties, the non-affiliates, people’s organizations, social organizations, and all sectors of society.
• Under the leadership of the CPC, the CPPCC carries out extensive consultations and build consensus on matters concerning reform, development, and stability.
• People’s organizations conduct consultations with relevant government departments on matters concerning the people’s vital interests, especially those concerning the rights and interests of particular groups, and participate in consultations organized by the CPPCC.
• CPC organizations, government departments, and people’s organizations for self-governance at the grassroots level, economic and social organizations, and local people deliberate over issues concerning the development of local communities and the vital interests of the people.
• Social organizations participate in or carry out consultations to better serve society.
With these seven consultation channels in place, China practices a rich and extensive form of democracy.
China draws on collective wisdom and promotes full expression and in-depth exchange of different ideas and viewpoints through democratic consultation. Parties to these consultations respect each other, consult on an equal footing, follow the rules, hold orderly discussions, stay inclusive and tolerant, and negotiate in good faith. In this way, a positive environment for consultation has been cultivated in which everyone can express their own views freely, rationally and in accordance with the law and rules. Through democratic consultation, China has built consensus and promoted social harmony and stability.
3. Democratic Decision-Making
Democratic decision-making is an important link in China’s whole-process people’s democracy. Reflecting the will of the people, sound decision-making ensures their rights and interests and improves their wellbeing. In China, the standard practice is to hear people’s voices, act on their needs, and pool their ideas and strength. More and more ideas and suggestions of the general public are flowing directly to decision-makers at all levels, and they are increasingly reflected in the major decisions of the Party and the government.
Panel 5 Collecting Opinions When Formulating the 14th Five-Year Plan
The recommendations of the CPC Central Committee on formulating the 14th Five-year Plan were drafted following a number of seminars, open discussions, and collection of public opinion.
General Secretary Xi Jinping chaired a symposium on the integrated development of the Yangtze River Delta region, and seminars with entrepreneurs, scientists, grassroots representatives, and experts on economic and social development, education, culture, health, and sports, to hear their opinions and suggestions.
The draft was circulated among a certain number of Party members and retired senior Party officials for suggestions, and opinions were also solicited from the central committees of the other political parties, heads of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, and the non-affiliates.
More than 1,000 suggestions were collated from a pool of some one million online messages. The drafting group analyzed them item by item, took them all into consideration, and accepted all pertinent suggestions. Through thorough deliberation, 366 changes were made to the draft, reflecting 546 opinions and suggestions.
Open-door legislation by the NPC. People’s congresses at all levels and their standing committees are committed to democratic lawmaking in the public interest. To reflect their will in lawmaking, the people’s participation in legislative activities is guaranteed through various channels, an approach that has won wide public support.
When a piece of legislation is proposed, seminars, hearings and discussions are held to widely solicit public opinion, so that the people’s will is reflected from the very first stage of legislation. When a law is being drafted, professionals and the public are both consulted, and now third parties are entrusted to draft laws and regulations on a trial basis. When a draft law is released, it is subject to public review from online channels and news media. Through local legislative information offices, people can participate in the drafting, research, revision, evaluation, and post-assessment of draft laws.
Panel 6 Legislative Information Offices
Legislative information offices collect public views and send them directly to legislative organs, contributing to progress in targeted, sound legislation. They are also developing new functions such as overseeing law enforcement, promoting observance of the law, and educating the public on legal matters.
The first legislative information offices opened for service in 2015. By October 2021 the Legislative Affairs Commission of the NPC Standing Committee had set up 22 such offices in 21 provinces and equivalent administrative units, covering two thirds of the country. Nearly 7,800 suggestions have been made on 127 legislative drafts and plans through these offices.
Transparent decision-making by the government. Governments at all levels hear the opinions and suggestions of all sectors on major decisions. Public participation in decision-making is ensured in various forms and through multiple channels.
At the beginning of the decision-making process, deputies to people’s congresses and CPPCC members make suggestions and proposals, and citizens, legal persons, and other organizations can file written suggestions. During the decision-making process, opinions and suggestions are collected from all social sectors, and especially from those directly concerned, through formats including seminars, hearings, questionnaires, and field trips.
For public information, the draft decisions and relevant explanatory notes are available on government websites and media portals. In the last step, the final decision is made after group discussion based on the principle of democratic centralism. In post-assessment, public opinion is solicited once more, and deputies to people’s congresses, CPPCC members, people’s organizations, grassroots organizations, social organizations, and experts in various fields are invited to participate.
Grassroots decision-making. This happens in various forms of meeting among rural villagers and urban residents or their representatives, on a wide range of subjects such as the economy and society, infrastructure, social management, cultural services, eco-environmental conservation, the formulation of self-governance regulations, and other key matters in local governance. Rural villagers and urban residents also take part in carrying out the decisions they have reached.
4. Democratic Management
In China, the people manage their own affairs. They are the masters of the country and exercise their democratic rights accordingly, managing affairs of the state, the economy, culture, and society through various channels and in many forms.
Participation in the management of political and social life. The people exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations as prescribed by the Constitution. They participate in elections, consultations, decision-making, and oversight, and manage other areas of political and social life, fully enjoying their rights of information, participation, expression, and scrutiny.
Democratic management of urban and rural communities. As per the Constitution, relevant laws and regulations, urban and rural residents can set rules and conventions to govern their communities. Through discussion, they can decide residents’ rights and obligations, the coordination rules and procedures between local organizations, and general principles for the collective economy, neighborhood security, fire safety, community sanitation, marriage, neighborhood relations, family planning, and activities concerning cultural progress. All urban and rural communities are run by their residents, who manage the public affairs and public services in their communities, exercise self-supervision, and seek to improve their lives.
Democratic management of enterprises and public institutions. With autonomy in their business operations and management, more than 150 million market entities are thriving across the country, providing job opportunities to over 700 million people, increasing China’s national strength and promoting steady growth in economic and social wealth.
In accordance with the Constitution, relevant laws and regulations, enterprises and public institutions are run under democratic management through their employees congresses. The framework features disclosure of information on the affairs of enterprises, and systems for employees to serve on the board of directors and the board of supervisors. Under this framework, employees participate in business management, and protect their own legitimate rights and interests. In this way enterprises and their employees develop and maintain management mechanisms through consultation, and share the benefits they create.
A total of 3.14 million enterprises have established employees congresses, including 2.94 million private enterprises.
Panel 7 Grassroots Self-Governance Organizations in Covid-19 Response
Since Covid-19 hit China, China’s grassroots self-governance organizations have worked closely with the government to fight the virus, creating a strong line of defense at the community level.
Some 650,000 urban and rural communities with more than 4 million community workers mobilized all forces available, including volunteers, officials and Party members sent to work in communities, and members from local enterprises and public institutions, to conduct screening for infection, stand guard, carry out disinfection, and provide care and assistance to local residents. They made an important contribution to safeguarding public health and the fight against Covid-19.
Democratic management of social organizations. Associations, foundations, social services and other social organizations formulate their own charters and exercise autonomy in managing their staff and activities. They address the concerns of their staff and clients, and hear their opinions. They participate in the governance of public affairs as appropriate to their role, and contribute to improving professional discipline, public services and charitable undertakings.
As of November 2021, more than 900,000 social organizations were registered with departments of civil affairs at all levels, including 2,284 with national networks. Diverse in form, social organizations have become an important area of people’s democratic management in China.
5. Democratic Oversight
Comprehensive and effective democratic oversight enables the people to continue to exercise their democratic rights after elections, and ensures that there is an effective check on the exercise of power. In China, the abuse of power for personal gain is not eradicated by the rotation of ruling parties or separation of powers, but by sound, effective democratic oversight. Taking into consideration its own conditions, China has explored a coordinated system of oversight and established a well-defined, efficient supervisory network with clear functions and responsibilities. Supervision of power extends across every area and into every corner.
Supervision by people’s congresses. People’s congresses play their full role in overseeing the enforcement of the Constitution and laws, and the implementation of major decisions and plans. The people’s congresses at all levels and their standing committees have strengthened their efforts to oversee judicial, supervisory and law enforcement work by the government, supervisory commissions, people’s courts, and people’s procuratorates, to ensure that laws and regulations are observed and that administrative, supervisory, judicial and procuratorial powers are exercised properly. The people actively participate in supervisory work of the people’s congresses by various means such as forums of NPC deputies, meetings of people from the grassroots, questionnaires, online research, etc.
Supervision by non-CPC political parties. The CPC encourages the other political parties and the non-affiliates to exercise democratic oversight by expressing views, making criticism and giving advice as they participate in political consultation, conduct field work, take part in inspection and oversight of the implementation of major policies, decisions and plans of the Party and the state, and carry out targeted scrutiny over major issues as entrusted by CPC committees, while adhering to the Four Cardinal Principles – to keep to the path of socialism, to uphold the people’s democratic dictatorship, to uphold the leadership of the CPC, and to uphold Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought. The political parties, organizations, and prominent figures participating in the CPPCC can, in accordance with the CPPCC’s charter, oversee in various activities organized by the CPPCC the implementation of major policies, decisions and plans of the CPC and the state by offering criticisms and suggestions. Their assistance to the CPC and the government in solving problems and improving their work increases solidarity.
Administrative supervision. The state administrative organs, in accordance with their statutory authority, procedures and methods, supervise their own operational and administrative acts. Different organs supervise each other, and conduct internal supervision from top to bottom and from bottom to top.
Oversight by supervisory commissions. Supervisory commissions perform their duties of supervision as provided for by the law. They examine the political conduct of public servants and supervise their exercise of public power and their fulfillment of professional ethics; they can also urge relevant organs and units to strengthen education, management and supervision of their staff.
Judicial supervision. The judicial and procuratorial organs, in accordance with their statutory purview and procedures, supervise the exercise of public power mandated by the people. Judicial supervision is the most forceful form of oversight of the CPC and the state; it is the ultimate “line of defense” to ensure lawful exercise of public power.
Auditing supervision. Auditing organs at each level inspect budget performance, audit the final accounts and the revenues and expenditures of the departments at their level and of lower-level governments.
Fiscal and accounting supervision. Financial departments are legally empowered to supervise the enforcement of laws, administrative regulations, and departmental regulations that govern fiscal and accounting affairs.
Statistical supervision. Statistical departments and relevant offices with statistical functions and duties supervise all organizations and personnel producing official statistics, to prevent and punish falsification, and ensure that statistical data are authentic, accurate, complete, and up to date, providing reliable reference for planning economic and social development.
Public supervision. Citizens, legal persons and other organizations supervise the performance of state organs and their staff. They can request administrative review, initiate administrative litigation, or file complaints or charges with supervisory organs against any misconduct or crime involving dereliction of duty, abuse of power, or violation of professional ethics.
Panel 8 People’s Supervisors
Selected from the public through set procedures, people’s supervisors raise suggestions on public trials, public hearings, the service of legal instruments, evaluation of case handling, prison and detention house inspections, and inspections of standard judicial practices. They take part in judicial procedures in an orderly manner and oversee case handling by people’s procuratorates.
Since 2003, procuratorial and judicial administrative bodies have selected and appointed 70,000 people’s supervisors, 23,000 of whom are currently in active service. More than 60,000 cases have come under their supervision.
Supervision by public opinion. The media fulfill their supervisory role by representing public opinion, exposing in a timely manner abuses of public power, derelictions of duty, and acts of malfeasance. People are now relying more on the fast-growing internet and other platforms to offer criticisms and suggestions on the work of state organs and public servants at all levels. The internet is playing a bigger part in facilitating supervision by public opinion.
IV. Democracy That Works
With complete institutions and extensive participation, whole-process people’s democracy has evolved from an idea into a system and mechanism of governance that has taken root in the soil of Chinese society and become part of people’s lives. In practice, the principle of the people being masters of the country is manifested in the Party’s governance policies and measures, in all aspects of the work of Party and state organs at all levels, and in the efforts to meet the people’s expectation for a better life. The light of democracy has illuminated China’s entire territory, allowing its people to enjoy extensive and tangible democratic rights.
1. Extensive Rights of the People
The Constitution stipulates that all power in the People’s Republic of China belongs to the people, and that the people shall, in accordance with the provisions of the law, manage state affairs, economic and cultural undertakings, and social affairs through various channels and in various ways. China’s political power is not linked in any way with personal status, wealth, or social relations, but is equally enjoyed by all the people.
The state power serves the people, rather than capital.
China practices a socialist market economy in which public ownership plays the leading role alongside other forms of ownership. Distribution according to work is the mainstay, while other forms of distribution coexist alongside it. This ensures that the lifelines of the Chinese economy remain firmly in the hands of the people, providing solid economic and material foundations for the people to run their own country.
In China, the people have the right to vote and stand for election. They enjoy the rights to be informed about, to be involved in, to express views on, and to supervise the state and social affairs. They have the right to criticize and make suggestions regarding any state organ or public servant. They enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession, demonstration, and religious belief. The Chinese people take part in the management of state affairs and social, economic, and cultural affairs in an extensive manner; they also fully exercise their democratic rights in everyday life. Everyone plays multiple roles in advancing democracy, and enjoys corresponding democratic rights in the process.
In China, human rights are fully respected and protected. Living a life of contentment is the ultimate human right. China’s economy has maintained long-term, stable, and rapid growth, and people’s lives have significantly improved. China has established the world’s largest social security system. The number of people covered by basic medical insurance has surpassed 1.3 billion, and the number of those covered by basic old-age insurance has now exceeded 1 billion. China has completed the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects. The entire country has shaken off absolute poverty and embarked on the road to common prosperity. The people have gained a stronger sense of fulfillment, happiness and security. Their rights to subsistence, development and health are fully protected, and their economic, political, cultural, social, environmental, and other rights keep expanding.
The Chinese people can see their rights being steadily enriched and improved. After the founding of the PRC in 1949, they began to seek subsistence and development on the basis of political and economic equality; after the launch of reform and opening up in 1978, they began to pursue both material and cultural prosperity; in this new era, China has eliminated absolute poverty, completed the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects, made great strides towards common prosperity, and achieved remarkable successes in the fight against Covid-19. Throughout this course, the rights enjoyed by the Chinese people have expanded in scope and depth, and steady progress has been made in achieving the free and well-rounded development of the individual.
Panel 9 The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China
On May 28, 2020, the Third Session of the 13th NPC adopted the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, which took effect on January 1, 2021. The first law defined as a “code” in the PRC, the Civil Code consists of seven Books – “General Part”, “Real Rights”, “Contracts”, “Personality Rights”, “Marriage and Family”, “Succession” and “Tort Liability”, in a total of 1,260 articles. The Civil Code embodies the principle of people-centered development, in full consideration of the people’s expectation for a better life, and provides clear stipulations on citizens’ rights, including personal rights, property rights and personality rights. It reflects China’s efforts to fully protect the rights of the people.
2. Expanding Democratic Participation
If the people are awakened only to cast a vote but become dormant afterwards, that is no true democracy. If the people are offered great hopes during electoral campaigning but have no say afterwards, that is no true democracy. If the people are offered fulsome promises during electoral canvassing but are left empty-handed afterwards, that is no true democracy. In China, the concept of democracy has taken root in the people’s minds, and the practice of democracy has become an integral part of daily life and work, resulting in wide and sustained democratic participation. Democracy has become the norm, injecting great vitality into Chinese society.
The Chinese people are showing greater interest in democratic participation, which is expanding in scope and depth. The people participate in the management of state affairs, social affairs, and economic and cultural affairs; they provide opinions and suggestions for the design of national development plans at the highest level, and also contribute to the governance of local public affairs; they take part in democratic elections, consultations, decision-making, management, and oversight; they express their aspirations and demands through channels such as the people’s congresses and the CPPCC, and through platforms like social organizations and the internet. Continuous innovations in the forms and channels of democracy have broadened participation: Electronic voting has replaced “bean voting”[2]; people no longer need to deliver their demands to government departments in person, but can turn to online channels. Public participation is seen throughout the process of determining what the Party and the government should do and how, and how to assess its results.
The people’s demands can be freely expressed and effectively fulfilled. Democracy starts with the full expression of the people’s wishes, but if people can only voice their wishes but have no way to fulfill them, that is no real democracy. China has ensured that its people have channels to express their aspirations, wishes and demands on issues ranging from important national strategies and policies to social governance and basic necessities of life, enabling their voices to be heard and their requests to be answered.
Through the democratic decision-making process, the people’s aspirations and voices can become the guiding principles and policies of the Party and the state. These principles and policies embody the people’s expectations and are implemented through cooperative and effective efforts by governments at central, provincial, city, county, and township levels, through the division of work and teamwork of departments responsible for leadership, management, coordination and support, and through the collaboration and synergy of such activities as decision-making, implementation, inspection, scrutiny, and accountability. Concerning problems directly impacting their personal interests, people can make suggestions and demands via channels like the online petition, “leaders’ mailboxes”, government service hotlines, and online message boards, which can enable timely feedback and responses.
Panel 10 Ensuring the People Can Voice Their Demands Freely and Conveniently
During the drafting of the proposals for the 14th Five-year Plan, the CPC Central Committee solicited views and suggestions from people from all walks of life and set up an online platform for this purpose. A deputy secretary of a village’s Party branch submitted a proposal on mutual aid for the aged, which was incorporated into a document of the Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee.
In early 2021, the NPC Standing Committee solicited public feedback on the draft law on food waste. The 15 community-level legislation liaison stations in Yiwu City, Zhejiang Province held face-to-face meetings in catering business at the grassroots to collect comments and advice from owners of local restaurants, convenience stores, and small hotels. Their proposals were adopted and turned into stipulations in the final version of the law.
After the outbreak of Covid-19, an NPC deputy made a proposal on using AI-based lung CT scans to facilitate the early detection of Covid-19 cases. The NPC transferred the proposal to relevant departments, and it was quickly adopted.
Panel 11 Ensuring the People’s Demands Are Answered
Government service commitments such as “enforcement departments responding immediately to the call of grassroots communities”, “zero-delay response” and “immediate response upon receipt of complaint” have been set up to address public concerns in many places of China. They form a rapid, efficient work process that involves listening to and categorizing suggestions and complaints, assigning them to the appropriate departments, giving feedback, and conducting supervision. In this way, governments at all levels truly respond to public demands and address the issues and problems that directly concern the public.
The 12345 government service hotlines are public service platforms run by municipal governments in China. The platforms integrate channels such as the 12345 call center, “mayor’s mailbox”, SMS, mobile app, Weibo, and WeChat to allow the public to voice their demands, and provide a 24/7 service. In recent years, the call completion rate of the 12345 hotlines around the country has steadily increased, making them a useful avenue to address public concerns. In 2020, the average call completion rate of the hotlines reached 72.3 percent, and the average wait time was 16.2 seconds. Through encouraging everyone to take on responsibilities and participate in scrutiny, the 12345 hotlines help improve government services and safeguard people’s legitimate rights and interests.
The “Message Board for Leaders” (liuyan.people.com.cn) is a national online public service platform enabling principal officials of ministries and commissions of China’s State Council as well as local governments and Party committees at various levels to hear public concerns. Since its inception in 2006, the platform has enabled nearly 2.8 million public requests, suggestions and complaints to be heard and addressed.
3. Efficient National Governance
Democracy and national governance operate in parallel. Progress in democracy and modernization of national governance are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. It is hard to see how a country can serve as a good example for the rest of the world if its own model of democracy is unsuccessful or inefficient in national governance. One essential feature of a good model of democracy is that it will promote sound governance and boost national development.
High-quality democracy in China has improved the system, capacity and efficiency of national governance. Democracy has given prominence to the people’s principal status and reinforced their sense of being masters of the country. The people are the builders and beneficiaries of democracy. They fully tap into their own wisdom and strength to create a better life and make the country stronger.
Democracy in China effectively regulates political relations and fosters vibrant relationships among political parties, ethnic groups, religions, social groups, and compatriots at home and abroad. It bolsters national cohesion by minimizing internal friction, maintains political unity and stability, and creates great synergy in developing the country.
Democracy in China gives full expression to the guidelines of the CPC, the will of the state, and the expectations of the people, uniting the Party, the government and the people behind shared goals, interests and aspirations. This generates a huge cohesive force that translates into one of China’s great institutional strengths – the ability to pool resources to accomplish major initiatives. It has helped unleash and develop the productive forces, incentivize all sectors in the drive for modernization, and raise the quality of life.
Democracy in China has always put the people first and improved their wellbeing. It has safeguarded national independence and protected national sovereignty, security and development interests.
Over the seven decades since the founding of the PRC, the CPC has led the people in overcoming formidable difficulties, opening a distinctive Chinese path to modernization, and achieving remarkable successes. There has been a marked increase in China’s economic and composite national strength, and a notable improvement in the people’s living standards.
China is the largest developing country. It hosts one fifth of the world population, but its per capita resource endowment is low. Its success today would have been impossible without the people’s determination to run their own country and create a better life for themselves. Democracy in China means people-centered development that fully mobilizes the initiative of the people, relies on their strength, and ensures that all share in the benefits. This is the key to sound governance and the fount of democracy in China.
4. Social Stability and Harmony
Democracy is both a result and a marker of social progress. Democracy can only thrive in a society based on freedom, equality, justice, civility, unity and harmony. A good model of democracy should build consensus rather than creating social rifts and conflicts, safeguard social equity and justice rather than widening social disparities in favor of vested interests, maintain social order and stability rather than causing chaos and turmoil, and inspire positivity and appreciation of the good and the beautiful rather than instigating negativity and promoting the false and the evil.
China’s complex national conditions pose a set of unique challenges in governing the country. Through people’s democracy, China has balanced the demands and interests of all social groups and strengthened national unity based on their shared ideas, interests and goals. The people can live and work in contentment, in a stable, vibrant and harmonious social environment.
In just a few decades, China has gone through a process of industrialization that took the developed countries centuries to complete. Despite undergoing this dramatic transformation, it has avoided the social unrest which has afflicted many late-industrializing economies in the process of modernization. Instead, it has maintained rapid economic growth and lasting social stability.
In China, personal liberty has developed to an extent never before seen in several thousand years of history. Creativity and potential for innovation have been fully unleashed, and people enjoy freedom of speech and mobility.
Every day in China, people travel freely across the country; 16,000 new companies are created; 1 billion people surf the internet, accessing news, communicating with other people, and expressing their views.
While China has become an open and free society, it has maintained order and stability and promoted unity and harmony. People’s democracy is the propellant as well as the lubricant for China’s social progress.
5. Effective Constraint and Supervision of the Exercise of Power
Power is a double-edged sword. It can only contribute to democracy and benefit the people when it is exercised under effective constraints and supervision. Unchecked, it is always likely to run out of control, sabotage democracy, and harm the people. In China, the exercise of power has been brought under growing control and supervision. Public power, entrusted by the people, is and will always be exercised for the public good.
Restraining power in an institutional cage. Checks on and supervision over power are being strengthened under solid institutions, ensuring measures against corruption are thorough, all-encompassing, consistent and long-lasting. Ongoing efforts have been made to govern the CPC by regulations, and to promote law-based governance, law-based exercise of state power, and law-based government administration. Power is prescribed by law, and regulated, constrained, and supervised by legal means, to ensure it is exercised transparently. The CPC has taken measures to strengthen its regulations, and requires all its members and organizations to act within the scope of Party discipline and rules. Officials’ term of office has been introduced for leadership positions, ensuring the orderly transition of leadership personnel in state organs. Management of officials, especially high-ranking officials, has been strengthened, with strict and clearly-defined rules over their incomes and entitlements to prevent the evolution of a privileged elite. The supervisory systems of the Party and the state have been improved; the Party, the government, the judiciary, and all sectors have become more transparent in handling affairs; leading Party and state organs and their personnel work within their statutory limits, with clear powers and responsibilities and following statutory procedures. All this prevents rent-seeking and ensures that the exercise of power does not stray beyond the proper boundaries.
Fighting and punishing corruption. Corruption is the arch-enemy of people’s democracy. The Chinese government is determined to honor its commitment to 1.4 billion Chinese people by fighting corruption. With systemic efforts to address both the symptoms and root causes, the awareness, ability and resolve to resist corruption form an integral, coordinated whole. While punishments are meted out to deter crime, institutional checks and personal commitment to staying clean also play a role. No refuge has been excluded from the scope, no ground left unturned, and no tolerance shown in the fight against corruption. China will continue to impose tight constraints, maintain a tough stance and long-term deterrence, and punish both those who take bribes and those who offer them. No case of corruption will escape investigation and no corrupt official will go unpunished. Just as a heavy dose of medicine will be taken to treat a serious disease, China will fight with all the means necessary to “hunt down tigers”, “swat flies”, “chase foxes” and mete out severe punishments to corrupt officials – big or small, in China or seeking refuge overseas. Strong, decisive measures have struck down corruption like thunder, forming a powerful deterrence that has helped to consolidate China’s sweeping victory in the fight against corruption. To solve this persistent malaise, a thorn in the flesh of all governments regardless of time or place, China has taken a clear stance and responded with resolute action.
Whether a model of democracy works should be tested in actual practice and judged by the people. Whether China’s model of democracy is successful should be judged by its people. It all boils down to whether the people can enjoy a good life. Surveys have shown that the level of public satisfaction with the government has remained above 90 percent for many years. This provides unequivocal evidence of the efficacy and vitality of democracy in China. The Chinese people will continue firmly on the path they have chosen to achieve greater democracy.
V. A New Model of Democracy
Democracy is a political form that has taken shape over the course of thousands of years. It has played a significant role in human development. Since the onset of the 20th century, democracy has made little progress in some countries, and others have found themselves in a state of turmoil and even have split apart. Today’s world is facing challenges of excessive democracy, democracy implemented in great haste, democratic deficit and fading democracy. What has happened to democracy? Does it still work? The answers to these questions will influence world peace and development and the future of all civilizations. There is nothing wrong with democracy per se. Some countries have encountered setbacks and crises in their quest for democracy only because their approach was wrong.
In promoting democracy, China has undergone a difficult process of selection, experimentation, practice and development. China has created and developed whole-process people’s democracy in line with its national conditions. This is a form of democracy with distinctive Chinese features which at the same time reflects humanity’s universal desire for democracy. It has fueled the development of the country and driven the revitalization of the nation. It has contributed a new model to the international political spectrum.
1. Exploring New Paths to Democracy
It is extremely important, yet also very difficult, for a country on the road to modernization to promote democracy while ensuring political stability and social progress.
China did not follow the established path of Western countries in its modernization drive. Similarly, China did not duplicate Western models of democracy, but created its own. Now, the entire Chinese population, almost one fifth of the world’s total, enjoys extensive rights and freedoms. This is most encouraging to developing countries and greatly enhances their confidence in developing their own democracy. China’s new approach to democracy represents a significant contribution to international politics and human progress.
The original aspiration of China’s democracy was to ensure the people’s status as masters of the country. China’s path to democracy has been rocky and tortuous. Nevertheless, the nation has remained unshaken in its determination to pursue democracy based on its original aspiration. In today’s China, the goal of ensuring the people’s status as masters of the country has grown richer in content, wider in channels, and greater in impact, driving democracy in China onward.
An accurate understanding and a determination to forge ahead are preconditions and the key for realizing, developing, and enriching democracy. A sound and genuine democracy must allow the people to become masters of the country. It must allow them to enjoy the right to stand for election, the right to vote, and the right to extensive participation. It must allow them the right to express their expectations and the right to have those expectations fulfilled. It must allow them the right to contribute to national development and the right to share the fruits of development.
2. Following the Most Suitable Path to Democracy
Democracy is rich in form, and there are many ways to achieve it. Countries with different histories, cultures and national conditions may choose different forms of democracy. Blindly copying other models of democracy is a problematic endeavor – it risks creating cultural conflict, political volatility or even social turmoil and causing great pain to its people.
It is of vital importance for China to choose a path to democracy suited to a vast country with a large population. China draws on each and every political achievement of other countries, but does not imitate any of their models of democracy. China welcomes all constructive suggestions and well-intentioned criticism, but rejects any form of overbearing lecture. China must devise the most suitable form of democracy in accordance with its characteristics and realities – a basic principle China adheres to for developing democracy.
As a populous country long plagued by weak economic foundations, China strives to strike a balance between democracy and development. The priority always rests with development, which is facilitated by democracy and in turn boosts the development of democracy. China has never indulged in empty talk on democracy regardless of a country’s development stage.
Always drawing wisdom and strength from its 5,000-year-old culture and fine traditions, and based on a correct understanding of its current development stage and its economic and social conditions, China has made active and prudent efforts to advance democracy. To avoid fatal errors, it never seeks unrealistic goals or over-extends itself in pursuit of quick success. Instead, it focuses on identifying and resolving each and every problem, and presses ahead with democracy step by step to make the system more mature and well-defined.
There are no identical political systems in the world, neither is there a political model that fits all. Countries can borrow from the successful experience of others and develop forms of democracy suited to their own modernization process, but they should not simply duplicate other systems or models. The model that suits best is always the most appropriate. Only democracy rooted in a country’s unique social environment has proven to be reliable and effective, and can thrive and progress. External interference and “democratic transformation” bring nothing but endless trouble. China never seeks to export the Chinese model of democracy, nor does it allow any external force to change the Chinese model under any circumstances. It firmly supports the independent choice by every country of its own path to democracy, and opposes any interference in others’ internal affairs on the pretext of “bringing democracy”.
3. Promoting Democracy in International Relations
Democracy manifests itself in two dimensions: On a national level, it refers to the people’s status as masters of their own country; on an international level, it refers to the democratic relations between nations.
A country’s dignity should be respected, and its sovereignty, security and development interests are inviolable. To judge other countries by one’s own yardstick, or force them to duplicate one’s own political system or democratic model through color revolution or the threat of force are undemocratic in themselves.
China is a faithful and exemplary actor in pursuing, exploring and practicing democracy. It endeavors to increase democracy both within its own territory and between nations. At a time of momentous change of a scale unseen in a century, China champions peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit. China proposes to build a global community of shared future, and presses for a new model of international relations based on mutual respect, fairness and justice, and win-win cooperation. At a time of intense global competition in the economic, scientific, technological and other fields, China regards other countries as partners rather than rivals – it does not engage in cold war, confrontation, control or manipulation, but rather promotes mutually beneficial exchanges and cooperation.
China has actively developed global partnerships. It works to establish a framework of major-country relations that is generally stable and balanced. In developing relations with neighboring countries, it applies the principles of amity, sincerity, inclusiveness, mutual benefit, and the policy of promoting friendly and neighborly ties. In strengthening cooperation with other developing countries, China pursues the greater good and shared interests, and applies the principles of sincerity, affinity, good faith and real results. China has strengthened exchanges and cooperation with countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative and shared the gains with them, expanding the initiative into more regions and turning it into a well-received global public good.
The present world is far from fair and just, equal and democratic. A small number of countries ignore international law, flout international justice, disdain international public opinion, flagrantly infringe upon the sovereignty of other countries, and interfere with others’ internal affairs. They frequently abuse and dictate to smaller and weaker countries, turning the “global village” into a primeval jungle where the strong prey on the weak. In a world confronted by challenges, all countries, large or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equals, and should uphold the principle of democracy in international relations. Powerful countries should behave as befits their status, make the future of humanity their priority, and shoulder greater responsibility for world peace and development, rather than wielding their power in pursuit of supremacy or hegemony. The future of the world should rest in the hands of all peoples of the world. International rules should be made by all countries, global affairs should be governed by all parties, and the fruits of development should be shared by all.
4. Increasing Exchanges and Mutual Learning Between Civilizations
There is no single road to democracy. The true barrier to democracy lies not in different models of democracy, but in arrogance, prejudice and hostility towards other countries’ attempts to explore their own paths to democracy, and in assumed superiority and the determination to impose one’s own model of democracy on others.
Political systems vary from civilization to civilization, and each has its own strengths. All countries should uphold the principle of nondiscrimination, respect others’ models of democracy, share experience with others, explore their own paths, and contribute their due share to human progress.
One Person, One Vote is a democratic principle, but it is by no means the only principle, nor does it of itself create democracy. However, it has long been misinterpreted and its meaning distorted by a small number of countries. The principles of One Person, One Vote and party competition underlying the Western electoral system are propagated by them as the sole criterion for democracy. A handful of countries exploit democracy as a political tool. Adopting the hegemonic mindset that “whoever disagrees with me is wrong”, they interfere in the internal affairs of others in the name of democracy, and infringe on their sovereignty to serve their own political interests. They also incite antagonism and secession on the pretext of “bringing democracy”, causing endless instability in many parts of the world and aggravating international tensions. To advance human progress and achieve peaceful coexistence and common development, all countries must understand and promote genuine democracy.
Political parties in all countries are the major entities of modern governance and an important force for social progress. They should therefore assume their responsibility to spearhead democracy in pursuit of a shared future for humanity, and to achieve greater democracy in their own countries in pursuit of the greater wellbeing of their peoples. They should be open and inclusive, put people first, seek common ground while setting aside differences, and demonstrate mutual respect. The CPC is willing to work together with other political parties and political organizations around the world to increase exchanges, learn from each other, and promote human progress.
Conclusion
There is always scope for improving the system of democracy. Humanity’s quest for and experiments with greater democracy will never end.
China has achieved considerable progress in developing democracy; to meet the new requirements of modernization and the people’s new expectations for democracy, China still needs to make further improvements. On the path towards comprehensive socialist modernization, the CPC will continue to uphold people’s democracy, embrace the people-centered development philosophy, promote whole-process people’s democracy, ensure the sound development of democracy, and pursue well-rounded human development and common prosperity for everyone.
Today’s world is experiencing change on a scale unseen in a century. It can anticipate hopes and opportunities as well as risks and challenges. All paths to democracy chosen by the peoples themselves deserve proper respect. We should pursue peaceful development, safeguard fairness and justice, increase democracy and freedom, and improve the people’s wellbeing. This is the only way to build synergy among all civilizations in the quest for a better future.
Civilizations are enriched by exchanges and mutual learning. The Chinese people are willing to work together with all other peoples around the world to carry forward the common values of humanity – peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy and freedom. In a spirit of mutual respect and following the principle of seeking common ground while setting aside differences, we will add new elements to the world’s political structure and advance towards a global community of shared future together.
[1] The eight other political parties are the Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang, the China Democratic League, the China National Democratic Construction Association, the China Association for Promoting Democracy, the Chinese Peasants and Workers Democratic Party, the China Zhi Gong Party, the Jiusan Society, and the Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League.
[2] Before the founding of the PRC, the CPC carried out extensive democratic elections across the countryside in the base areas of resistance against Japanese aggression and liberated rural areas under its leadership. Back then, the overwhelming majority of peasants were illiterate. The Party therefore introduced a series of innovative methods to enable those who could not read and write to exercise their right to vote in the elections. The most celebrated was called “bean voting”, a method using beans as ballots. A voter only needed to cast a bean into the bowl for the candidate of whom he or she was in favor. The candidate who got more beans would win the election. At that time, a folk rhyme was prevalent in those places: “Beans roll, beans vote, beans go into the right bowls.”
中国的民主
2021-12-04 10:45 来源： 新华社【字体：大 中 小】打印新华社北京12月4日电 国务院新闻办公室4日发表《中国的民主》白皮书。全文如下：
中国的民主
（2021年12月）
中华人民共和国
国务院新闻办公室目录
前言
一、中国共产党领导人民实现全过程人民民主
二、具有科学有效的制度安排
（一）实行人民民主专政的国体
（二）实行人民代表大会制度的政体
（三）坚持和完善中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度
（四）巩固和发展最广泛的爱国统一战线
（五）坚持和完善民族区域自治制度
（六）坚持和完善基层群众自治制度
三、具有具体现实的民主实践
（一）民主选举
（二）民主协商
（三）民主决策
（四）民主管理
（五）民主监督
四、广泛真实管用的民主
（一）人民享有广泛权利
（二）人民民主参与不断扩大
（三）国家治理高效
（四）社会和谐稳定
（五）权力运用得到有效制约和监督
五、丰富人类政治文明形态
（一）为人类民主事业发展探索新的路径
（二）走符合国情的民主发展道路
（三）推动国际关系民主化
（四）加强文明交流互鉴
结束语
前言
民主是全人类的共同价值，是中国共产党和中国人民始终不渝坚持的重要理念。
今年是中国共产党成立100周年。100年前，中国共产党一经诞生，就把为中国人民谋幸福、为中华民族谋复兴确立为自己的初心和使命，为实现人民当家作主进行了不懈探索和奋斗。100年来，党高举人民民主旗帜，领导人民在一个有几千年封建社会历史、近代成为半殖民地半封建社会的国家实现了人民当家作主，中国人民真正成为国家、社会和自己命运的主人。
中国的民主是人民民主，人民当家作主是中国民主的本质和核心。党的十八大以来，党深化对中国民主政治发展规律的认识，提出全过程人民民主重大理念并大力推进，民主价值和理念进一步转化为科学有效的制度安排和具体现实的民主实践。全过程人民民主，实现了过程民主和成果民主、程序民主和实质民主、直接民主和间接民主、人民民主和国家意志相统一，是全链条、全方位、全覆盖的民主，是最广泛、最真实、最管用的社会主义民主。
民主是历史的、具体的、发展的，各国民主植根于本国的历史文化传统，成长于本国人民的实践探索和智慧创造，民主道路不同，民主形态各异。评价一个国家政治制度是不是民主的、有效的，主要看国家领导层能否依法有序更替，全体人民能否依法管理国家事务和社会事务、管理经济和文化事业，人民群众能否畅通表达利益要求，社会各方面能否有效参与国家政治生活，国家决策能否实现科学化、民主化，各方面人才能否通过公平竞争进入国家领导和管理体系，执政党能否依照宪法法律规定实现对国家事务的领导，权力运用能否得到有效制约和监督。
民主不是装饰品，不是用来做摆设的，而是要用来解决人民需要解决的问题的。一个国家民主不民主，关键在于是不是真正做到了人民当家作主，要看人民有没有投票权，更要看人民有没有广泛参与权；要看人民在选举过程中得到了什么口头许诺，更要看选举后这些承诺实现了多少；要看制度和法律规定了什么样的政治程序和政治规则，更要看这些制度和法律是不是真正得到了执行；要看权力运行规则和程序是否民主，更要看权力是否真正受到人民监督和制约。
民主是各国人民的权利，而不是少数国家的专利。一个国家是不是民主，应该由这个国家的人民来评判，而不应该由外部少数人指手画脚来评判。国际社会哪个国家是不是民主的，应该由国际社会共同来评判，而不应该由自以为是的少数国家来评判。实现民主有多种方式，不可能千篇一律。用单一的标尺衡量世界丰富多彩的政治制度，用单调的眼光审视人类五彩缤纷的政治文明，本身就是不民主的。
民主是多样的，世界是多彩的。在世界文明的百花园里，中国的民主之花绚丽绽放。中国愿与各国交流互鉴、携手合作，为人类政治文明发展进步贡献智慧和力量。
一、中国共产党领导人民实现全过程人民民主
中华民族是历史悠久、勤劳智慧的民族，创造了辉煌灿烂的政治文明。在5000多年历史长河中，中国人民探索形成的民本思想，蕴含着丰富的民主因素，体现了中国人民对民主的朴素认知和不懈追求。但是，在封建专制之下，广大劳动人民始终处于受压迫受剥削的最底层。近代以后，中国逐步成为半殖民地半封建社会，国家将倾，民族将亡，人民毫无民主可言。为救亡图存，中国人民奋起抗争，各种革命变革接连而起，各种救国方案轮番出台，但都未能取得成功。辛亥革命后，中国模仿议会制、多党制、总统制等西方政治制度模式的各种尝试都以失败告终。以“民主”“科学”为基本口号的新文化运动的兴起，俄国十月革命的胜利，五四运动的爆发，马克思主义在中国的传播，促进了中国人民的伟大觉醒，中国先进分子对民主有了更加深刻的思考和新的认知。
1921年，中国共产党成立，点亮了中国的民主之光。新民主主义革命时期，党领导人民为争取民主、反抗压迫和剥削进行了艰苦卓绝斗争，取得新民主主义革命胜利，成立新中国，实现了中国从几千年封建专制政治向人民民主的伟大飞跃，中国人民从此站起来了，中国民主发展进入新纪元，人民当家作主从梦想变为现实。社会主义革命和建设时期，党领导人民建立和巩固国家政权，对生产资料进行社会主义改造，制定颁布新中国第一部宪法，确立人民代表大会制度、中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度、民族区域自治制度，人民当家作主的政治架构、经济基础、法律原则、制度框架基本确立并不断发展，中国的民主大厦巍然耸立起来。改革开放和社会主义现代化建设新时期，党领导人民坚定不移推进社会主义民主法治建设，坚持中国特色社会主义政治发展道路，坚持党的领导、人民当家作主、依法治国有机统一，积极稳妥推进政治体制改革，巩固和发展人民代表大会制度，进一步完善中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度、民族区域自治制度、基层群众自治制度等基本政治制度，民主发展的政治制度保障和社会物质基础更加坚实。
党的十八大以来，中国特色社会主义进入新时代。以习近平同志为核心的党中央，立足新的历史方位，深刻把握中国社会主要矛盾发生的新变化，积极回应人民对民主的新要求新期盼，深刻吸取古今中外治乱兴衰的经验教训，全面总结中国民主发展取得的显著成就，团结带领人民发展全过程人民民主，中国的民主发展进入历史新时期。坚持和加强党的全面领导，深化党和国家机构改革，党对发展全过程人民民主的领导进一步加强。推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化，确立和坚持中国特色社会主义根本制度、基本制度、重要制度，人民当家作主制度体系更加健全。全面推进民主选举、民主协商、民主决策、民主管理、民主监督，协同推进选举民主与协商民主，人民依法有序政治参与不断扩大，人民的民主生活丰富多彩。全过程人民民主，使人民当家作主更好体现在国家政治生活和社会生活之中，中国特色社会主义政治制度优越性得到更好发挥，生动活泼、安定团结的政治局面得到巩固发展，激发和凝聚了中国人民奋斗新时代的磅礴力量。党团结带领人民，取得抗击新冠肺炎疫情重大战略成果，历史性地解决绝对贫困问题，全面建成小康社会，化解一系列重大风险，开启全面建设社会主义现代化国家新征程，向着全体人民共同富裕迈进，全过程人民民主在中华大地展示出勃勃生机和强大生命力，中国人民的民主自信更加坚定，中国的民主之路越走越宽广。
全过程人民民主，是中国共产党团结带领人民追求民主、发展民主、实现民主的伟大创造，是党不断推进中国民主理论创新、制度创新、实践创新的经验结晶。中国共产党的奋斗史，是团结带领人民探索、形成、发展全过程人民民主的奋斗史。全过程人民民主，是近代以来党团结带领人民长期奋斗历史逻辑、理论逻辑、实践逻辑的必然结果，是坚持党的本质属性、践行党的根本宗旨的必然要求。全过程人民民主，充分彰显社会主义国家性质，充分彰显人民主体地位，使人民意志得到更好体现、人民权益得到更好保障、人民创造活力进一步激发。全过程人民民主，形成和发展于党领导人民争取民族独立、人民解放和实现国家富强、人民幸福的不懈奋斗，扎根在广袤的中华大地，吸吮着中华民族漫长奋斗积累的文化养分，学习借鉴人类文明优秀成果，符合中国国情，得到人民衷心拥护，具有深厚现实基础和广阔发展前景。全过程人民民主，具有完整的制度程序和完整的参与实践，使选举民主和协商民主这两种重要民主形式更好结合起来，构建起覆盖960多万平方公里土地、14亿多人民、56个民族的民主体系，实现了最广大人民的广泛持续参与。全过程人民民主，既有鲜明的中国特色，也体现全人类共同价值，为丰富和发展人类政治文明贡献了中国智慧、中国方案。
中国共产党的领导，是中国发展全过程人民民主的根本保证。在中国这样一个大国，真正把14亿多人民的意愿表达好、实现好并不容易，必须有坚强有力的统一领导。中国共产党始终坚持以人民为中心、坚持人民主体地位，真正为人民执政、靠人民执政；充分发挥总揽全局、协调各方的领导核心作用，保证党领导人民有效治理国家，保证人民民主的理念、方针、政策贯彻到国家政治生活和社会生活的方方面面；坚持一切为了群众，一切依靠群众，从群众中来，到群众中去的群众路线，密切同人民群众的联系，凝聚起最广大人民的智慧和力量；坚持党内民主，实行民主选举、民主决策、民主管理、民主监督，带动和促进人民民主的发展；健全选人用人制度机制，使各方面优秀人才进入党的领导体系和国家治理体系，确保党和国家的领导权掌握在忠于马克思主义、忠于党、忠于人民的人手中；坚持依法执政、依法治国，领导立法、保证执法、支持司法、带头守法，通过法治保障党的政策有效实施、保障人民当家作主。
二、具有科学有效的制度安排
在中国，国家各项制度都是围绕人民当家作主构建的，国家治理体系都是围绕实现人民当家作主运转的，全过程人民民主具有完整的制度程序。这些制度程序，形成了全面、广泛、有机衔接的人民当家作主制度体系，构建了多样、畅通、有序的民主渠道，有效保证了党的主张、国家意志、人民意愿相统一，有效保证了人民当家作主。
（一）实行人民民主专政的国体
中国是工人阶级领导的、以工农联盟为基础的人民民主专政的社会主义国家。人民民主专政，体现中国的国家根本性质。
中国坚持民主与专政有机统一，保证了人民当家作主。一方面，始终坚持人民民主专政中的“民主”，坚持国家的一切权力属于人民，保证人民依照宪法和法律规定，通过各种途径和形式，管理国家事务，管理经济和文化事业，管理社会事务；另一方面，始终坚持人民民主专政中的“专政”，充分履行国家政权的专政职能，依法打击破坏社会主义制度、颠覆国家政权、危害国家安全和公共安全等各种犯罪行为，维护法律尊严和法律秩序，保护国家和人民利益。民主和专政不是矛盾的，都是为了保证人民当家作主。打击极少数是为了保护大多数，实行专政是为了实现民主。
（二）实行人民代表大会制度的政体
人民代表大会制度，是适应人民民主专政国体的政权组织形式，是中国的根本政治制度，是中国人民当家作主的根本途径和最高实现形式，是实现全过程人民民主的重要制度载体。人民代表大会制度，坚持国家一切权力属于人民，最大限度保障人民当家作主，把党的领导、人民当家作主、依法治国有机结合起来，有效保证国家治理跳出治乱兴衰的历史周期率。人民代表大会制度，正确处理事关国家前途命运的一系列重大政治关系，实现国家统一有效组织各项事业，维护国家统一和民族团结，有效保证国家政治生活既充满活力又安定有序。
人民通过人民代表大会有效行使国家权力。人民代表大会代表人民统一行使国家权力，全国人民代表大会是最高国家权力机关，地方人民代表大会是地方国家权力机关。各级国家行政机关、监察机关、审判机关、检察机关都由人民代表大会产生，对人大负责、受人大监督。人民代表大会有立法权、监督权、决定权、任免权。全国人民代表大会及其常务委员会行使国家立法权，全国人民代表大会行使修改宪法以及制定和修改刑事、民事、国家机构的和其他的基本法律的权力；全国人民代表大会对国家主席、副主席，国务院总理、副总理及其他组成人员，中央军事委员会主席及其他组成人员，国家监察委员会主任，最高人民法院院长，最高人民检察院检察长行使人事任免权；全国人民代表大会对事关国家发展、人民利益的重大问题，包括国民经济和社会发展计划和计划执行情况的报告、国家的预算和预算执行情况的报告行使审查和批准权等；全国人民代表大会及其常务委员会行使对宪法实施、“一府一委两院”工作等的监督权。地方各级人民代表大会及其常务委员会依法行使相应职权。人民代表大会制度，实现了广泛民主，使各级人民代表大会有高度的权力，保证了人民掌握和行使国家权力，国家和民族前途命运牢牢掌握在人民手中。
人大代表充分反映人民呼声。人大代表来自人民，横向上，来自各地区、各民族、各方面、各阶层；纵向上，全国、省、市、县、乡五级都有人民代表大会，具有广泛代表性。截至2020年底，全国共有人大代表262万名，其中县乡两级人大代表占代表总数的94.5%。人大代表充分发挥植根人民的优势，依法认真履职尽责，通过各种形式和渠道听取和反映人民群众的意见建议。一年一度的各级人民代表大会会议，乡、县、市、省、全国自下而上、逐级召开，使得人民群众意愿和呼声能够真实反映、向上传递。改革开放以来，每年的全国人大会议上，近3000名全国人大代表共商国家发展大计、共议民生热点问题，党和国家领导人当面倾听意见建议，让人民的所思所盼融入国家发展顶层设计。各国家机关依法认真研究办理人大代表提出的议案、建议，许多被吸纳进政策决策中。
人民代表大会制度，为中国共产党领导人民有效治理国家提供了重要制度保障。党通过人民代表大会制度，使党的主张通过法定程序成为国家意志，使党组织推荐的人选通过法定程序成为国家政权机关的领导人员，通过国家政权机关实施党对国家和社会的领导，维护党和国家权威、维护全党全国团结统一。实践充分证明，人民代表大会制度是符合中国国情和实际、体现社会主义国家性质、保证人民当家作主、保障实现中华民族伟大复兴的好制度，必须长期坚持、全面贯彻、不断发展。
（三）坚持和完善中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度
中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度是中国的一项基本政治制度。这一制度植根中国土壤、彰显中国智慧，又积极借鉴和吸收人类政治文明优秀成果，是中国新型政党制度。宪法规定，中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度将长期存在和发展。
在中国，除了中国共产党，还有八个民主党派（注①）。在人民民主的共同旗帜下，中国共产党与各民主党派长期共存、互相监督、肝胆相照、荣辱与共，形成了中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度这一具有鲜明中国特色和显著优势的新型政党制度。中国共产党是执政党，八个民主党派是接受中国共产党领导、同中国共产党亲密合作的参政党，是中国共产党的好参谋、好帮手、好同事。在中国，没有反对党，也没有在野党。中国既不是一党专政，也不是多党竞争、轮流执政，而是“共产党领导、多党派合作，共产党执政、多党派参政”。
中国共产党和各民主党派、无党派人士以会议协商、约谈协商、书面协商等形式，就国家和地方重大政策和重要事务进行协商。中国共产党自觉接受各民主党派、无党派人士的民主监督。中国共产党和各民主党派、无党派人士在国家政权中合作共事，民主党派成员和无党派人士在各级人大代表、人大常委会组成人员及人大专门委员会成员中均占一定数量，一些民主党派成员和无党派人士担任国家机关领导职务。各民主党派、无党派人士紧紧围绕国家中心工作，积极参政议政、建言献策，为国家发展发挥作用。
中国人民政治协商会议是实行中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度的重要机构。人民政协作为专门协商机构，在协商中促进广泛团结、推进多党合作、实践人民民主，既秉承历史传统，又反映时代特征，充分体现了中国社会主义民主有事多商量、遇事多商量、做事多商量的特点和优势，是国家治理体系的重要组成部分和具有中国特色的制度安排。在人民政协制度平台上，各党派团体、各族各界人士发挥在界别群众中的代表作用，通过全体会议、常委会会议、主席会议、专门委员会会议、专题协商会议、协商座谈会议等，开展提案、委员视察考察、专题调研、反映社情民意等经常性工作，对国家大政方针、经济社会各领域重要问题，在决策之前和决策实施之中进行广泛协商、平等协商、有序协商、真诚协商，提出意见建议。中国共产党采纳和集中他们的意见建议，各党派团体、各族各界人士接受党的主张并在各界别群众中宣传解释党的方针政策，增信释疑，最广泛地反映民意，最充分地集思广益，最大限度地凝聚共识，巩固团结奋斗的共同思想基础。全国政协全体会议与全国人大会议每年同期召开，政协委员不仅要讨论政协的问题，还要列席全国人大会议，参加对有关法律修改、“一府两院”工作报告等的讨论，这样的制度安排真正实现了让人人起来负责、人人监督政府工作，形成了具有中国特色的“两会”式民主。
中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度，真实、广泛、持久代表和实现最广大人民根本利益、全国各族各界根本利益，有效避免了旧式政党制度代表少数人、少数利益集团的弊端；把各个政党和无党派人士紧密团结起来、为着共同目标而奋斗，有效避免了一党缺乏监督或者多党轮流坐庄、恶性竞争的弊端；通过制度化、程序化、规范化的安排集中各种意见和建议、推动决策科学化民主化，有效避免了旧式政党制度囿于党派利益、阶级利益、区域和集团利益决策施政导致社会撕裂的弊端。
（四）巩固和发展最广泛的爱国统一战线
统一战线是中国共产党凝聚人心、汇集力量的重要法宝。在人民民主实践中，中国共产党始终把统一战线摆在重要位置，坚持大团结大联合，坚持一致性和多样性相统一，统筹做好民主党派和无党派人士工作、党外知识分子工作、民族工作、宗教工作、非公有制经济领域统战工作、新的社会阶层人士统战工作、港澳台统战工作、海外统一战线工作和侨务工作，团结一切可以团结的力量、调动一切可以调动的积极因素，广泛凝聚共识，寻求最大公约数、画出最大同心圆，不断促进政党关系、民族关系、宗教关系、阶层关系、海内外同胞关系和谐，最大限度凝聚起中华民族一切智慧和力量。
中国人民政治协商会议是中国人民爱国统一战线的组织。全国政协设34个界别，由中国共产党、各民主党派、无党派人士、人民团体、各少数民族和各界的代表，香港特别行政区同胞、澳门特别行政区同胞、台湾同胞和归国侨胞的代表以及特别邀请的人士组成。全国政协十三届一次会议共有委员2100多人，其中非中共党员占60.2%。这样的组织构成，体现了大团结大联合的重要特征，能够在热爱中华人民共和国、拥护中国共产党的领导、共同致力于实现中华民族伟大复兴的政治基础上，求同存异、聚同化异，最大限度地调动一切积极因素、团结一切可以团结的人，最大限度凝聚起共同团结奋斗的强大力量。
（五）坚持和完善民族区域自治制度
中国是统一的多民族国家，铸牢中华民族共同体意识，始终保持国家完整统一，实现各民族共同团结奋斗、共同繁荣发展，是中国共产党民族政策的方针宗旨。民族区域自治制度，是指在国家统一领导下，各少数民族聚居的地方实行区域自治，设立自治机关，行使自治权的制度。民族区域自治制度在宪法以及民族区域自治法中得到明确，是中国的一项基本政治制度。
中国实行民族区域自治，以领土完整、国家统一为前提和基础，体现了统一与自治的结合、民族因素与区域因素的结合，完全符合中国国情和实际。中国的民族区域自治，是在国家统一领导下的自治，各民族自治地方都是中国不可分离的一部分，民族自治地方的自治机关都是中央政府领导下的一级地方政权，都必须服从中央统一领导。
实行民族区域自治，从制度和政策层面保障了少数民族公民享有平等自由权利以及经济、社会、文化权利。155个民族自治地方的人民代表大会常务委员会中，均有实行区域自治民族的公民担任主任或者副主任；民族自治地方政府的主席、州长、县长或旗长，均由实行区域自治的民族的公民担任。中国根据各少数民族的特点和需要，帮助各少数民族地区加速经济和文化发展。
民族区域自治制度，极大增强了各族人民当家作主的自豪感责任感，极大调动了各族人民共创中华民族美好未来、共享中华民族伟大荣光的积极性主动性创造性。在这一制度框架下，中华民族大团结的局面不断巩固，各族人民交往交流交融日益广泛深入，平等团结互助和谐的社会主义民族关系不断发展，56个民族像石榴籽一样紧紧抱在一起，中华民族共同体意识日益牢固。
（六）坚持和完善基层群众自治制度
中国人口多、地域广，基层治理差异大。中国实行以村民自治制度、居民自治制度和职工代表大会制度为主要内容的基层群众自治制度，人民群众在基层党组织的领导和支持下，依法直接行使民主权利，实现自我管理、自我服务、自我教育、自我监督，有效防止了人民形式上有权、实际上无权的现象。
村（居）民自治。村（居）民在基层党组织的领导下，成立村（居）民委员会，依法直接行使民主权利，依法管理基层公共事务和公益事业。实行民主选举，由村（居）民选举村（居）民委员会组成人员；实行民主协商，由村（居）民采取多种形式开展协商议事；实行民主决策，由村（居）民通过村（居）民会议或村（居）民代表会议对社区公共事务和公益事业等作出决定；实行民主管理，由村（居）民讨论决定村（居）民自治章程、村规民约、居民公约等，并进行自我管理；实行民主监督，由村（居）民推选产生村（居）务监督委员会，监督村（社区）事务和村（居）务公开制度落实。截至2020年底，50.3万个行政村全部建立了村民委员会，11.2万个社区全部建立了居民委员会。
企事业单位职工依法行使民主权利。企事业单位建立以职工代表大会为基本形式的民主管理制度，职工在企事业单位重大决策和涉及职工切身利益等重大事项上发挥积极作用；企事业单位推行职工董事、职工监事制度，全面实行厂务公开制度，探索领导接待日、劳资恳谈会、领导信箱等形式，反映职工诉求，协调劳动关系和保障职工合法权益，对单位生产和管理提出意见建议，为单位发展献计献策。企业工会委员会是职工代表大会的工作机构，现阶段，中国共有280.9万个基层工会组织，覆盖655.1万个企事业单位。
基层民主创新十分活跃。从城乡社区里的村（居）民议事会、村（居）民论坛、民主恳谈会、民主听证会到党代表、人大代表、政协委员联合进社区，从“小院议事厅”到“板凳民主”，从线下“圆桌会”到线上“议事群”，中国人民在火热的基层生活中，摸索创造了一个又一个充满烟火气的民主形式。人们通过这些接地气、聚人气的民主实践，围绕涉及自身利益的实际问题，发表意见建议，进行广泛协商，利益得到协调，矛盾有效化解，促进了基层稳定和谐。基层民主许多好的经验做法成为国家政策，为中国民主发展不断注入新的动力。
基层群众自治制度，增强了基层群众的民主意识和民主能力，培养了基层群众的民主习惯，充分彰显了中国民主的广泛性和真实性。基层群众自治，使得社会细胞都活跃起来，使“微治理”富有活力、更有效率，为建设人人有责、人人尽责、人人享有的基层治理共同体提供了坚实制度保障。
三、具有具体现实的民主实践
中国发展全过程人民民主，既有完整的制度程序，也有完整的参与实践。全过程人民民主，把选举民主与协商民主结合起来，把民主选举、民主协商、民主决策、民主管理、民主监督贯通起来，涵盖经济、政治、文化、社会、生态文明等各个方面，关注国家发展大事、社会治理难事、百姓日常琐事，具有时间上的连续性、内容上的整体性、运行上的协同性、人民参与上的广泛性和持续性，使国家政治生活和社会生活各环节、各方面都体现人民意愿、听到人民声音，有效防止了选举时漫天许诺、选举后无人过问的现象。
（一）民主选举
人民通过选举、投票行使权利，选出代表自己意愿的人来掌握并行使权力，是中国民主的一种重要形式，是人民实现当家作主的重要体现。
中国的选举是广泛的，有国家机构选举、村（居）委会选举、企事业单位职工代表大会选举等，涵盖了国家政治生活和社会生活的各个方面；中国的选举是平等的，人民的选举权和被选举权得到充分保障，一人一票、票票等值；中国的选举是真实的，不受金钱操控，选民按照自己的意愿选出自己信任的人；中国的选举是发展的，选举形式手段随着经济社会的发展不断创新和丰富。
国家机构选举。国家机构选举是指，选举产生全国人民代表大会和地方各级人民代表大会，由各级人大选举产生同级国家机关领导人员。在中国，年满18周岁、具有中华人民共和国国籍、未被依法剥夺政治权利的公民，都有选举权和被选举权。从全国人大到乡级人大，五级人民代表大会代表均由民主选举产生，每届任期5年。按照普遍、平等、直接选举和间接选举相结合以及差额选举、无记名投票的原则，选民直接选举产生县乡两级人大代表，县级以上人大代表由下一级人大选举产生。各级国家机关领导人员均由同级人大选举产生或者决定任命。
基层选举。基层选举是中国最广泛、最生动的民主实践，包括村（居）民委员会选举和企事业单位职工代表大会选举。村（居）民委员会由主任、副主任和委员组成，村（居）民委员会选举与县乡人大选举同步进行。村（居）民依法定期选举产生村（居）民委员会成员。在企事业单位中，职工代表大会是职工当家作主、行使民主管理权力的机构，职工代表由全体职工通过民主选举产生。
中国的民主选举是符合中国国情的，是与中国的发展阶段相适应的，是随着经济社会发展与时俱进的。几十年来，中国适时修改选举法，选举全国人大代表时，农村和城市每位代表所代表的人口比例从新中国成立初期的8∶1，到1995年的4∶1，再到2010年的1∶1，逐步实现了城乡人口的平等选举。人们的民主意识不断增强，参选率不断提高。改革开放以来，中国先后进行12次乡级人大代表直接选举、11次县级人大代表直接选举，选民参选率均保持在90%左右。
（二）民主协商
有事好商量，众人的事情由众人商量，找到全社会意愿和要求的最大公约数，是人民民主的真谛。人民在通过选举、投票行使权利的同时，在重大决策前和决策过程中进行充分协商，尽可能就共同性问题取得一致意见。协商民主是中国民主独特的、独有的、独到的民主形式。
具有深厚基础。协商民主源自中华民族长期形成的天下为公、兼容并蓄、求同存异等优秀政治文化，源自近代以后中国政治发展的现实进程，源自中国共产党领导人民进行不懈奋斗的长期实践，源自新中国成立后各党派、各团体、各民族、各阶层、各界人士在政治制度上共同实现的伟大创造，源自改革开放以来中国在政治体制上的不断创新，具有深厚的文化基础、理论基础、实践基础、制度基础。
形式广泛多样。在各领域各层级，人民群众就改革发展稳定的重大问题以及事关自身利益的问题，通过提案、会议、座谈、论证、听证、评估、咨询、网络、民意调查等多种途径和方式，在决策之前和决策实施之中开展广泛协商。涉及全国各族人民利益的事情，在全体人民和全社会中广泛商量；涉及一个地方人民群众利益的事情，在这个地方的人民群众中广泛商量；涉及一部分群众利益、特定群众利益的事情，在这部分群众中广泛商量；涉及基层群众利益的事情，在基层群众中广泛商量。
体系不断健全。中国不断完善协商民主的发展路径，探索形成了政党协商、人大协商、政府协商、政协协商、人民团体协商、基层协商、社会组织协商等协商渠道，推动协商民主广泛多层制度化发展。政党协商，是中国共产党就中共全国代表大会和中共中央委员会的有关重要文件、宪法修改、有关重要法律的制定和修改、国家领导人建议人选、国民经济和社会发展的中长期规划以及年度经济社会发展情况、关系改革发展稳定等重要问题、统一战线和多党合作的重大问题等，同民主党派开展协商；人大协商，是各级人大在依法行使职权中与有关国家机关、社会组织、专家学者、人民群众开展协商；政府协商，是各级政府在履职尽责中与人大代表、政协委员以及民主党派、无党派人士、相关人民团体、社会组织以及群众代表等加强沟通协商；政协协商，是在中国共产党领导下，参加人民政协的各党派团体、各族各界人士履行职能，围绕改革发展稳定重大问题等，在决策之前和决策实施之中广泛协商、凝聚共识；人民团体协商，是人民团体就涉及群众切身利益的实际问题，特别是事关特定群体权益保障的，加强与政府相关部门的协商，积极参与政协组织的协商活动；基层协商，是基层党组织、基层政府、基层群众性自治组织、经济社会组织和群众等，就基层社会发展及事关群众切身利益的问题开展协商；社会组织协商，是各类社会组织就更好为社会服务，积极开展和参与协商。这七种协商渠道，极大丰富了民主形式、拓宽了民主渠道、加深了民主内涵。
中国的协商民主，广开言路，集思广益，促进不同思想观点的充分表达和深入交流，做到相互尊重、平等协商而不强加于人，遵循规则、有序协商而不各说各话，体谅包容、真诚协商而不偏激偏执，形成既畅所欲言、各抒己见，又理性有度、合法依章的良好协商氛围，充分发扬了民主精神，广泛凝聚了全社会共识，促进了社会和谐稳定。
（三）民主决策
民主决策是全过程人民民主的重要一环。好的决策，反映人民意愿，保障人民权益，增进人民福祉。在中国，察民情、听民声、顺民意，群策群力、集思广益成为常态，越来越多来自基层的声音直达各级决策层，越来越多的群众意见转化为党和政府的重大决策。
人大“开门立法”。各级人民代表大会及其常务委员会，坚持为民立法、民主立法，保障人民通过各种途径参与立法活动，努力让每一项立法反映人民意愿、得到人民拥护。法律立项，通过召开座谈会、听证会、论证会等方式，广泛听取意见，让人民的意志在立法的最初阶段就得到体现；法律草案起草，广泛听取公众意见和专业人士建议，探索委托第三方起草法律法规草案，让人民的诉求得到充分体现；法律草案公布，通过网络和新闻媒体，向社会各界广泛征求意见。基层群众通过基层立法联系点，直接参与法律草案的起草、立法调研、修改论证、立法后评估等多个环节。
政府“开门问策”。各级人民政府就即将实施的重大决策和各方提出的重大决策建议，充分听取各方面意见，保障人民群众通过多种途径和形式参与决策。在决策启动环节，人大代表、政协委员通过建议、提案等方式提出建议，公民、法人和其他组织提出书面建议，决策机关启动决策程序；在决策研究制定环节，通过座谈会、公开征求意见、听证会、问卷调查、实地走访等方式，广泛听取社会各界特别是直接关系人的意见和建议；在决策草案公示环节，通过政府网站和各类媒体，公布决策草案及其说明材料；在决策最终确定环节，按照民主集中制原则，在集体讨论的基础上作出决定；在决策后评估阶段，听取社会公众意见，吸收人大代表、政协委员、人民团体、基层组织、社会组织和专家等参与评估。
广大群众参与基层决策。基层群众通过村（居）民会议、村（居）民代表会议、村（居）民小组会议等形式，就经济社会发展、基础设施建设、社会综合治理、基层文化服务、生态环境保护、自治章程制定等基层治理中的重大问题提出意见建议，参与决策制定和实施。
（四）民主管理
人民的事人民管，人民的事人民办。在中国，广大人民弘扬主人翁精神，发挥主体作用，积极行使民主权利，通过各种途径和形式，管理国家事务，管理经济和文化事业，管理社会事务。
参与国家政治生活和社会生活的管理。人民行使宪法赋予的各项权利并承担宪法赋予公民的责任和义务，积极主动参加选举、协商、决策、监督等，在各个层级、各个领域参与国家政治生活和社会生活的管理，知情权、参与权、表达权、监督权得到有力保障。
城乡社区民主管理。根据宪法法律和有关规定，农村和城市社区居民结合本地实际，由村（居）民讨论制定村（居）民自治章程、村规民约、居民公约等，明确规定村（居）民的权利和义务，村（社区）各类组织之间的关系和工作程序，以及经济管理、社会治安、消防安全、环境卫生、婚姻家庭、邻里关系、计划生育、精神文明建设等方面的自治要求，普遍实现村（居）民在基层公共事务和公益事业中的自我管理、自我服务、自我教育、自我监督。
企事业单位民主管理。全国超过1.5亿市场主体自主经营、自我管理、活力迸发，承载7亿多人就业，推动了中国经济总量、国家财力和社会财富稳定增长。根据宪法法律和有关规定，企事业单位普遍建立以职工代表大会为基本形式，以厂务公开制度、职工董事制度、职工监事制度为主要内容的民主管理制度。职工通过这些民主管理制度，参与企事业单位管理，维护单位职工合法权益，实现单位与职工协商共事、机制共建、效益共创、利益共享。目前，全国已建工会企业中，建立职工代表大会的企业有314.4万家，其中，非公有制企业293.8万家、占93.4%。
社会组织民主管理。社会团体、基金会、社会服务机构等社会组织，普遍制定章程，加强组织成员管理，自主开展活动，集中组织成员或服务对象的意见建议，以组织化的方式积极参与社会公共事务治理，在行业自律、社会服务、慈善事业等领域发挥民主管理作用。截至2021年11月，各级民政部门共登记社会组织超过90万家，其中全国性社会组织2284家。形式多样的社会组织成为人民民主管理的重要领域。
（五）民主监督
全面有效的民主监督，保证人民的民主权利不因选举结束而中断，保证权力运用得到有效制约。在中国，解决权力滥用、以权谋私的问题，不能靠所谓的政党轮替和三权分立，要靠科学有效的民主监督。中国结合本国实际，探索构建起一套有机贯通、相互协调的监督体系，形成了配置科学、权责协同、运行高效的监督网，对权力的监督逐步延伸到每个领域、每个角落。
人大监督。人民代表大会充分发挥作用，对宪法法律的实施、重大决策部署的落实等开展监督。各级人大及其常委会加强对“一府一委两院”执法、监察、司法工作的监督，确保法律法规得到有效实施，确保行政权、监察权、审判权、检察权得到正确行使。人民通过人大代表座谈会、基层群众座谈会、问卷调查、网络调研等“开门监督”的形式，积极参与人大监督工作。
民主监督。中国共产党支持民主党派和无党派人士在坚持四项基本原则基础上，在政治协商、调研考察，参与党和国家有关重大方针政策、决策部署执行和实施情况的监督检查，受党委委托就有关重大问题进行专项监督等工作中，通过提出意见、批评、建议等方式，进行民主监督。参加人民政协的各党派团体和各族各界人士在政协组织的各种活动中，依据政协章程，重点就党和国家重大方针政策和重要决策部署的贯彻落实情况，以提出意见、批评、建议的方式进行协商式监督，协助党和政府解决问题、改进工作、增进团结、凝心聚力。
行政监督。国家行政机关按照法定的权限、程序和方式，对行政机关自身的组织行为、行政行为进行监督，包括各行政机关自上而下、自下而上以及相互之间进行的监督。
监察监督。监察机关依法履行监察监督职责，对公职人员政治品行、行使公权力和道德操守情况进行监督检查，督促有关机关、单位加强对所属公职人员的教育、管理、监督。
司法监督。审判机关和检察机关依照法定职权和程序对人民授权的国家公权力进行监督。司法监督是党和国家监督体系中强制性程度最高的一种监督机制，是党和国家利用监督手段、维护公权力正确行使的“最后一道防线”。
审计监督。审计机关依法对本级各部门和下级政府预算的执行情况和决算以及其他财政收支情况，进行审计监督。
财会监督。财政部门根据法律授权，对财政、财务、会计管理的法律、行政法规、部门规章等执行情况进行监督。
统计监督。统计部门及负有统计调查职责的相关机关，对所有行使统计权力、负有统计义务的组织和人员进行监督，防范和惩治统计造假、弄虚作假，确保统计资料真实准确、完整及时，为经济社会发展提供扎实的统计保障。
群众监督。公民、法人或者其他组织通过各种方式，对各级国家机关及其组成人员履职情况进行监督，既可以依法申请行政复议、提起行政诉讼，也有权向监察机关检举控告监察对象不依法履职，违反秉公用权、廉洁从政从业以及道德操守等规定，涉嫌职务违法、职务犯罪行为。
舆论监督。媒体充分发挥舆论监督作用，对滥用公权、失职渎职等行为及时揭露曝光。随着互联网的快速发展，人们更多地借助网络等平台，对各级国家机关和公职人员提出意见、建议和批评，网络在舆论监督中发挥着越来越重要的作用。
四、广泛真实管用的民主
完整的制度程序和完整的参与实践，使全过程人民民主从价值理念成为扎根中国大地的制度形态、治理机制和人民的生活方式。人民当家作主，具体地、现实地体现在党治国理政的政策措施上，具体地、现实地体现在党和国家机关各个方面各个层级工作上，具体地、现实地体现在实现人民对美好生活向往的工作上。民主的阳光照耀中华大地，中国人民享有广泛充分、真实具体、有效管用的民主。
（一）人民享有广泛权利
中国宪法规定，国家的一切权力属于人民；人民依照法律规定，通过各种途径和形式，管理国家事务，管理经济和文化事业，管理社会事务。中国的政治权力不是依据地位、财富、关系分配的，而是全体人民平等享有的。国家权力不是为资本服务的，而是为人民服务的。
中国实行公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展，按劳分配为主体、多种分配方式并存，社会主义市场经济体制等社会主义基本经济制度，国民经济命脉牢牢掌握在人民手中，人民当家作主具有坚实经济基础和物质保障。
在中国，人民依法享有选举权和被选举权，享有对国家和社会事务的知情权、参与权、表达权、监督权，享有对任何国家机关和国家工作人员提出批评和建议的权利，享有言论、出版、集会、结社、游行、示威、宗教信仰等自由。人民既广泛参与国家、社会事务和经济文化事业的管理，也在日常生活中广泛充分行使民主权利，每个人都有多重民主角色，都享有相应民主权利。
在中国，人权得到充分尊重和有效保障。人民幸福生活是最大的人权。中国经济保持长期稳定快速发展，人民生活显著改善。中国建成世界上规模最大的社会保障体系，基本医疗保险覆盖超过13亿人、基本养老保险覆盖超过10亿人。中国全面建成小康社会，14亿多人民彻底摆脱了绝对贫困，正迈向共同富裕。中国人民的获得感、幸福感、安全感不断提升，生存权、发展权、健康权得到充分保障，经济、政治、文化、社会、环境等方面权利不断发展。
中国人民享有的权利不断丰富发展。从新中国成立后在政治、经济平等基础上谋求生存发展，到改革开放后既追求物质富裕也追求精神富足，再到新时代打赢脱贫攻坚战、全面建成小康社会、扎实推进共同富裕、取得抗击新冠肺炎疫情重大战略成果，中国人民享有权利的内涵不断丰富、外延不断拓展，向着实现人的全面发展不断迈进。
（二）人民民主参与不断扩大
人民只有在投票时被唤醒、投票后就进入休眠期，只有竞选时聆听天花乱坠的口号、竞选后就毫无发言权，只有拉票时受宠、选举后就被冷落，这样的民主不是真正的民主。在中国，民主观念深入人心，人民的民主参与广泛持续，民主实践深深融入人们的日常工作和生产生活，民主蔚然成风，社会充满活力。
人民参与民主的意愿不断增强，参与的广度和深度不断拓展。人民既参与国家和社会事务管理，又参与经济和文化事业管理；既参与国家发展顶层设计的意见建议征询，又参与地方公共事务治理；既参与民主选举、民主协商，又参与民主决策、民主管理、民主监督；既通过人大、政协等渠道表达意愿，又通过社会组织、网络等平台表达诉求。从“数豆豆”（注②）到电子投票，从群众跑腿到“数据跑路”，民主参与的形式不断创新、渠道不断拓展。党和国家要做什么、如何做、做得怎么样，人民参与贯穿始终。
人民利益要求既能畅通表达，也能有效实现。民主，起始于人民意愿充分表达，落实于人民意愿有效实现。人民意愿只能表达、不能实现，不是真正意义的民主。在中国，人民的期盼、希望和诉求，从国家大政方针，到社会治理，再到百姓衣食住行，有地方说、说了有人听、听了有反馈。人民的意愿和呼声，经过民主决策程序成为党和国家的方针政策，并通过中央、省、市、县、乡镇各个层级的紧密配合、层层落实，通过各个职能部门之间主管、主办、协管、协办的分工合作、协调配合，通过决策、执行、检查、监督、问责等各个环节的相互配合、有机衔接，转化为实现人民意愿的具体实践。对于涉及自身利益的实际问题，人们通过信访平台、领导信箱、政务热线、网络“留言板”等提出意见和诉求，能够得到及时反馈和回应。
（三）国家治理高效
民主与国家治理紧密相关。民主的发展与国家治理的现代化相伴相生，相互作用，相互促进。绝无国家治理“失灵”“低效”，国内问题成堆，民主却是“世界样板”的荒谬现象。好的民主一定是实现良政善治的，一定是推动国家发展的。
中国民主的高质量，促进了国家治理的高效能，提升了国家治理体系和治理能力现代化水平。中国的民主，充分彰显了人民的主体地位，极大增强了人民的主人翁意识，人民既是民主的参与者，也是民主的受益者，智慧力量充分激发，既为自己也为国家、民族拼搏奋斗。中国的民主，有效调节国家政治关系，发展充满活力的政党关系、民族关系、宗教关系、阶层关系、海内外同胞关系，增强民族凝聚力，最大限度避免了牵扯，切实防止了相互掣肘、内耗严重的现象，形成了安定团结的政治局面和团结干事的强大合力。中国的民主，把党的主张、国家意志、人民意愿紧密融合在一起，使得党、国家和人民成为目标相同、利益一致、相互交融、同心同向的整体，产生极大耦合力，形成集中力量办大事的制度优势，有效促进了社会生产力解放和发展，促进了现代化建设各项事业，促进了人民生活质量和水平不断提高。中国的民主，始终把中国人民利益放在第一位，有效维护了国家独立自主，有效维护了国家主权、安全、发展利益，有效维护了中国人民和中华民族的福祉。
新中国成立70多年来，党团结带领人民，不断战胜前进道路上各种世所罕见的艰难险阻，成功走出中国式现代化道路，取得举世瞩目的发展成就，中国经济实力、综合国力、人民生活水平显著提升。对于中国这样一个人口多、体量大、人均资源禀赋处于世界较低水平的最大发展中国家，没有人民的主人翁地位和主人翁精神，没有亿万人民的团结奋斗，实现这样的发展是不可能的。中国的民主，真正把发展为了人民、发展依靠人民、发展成果由人民共享落到实处，充分调动起人民的主观能动性，这是中国之治的“密码”，是中国民主的力量。
（四）社会和谐稳定
民主是人类社会进步的产物和标志。发展民主，要推动社会向着自由、平等、公正、文明、团结、和谐的方向前行。好的民主，应凝聚社会共识，而不是造成社会撕裂和冲突；应维护社会公平正义，而不是导致社会阶层和利益固化；应保持社会稳定有序，而不是带来混乱和动荡；应让社会充满向美向善向上的正能量，而不是充斥假恶丑的负能量。
中国国情复杂，治理难度世所罕见。中国的人民民主，实现各方面意志和利益的协调统一，实现各方面在共同思想、共同利益、共同目标基础上的团结一致，人民安居乐业、心情舒畅，社会和谐稳定、生机勃勃。中国用几十年时间走过了西方发达国家几百年走过的工业化历程，在剧烈的社会变革中，没有发生后发国家在现代化进程中容易出现的社会动荡，不仅创造了经济快速发展奇迹，也创造了社会长期稳定奇迹。中国人民经历了几千年历史上个人自由的最大发展，思想可以自由地表达，人员可以自由地流动，亿万人民的创新源泉充分涌流、创造活力竞相迸发。今天的中国，人们自由自在地穿梭于城乡之间、城市之间；每天有1.6万户企业诞生；10亿网民通过网络了解天下大事、进行交流、表达观点……中国社会开放自由，但始终保持了社会团结和谐、稳定有序。人民民主既是中国社会进步的推进器，也是中国社会进步的润滑剂。
（五）权力运用得到有效制约和监督
权力是把“双刃剑”。权力在有效制约和监督下运行才能实现民主、造福人民，权力失去约束、恣意妄为必然破坏民主、危害人民。中国不断加强对权力运行的制约和监督，始终坚持公权力姓公，始终坚持权为民所用，确保人民赋予的权力始终用来为人民谋幸福。
把权力关进制度的笼子里。加强对权力的制约和监督，制度具有根本性、全局性、稳定性和长期性。持续推进依规治党，持续推进依法治国、依法执政、依法行政，依法设定权力、规范权力、制约权力、监督权力，让权力在阳光下运行。健全完善党内法规制度体系，严明纪律规矩，使党的各级组织和党员干部都在纪律规矩范围内活动。普遍实行领导干部任期制，实现了国家机关和领导层的有序更替。加强对领导干部特别是高级领导干部的管理，严格规范工作和生活待遇，坚决防止形成特权阶层。健全党和国家监督制度，坚持和完善党和国家监督体系，完善党务、政务、司法和各领域办事公开制度，保证党和国家领导机关和人员在法定的“权力清单”和“责任清单”范围内、依照法定程序开展工作，最大限度防止权力出轨、个人寻租。
坚决反对和惩治腐败。腐败是人民民主的大敌。中国以“得罪千百人、不负十四亿”的鲜明态度，坚定不移推进反腐败斗争。坚持系统施治、标本兼治，不敢腐、不能腐、不想腐一体推进，惩治震慑、制度约束、提高觉悟一体发力。坚持反腐败无禁区、全覆盖、零容忍，坚持重遏制、强高压、长震慑，坚持受贿行贿一起查，坚持有案必查、有腐必惩，以猛药去疴、重典治乱的决心，以刮骨疗毒、壮士断腕的勇气，坚定不移“打虎”“拍蝇”“猎狐”，以雷霆之势、霹雳手段惩治腐败，持续形成强大震慑，反腐败斗争取得压倒性胜利并全面巩固。在解决腐败这个古今中外治国理政的顽疾方面，中国不仅有鲜明态度，更有实际行动。
评判一种民主形式好不好，实践最有说服力，人民最有发言权，归根结底要看能不能让人民过上好日子。中国的民主行不行、好不好，归根结底要看中国人民满意不满意、中国人民拥护不拥护。有数据显示，近年来，中国人民对中国政府的满意度每年都保持在90%以上，这是中国民主具有强大生命力最真实的反映。中国的民主道路走得通、走得好，中国人民将沿着这条道路坚定走下去。
五、丰富人类政治文明形态
民主是人类社会历经千百年探索形成的政治形态，在人类发展进程中发挥了重要作用。但是，20世纪以来，在波涛汹涌的民主化大潮中，有的国家停滞不前，有的国家陷入动荡，有的国家分崩离析。当今世界，既面临“民主过剩”“民主超速”，也面临“民主赤字”“民主失色”。民主怎么了？民主还管用吗？回答“民主之问”，廓清“民主迷思”，关乎世界和平发展，关乎人类文明未来。一些国家的民主化出现挫折甚至危机，并非民主本身之错，而是民主实践出现了偏差。
中国的民主经历了选择、探索、实践与发展的艰辛历程。中国基于本国国情发展全过程人民民主，既有着鲜明的中国特色，也体现了全人类对民主的共同追求；既推动了中国的发展与中华民族的复兴，也丰富了人类政治文明形态。
（一）为人类民主事业发展探索新的路径
一个国家在现代化进程中，实现民主发展与政治稳定、社会进步的良性互动，极其重要，也极为不易。
中国的现代化，没有走西方老路，而是创造了中国式现代化道路；没有照搬照抄西方民主模式，而是创造了中国式民主。占世界人口近五分之一的14亿多中国人民真正实现当家作主，享有广泛权利和自由，提振了发展中国家发展民主的信心，为人类民主事业发展探索了新的路径。这是中国对人类政治文明的重大贡献，也是人类社会的巨大进步。
人民当家作主，是中国民主的初心。中国在发展民主的进程中，也走过弯路，遇到过挫折，但始终坚守初心，不动摇、不偏移、不走样。今天的中国，人民当家作主的内涵不断丰富、渠道不断拓宽、效能不断提升，中国民主不断向前推进。
树立正确的民主观，并一以贯之地坚持、发展与创新，是发展民主的首要，是实现民主的“总钥匙”和“总开关”。真民主、好民主，要做到人民当家作主，人民不仅有选举、投票的权利，也有广泛参与的权利；不仅能表达自己的意愿，也能有效实现；不仅推动国家发展，也共享发展成果。
（二）走符合国情的民主发展道路
民主是多样的，实现民主的道路并非只有一条。各国的历史文化不同、现实国情不同，民主的形式选择必然不同。照搬照抄其他国家的民主模式，必然导致水土不服、弊病丛生，甚至陷入政治动荡、社会动乱、人民流离失所。
对中国这样一个大国来说，选择什么样的民主发展道路至关重要。中国注重吸收借鉴人类政治文明一切有益成果，但绝不照抄照搬别国民主模式；欢迎一切有益的建议和善意的批评，但绝不接受“教师爷”般颐指气使的说教。坚持中国的民主按照中国的特点、中国的实际来设计和发展，坚定不移走符合国情的民主发展之路，是中国民主发展的一条基本经验。
中国发展民主，始终立足人口多、基础弱、底子薄的基本国情，正确把握民主与发展的关系，始终把发展作为第一要务，以民主促进国家发展、在国家发展基础上推进民主，不离开发展空谈民主；始终传承5000年中华文明，注重从中华优秀传统文化中汲取智慧和养分；始终准确把握中国所处的历史阶段，紧密结合经济社会发展水平推进民主，积极稳妥、稳中求进，不好高骛远，不急于求成，不犯颠覆性错误；始终坚持问题导向，不断发现问题、善于解决问题，每解决一个问题就把民主建设向前推进一步，不断推动民主制度体系更加成熟、更加定型。
世界上不存在完全相同的政治制度，也不存在适用于一切国家的政治制度模式。各国应根据自身特点选择符合自身现代化发展的民主形态，学习借鉴而不是照抄照搬。适合的就是最好的。只有扎根本国土壤、汲取充沛养分的民主，才能不断发展完善，才最可靠也最管用。外部干涉和所谓的“民主改造”贻害无穷。中国不寻求输出中国的“民主模式”，也绝不接受任何外部势力企图改变中国的制度模式。中国坚定支持各国自主选择本国的民主发展道路，反对外部势力以“民主”为借口干涉他国内政。
（三）推动国际关系民主化
民主在一国内体现为人民当家作主，在国家间则体现为国际关系民主化。一个国家的尊严应该得到尊重，主权、安全和发展利益不应受到侵犯。以自己的尺度评判他国，甚至通过颜色革命、使用武力迫使他国照搬自己的政治制度、民主模式，这是反民主的。
中国是民主的忠实追求者、积极推动者和模范实践者，不但在本国积极发展人民民主，而且在国际上大力推动国际关系民主化。面对世界百年未有之大变局，中国高举和平、发展、合作、共赢的旗帜，提出构建人类命运共同体理念，推动建设相互尊重、公平正义、合作共赢的新型国际关系。面对全球范围内经济、科技等领域竞争，中国不是把对方视为对手，而是视为伙伴；不是搞冷战和对抗、控制和操纵，而是促进交流合作、实现互利共赢。中国积极发展全球伙伴关系，构建总体稳定、均衡发展的大国关系框架，按照亲诚惠容理念和与邻为善、以邻为伴周边外交方针深化同周边国家关系，秉持正确义利观和真实亲诚理念加强同发展中国家团结合作。中国推动共建“一带一路”走深走实，与其他国家加强交流合作、共享发展机遇，“一带一路”成为广受欢迎的国际公共产品。
当今世界，民主平等、公平正义远未实现。少数国家漠视国际公理、践踏国际准则、违背国际民意，公然侵犯他国主权，干涉他国内政，动辄以大欺小、恃强凌弱，把“地球村”变成弱肉强食的原始丛林。面对充满挑战的世界，各国应大力弘扬民主精神，不论大小、强弱、贫富，在国际关系中一律平等。大国要有大国的样子，要以人类前途命运为要，对世界和平与发展担负更大责任，而不是依仗实力搞唯我独尊、霸凌霸道。世界的命运应由各国人民共同掌握，国际规则应由各国共同制定，全球事务应由各国共同治理，发展成果应由各国共同分享。
（四）加强文明交流互鉴
实现民主有多种方式，不可能千篇一律。人类民主事业的真正阻碍，不是民主模式的差异，而是对他国民主探索的傲慢、偏见和敌视，是把本国民主模式强加于人的“唯我独尊”。人类政治文明的百花园之所以绚烂多彩，正是由于不同文明各有千秋。各国应坚持平等非歧视原则，相互尊重彼此的民主模式，既致力于本国探索，又加强交流互鉴；既各美其美，又美美与共，共同推动人类文明向前发展。
“一人一票”是民主的一种形式，但绝非民主的唯一和全部。长期以来，民主本义被少数国家异化歪曲，“一人一票”、政党竞争等西方选举制度被包装成民主的唯一标准。少数国家把民主作为政治工具，以同我即对、非我即错的霸权思维，以民主名义干涉别国内政、侵犯别国主权、服务自身政治目的，打着民主旗号在世界上煽动对抗与分裂，加剧国际紧张局势，成为世界乱源。人类文明要继续向前迈进，各国要实现和平共处、共同发展，必须探索民主真谛，把民主擦亮。
政党是现代国家治理中的重要主体，是推动人类社会进步的重要力量。在人类文明发展的历史潮流中，各国政党应本着对人类前途命运高度负责的态度，担当起引领推动人类民主事业发展的责任，以民为本，开放包容，求同存异，相互尊重，更好实现本国民主发展，更好实现人民幸福。中国共产党愿继续同各国政党和政治组织一道，深化交流，加强互鉴，共同促进人类社会发展进步。
结束语
民主没有最好，只有更好。人类对民主的探索和实践永无止境。
中国的民主发展取得了显著成就，同时，与现代化建设的新要求、与人民对民主的新期待相比，中国的民主还需要不断发展完善。在全面建设社会主义现代化国家新征程上，中国共产党将继续高举人民民主旗帜，始终坚持以人民为中心的发展思想，坚定不移推进全过程人民民主，在不断推动人的全面发展、全体人民共同富裕中实现民主新发展，让民主之树根深叶茂、永远常青。
当今世界，正处于百年未有之大变局，既充满机遇和希望，也充满风险和挑战。只有尊重各国人民自主选择的民主道路，坚持和平发展，维护公平正义，拓展民主自由，提升人民幸福，才能汇聚全人类文明发展的强大合力，共同迈向更加美好的明天。
文明因交流而多彩，文明因互鉴而丰富。中国人民愿同世界各国人民一道，弘扬和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由的全人类共同价值，本着相互尊重、求同存异的精神，共同丰富发展人类政治文明，共同推动构建人类命运共同体。
（注①）八个民主党派包括：中国国民党革命委员会（简称“民革”）、中国民主同盟（简称“民盟”）、中国民主建国会（简称“民建”）、中国民主促进会（简称“民进”）、中国农工民主党（简称“农工党”）、中国致公党（简称“致公党”）、九三学社、台湾民主自治同盟（简称“台盟”）。
（注②）新中国成立前，在抗日根据地、解放区的广大农村，中国共产党开展了广泛的民主选举活动。当时，绝大多数农民是文盲，为了让他们都能参加选举，中国共产党使用了很多有创意的办法，其中最为人所传颂的就是“豆选”，即用豆子代替选票，选民只要把豆子投到代表自己想要选的候选人的碗里就可以了，最终以碗中豆子的多少决定谁当选。当时，很多地方流传着这样的歌谣：“金豆豆，银豆豆，豆豆不能随便投；选好人，办好事，投在好人碗里头。”
【我要纠错】 责任编辑：李萌扫一扫在手机打开当前页
No comments:
Post a Comment