國務院白皮書中國行之有的民主美國民主狀況

Larry Catá Backer's comments on current issues in transnational law and policy. These essays focus on the constitution of regulatory communities (political, economic, and religious) as they manage their constituencies and the conflicts between them. The context is globalization. This is an academic field-free zone: expect to travel "without documents" through the sometimes strongly guarded boundaries of international relations, constitutional, international, comparative, and corporate law.

2021年12月5日
民主戰爭：國務院白皮書 - [中國：行之有的民主“在美國民主狀況”
December 05, 2021
The Democracy Wars: State Council White Papers--[中國的民主] "China: Democracy That Works" and [美國民主情況] "The State of Democracy in the United States.

"（一）製度痼疾積重難返; （二）民主實踐亂象叢生; （三）輸出所謂民主產生惡果 ((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); [美國民主情況] (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.

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); 中國的民主 (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) "全過程人民民主，是中國共產黨團結帶領人民追求民主、發展民主、實現民主的偉大創造，是黨不斷推進中國民主理論創新、製度創新、實踐創新的經驗結晶。" ( " 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) "全過程人民民主，充分彰顯社會主義國家性質，充分彰顯人民主體地位，使人民意誌得到更好體現、人民權益得到更好保障、人民創造活力進一步激發。" (" 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) "全過程人民民主，具有完整的製度程序和完整的參與實踐，使選舉民主和協商民主這兩種重要民主形式更好結合起來，"(" 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) "中國共產黨的領導，是中國發展全過程人民民主的根本保證。在中國這樣一個大國，真正把14億多人民的意願表達好、實現好並不容易，必須有堅強有力的統一領導。"("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 (求是網 ), 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? [ 民主應該什麽樣？] (in Chinese 民主應該什麽樣？習近平這樣說 13 October 2021 求是網 (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).

The contrast could not be starker--or better timed. Both White papers were distributed on the eve of and to serve as a critique of the United States sponsored Summit for Democracy which is scheduled as a virtual event 9-10 December 2021. It elaborates the emerging core principles of liberal democratic approaches to a democratic order built around individual expression o autonomy, the delegation of authority to officials through processes of open elections, and the accountability of such systems based on judicially overseen rule of law principles founded on the protection of individual human rights.

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.

美國民主情況
2021-12-05 10:00
[字體：大中小] 打印本頁
目錄
　　序言
一、何為民主
二、美國民主的異化及三重弊害
（一）製度痼疾積重難返
1、美式民主淪為“金錢政治”
2、名為“一人一票”，實為“少數精英統治”
3、權力製衡變成“否決政治”
4、選舉規則缺陷損害公平正義
5、民主製度失靈引發信任危機
（二）民主實踐亂象叢生
1、國會暴亂震驚全球
2、種族歧視根深蒂固
3、疫情失控釀成慘劇
4、貧富分化不斷加劇
5、“言論自由”名不副實
（三）輸出所謂民主產生惡果
1、“顏色革命”危害地區和國家穩定
2、強推所謂民主造成人道悲劇
3、濫用製裁破壞國際規則
4、“民主燈塔”招致全球批評
　　結束語
序言
民主是全人類的共同價值，是各國人民的權利，而不是哪個國家的專利。實現民主有多種方式，不可能千篇一律。用單一的標尺衡量世界豐富多彩的政治製度，用單調的眼光審視人類五彩繽紛的政治文明，本身就是不民主的。每個國家的政治製度應由這個國家的人民自主決定。
美國民主製度是美國一國實踐的結果，具有獨特性，不具普遍性，更遠非盡善盡美。但長期以來，美國無視自身民主製度的結構性缺陷與國內民主實踐的不足，自詡為“民主樣板”，頻頻打著民主的旗號肆意幹涉他國內政、發動對外戰爭，引發地區動蕩和人道主義災難。
本報告旨在通過列舉事實和專家觀點，梳理美國民主製度的弊端，分析美國國內民主實踐的亂象和對外輸出民主的危害，希望美國完善自身民主製度和實踐，對外改弦易轍。這既有利於美國人民，也有利於世界人民。如果沒有哪個國家試圖壟斷民主標準，沒有哪個國家試圖把本國政治製度強加於人，沒有哪個國家試圖把民主當作工具打壓別國，各國各美其美、美美與共，這個世界會更美好。
一、何為民主
民主一詞源自古希臘語，本意是“人民統治”、“主權在民”。作為一種政體形式，民主迄今已有2500多年曆史，涵蓋了從古代雅典公民直接民主政府到現代代議製政府等多種形式，是人類政治文明發展的結果。
民主不是裝飾品、不是宣傳品，而是要用來解決人民需要解決的問題的。一個國家民主不民主，關鍵在於是不是真正做到了人民當家做主。要看人民有沒有投票權，更要看人民有沒有廣泛參與權；要看人民在選舉中得到了什麽口頭許諾，更要看選舉後這些承諾實現了多少；要看製度和法律規定了什麽樣的政治程序和政治規則，更要看這些製度和法律是不是真正得到了執行；要看權力運行規則和程序是否民主，更要看權力是否真正受到人民監督和製約。
一個行之有效的民主製度不僅要有完整的製度程序，而且要有完整的參與實踐，能夠做到過程民主和成果民主、程序民主和實質民主、直接民主和間接民主、人民民主和國家意誌的相統一。如果人民隻有在投票時被喚醒、投票後就進入休眠期，隻有競選時聆聽天花亂墜的口號、競選後就毫無發言權，隻有拉票時受寵、選舉後就被冷落，這樣的民主絕不是真正的民主。
一個國家是不是民主，應該由這個國家的人民來評判，而不是由外部少數人來指手畫腳。
世界上沒有哪一套民主製度是完美的，不存在適用於一切國家的政治製度模式。各國民主製度的建立和民主進程的發展都有其曆史性和民族性，都有自身獨特價值。國際社會應在相互尊重、平等相待基礎上就民主問題進行交流對話，共同為全人類進步作出更大貢獻。
二、美國民主的異化及三重弊害
曆史上，美國民主的發展有其進步性，政黨製、代議製、一人一票、三權分立等是對歐洲封建專製的否定和革新。法國著名思想家托克維爾在其《論美國的民主》一書中也對此予以積極評價。《獨立宣言》、“權利法案”、廢奴運動、民權運動、平權運動等成為了美國民主進程中的亮點。林肯的“民有、民治、民享”三原則更是膾炙人口。
但是，隨著時間的推移，美國的民主製度逐漸異化和蛻變，已經越來越背離民主製度的內核和製度設計的初衷。金錢政治、身份政治、政黨對立、政治極化、社會撕裂、種族矛盾、貧富分化等問題愈演愈烈，民主製度的功能出現衰退。
美國還以民主為名頻頻幹涉他國內政，引發地區國家政局動蕩和民不聊生，破壞世界和平穩定和各國社會安定。美國和世界上的許多人都在問，美國還是一個“民主國家”嗎？世界需要對美國的民主情況作深入檢視，美國自己也需要好好反躬自省。
（一）製度痼疾積重難返
美國一貫以“山巔之城”、“民主燈塔”自稱，標榜其自誕生之初就設計了一套為保障民主自由而生的政治體製。然而，民主這一理念同今天的美國已經貌合神離。從金錢政治到精英統治，從政治極化到製度失靈，美式民主已身染沉屙。
1、美式民主淪為“金錢政治”
美式民主是建立在資本基礎上的“富人遊戲”，與人民民主有著本質區別。
100多年前，美國俄亥俄州共和黨聯邦參議員馬克·漢納這樣形容美國政治：“在政界，有兩樣東西很重要，第一是金錢，第二個我就不記得了。”100多年後再看，金錢依舊是美國政治的“硬通貨”，而且作用更無可替代。以2020年美國總統和國會選舉為例，此次選舉總支出高達140億美元，是2016年的2倍和2008年的3倍，被稱為“史上最燒錢的大選”。其中，總統選舉花費再創曆史紀錄，達到66億美元；國會選舉花銷超過70億美元。
美國民眾不得不麵對的事實是，金錢政治貫穿美國選舉、立法、施政的所有環節，實際上限製了民眾的參政權利，經濟地位的不平等已經轉變為政治地位的不平等，隻有口袋裏有足夠多資本的人才能享受憲法規定的民主權利。金錢政治越來越成為美國社會難以根除的一顆“毒瘤”，成為美國民主的莫大諷刺。
一位美國聯邦參議員一針見血地指出：“有些人認為美國國會控製著華爾街，然而真相是華爾街控製著美國國會”。據統計，91%的美國國會選舉都是由獲得最多資金支持的候選人贏得，而大企業、少數富人以及利益集團出手更加闊綽，成為選舉資金的主要來源。這些所謂“民意代表”成功當選後，往往為其背後的金主服務，化身既得利益的代言人，而不是為普通民眾發聲。
2020年3月，加州大學伯克利分校公共政策教授、美國前勞工部長羅伯特·萊克出版《係統：誰操縱它，我們如何修複它》一書。該書認為，過去40多年，美國的政治係統被極少一部分人操控。政治獻金幾乎被視為“合法的賄賂”，讓富人擁有了更強大的政治影響力。2018年中期選舉中，巨額政治獻金占到了競選資金的40%以上，這些巨額資金主要來自占美國總人口0.01%的富豪。金錢政治和遊說團體正在扭曲美國普通民眾發聲的渠道，絕大多數人表達真實意願的聲音都被少數利益集團蓋過了。這些寡頭又用手中的權力來充實自己的財富，而普通民眾的利益則被拋諸腦後。
2020年9月23日，哈佛大學法學院教授馬修·史蒂芬森在接受“今日哈佛法律”采訪時表示，美國在廉政方麵絕不是世界領袖，遊說、政治獻金等做法在其他國家被認為是腐敗，但在美國不僅被允許，還受憲法法律保護。
2、名為“一人一票”，實為“少數精英統治”
美國是一個典型的由精英階層主導的國家，“多元政治”隻是一種表麵現象，精英們把持政治、經濟、軍事等方麵的統治地位，操控國家機器，製定規章製度，把握輿論風向，主導商業公司，行使各種特權，等等。特別是自19世紀60年代以來，民主、共和兩黨輪流“坐莊”分享國家權力，多黨製名存實亡。普通選民把選票投給第三黨或獨立候選人等於浪費投票機會，隻能在兩黨推出的候選人之間做出非此即彼的選擇。
在“驢象之爭”背景下，兩黨始終將大眾政治參與限定在狹小範圍。對於普通選民而言，選舉時召之即來，選舉後揮之即去，大多數人都隻是選舉遊戲的“群眾演員”，“民治”在美國政治實踐中很難有所體現。
美國麻省理工學院政治評論家與社會活動家諾姆·喬姆斯基指出，美國是“真實存在的資本主義民主”，美國人對政策製定的影響力與他們的財富水平之間呈正相關性，約70%的美國人對政策製定沒有任何影響，他們在收入水平、財富等方麵處於劣勢，相當於被剝奪了參政權利。
美國馬薩諸塞州大學教授賈拉拉賈在《大西洋月刊》發表文章表示，美國目前的民主隻是形式上的民主，而不是實質民主。總統選舉的全國範圍初選完全受富人、名人、媒體和利益集團的操縱，民眾投票支持的總統參選人往往不真正代表民意。
3、權力製衡變成“否決政治”
美國政治學家弗朗西斯·福山在其專著《政治秩序與政治衰退》中指出，美國存在根深蒂固的政治癱瘓現象，美國的政治體製中有太多的製衡，以致集體行動的成本大大增加，有時甚至寸步難行。這是一種可被稱為“否決製”的體製。20世紀80年代以來，美國的“否決製”變成了通往政治僵局的“靈丹妙藥”。
美國民主程序分散、冗長，存在大量否決點，個別否決行為即可影響體係行動，所謂“相互製衡蘊涵糾偏能力”的預設在實際操作中日益走樣。美國政治極化加劇，兩黨訴求大相徑庭，共識不斷壓縮，甚至出現“最自由的共和黨人也比最保守的民主黨人大大右傾”的極端狀況，對立製約已成家常便飯，“否決政治”成為政治生態，“我辦不成事也不能讓你辦成”蔚然成風。
華盛頓的政客關注的是保住黨派利益，國家發展的宏圖偉略早已拋諸腦後。否決對手會加強自身陣營身份認同，身份認同的加強又迅速鞏固自身陣營支持力量，美國兩黨癡迷於“否決”，陷入難以自拔的惡性循環，其結果必然是政府效能被弱化、公正法治被踐踏、發展進步被遲滯、社會分裂被放大。當今美國，“我是美國人”正漸次被“我是共和黨人”“我是民主黨人”所替代，“身份政治”“部落政治”向美社會各層麵惡性傳導加劇“否決政治”。
2021年10月美國智庫皮尤研究中心對美國、德國、韓國等17個發達經濟體所做調查結果顯示，美國被視為政治極化最嚴重國家，90%的美國受訪者認為不同黨派的支持者之間存在嚴重分歧，近六成美國受訪者認為民眾不僅在政策領域意見相左，在基本事實方麵也難以達成共識。
韓國慶熙大學政治學教授徐正健指出，美國政治兩極化愈演愈烈，依靠選舉推進改革的民主主義自淨程序無法正常運行。美國國會參議院陷入“冗長辯論”議事程序陷阱，不能發揮立法應對社會變化的代議機構作用。
4、選舉規則缺陷損害公平正義
美國總統選舉遵循古老的選舉人團製度，總統和副總統並非由選民直接選出，而是由選舉人團投票決定。美國現有選舉人票538張，贏得超過一半選舉人票（270張）的候選人即當選總統。這種選舉製度弊端十分明顯：一是當選總統可能無法贏得多數普選票，代表性不足；二是具體選舉規則由各州自行決定，易發生亂象；三是“贏者通吃”製度加劇各州地位不平等、各黨地位不平等，造成巨大選票浪費並抑製投票率，深藍州、深紅州選民往往遭忽視，搖擺州獲得相對非對稱重要性，成為兩黨競相拉攏的對象。
美國曆史上出現過5次贏得了全國普選票卻輸掉總統選舉的情況。最近的一次是，2016年大選共和黨總統候選人唐納德·特朗普獲得6298萬多張普選票，得票率45.9%。民主黨總統候選人希拉裏·克林頓獲得6585萬多張普選票，得票率48%。特朗普雖然輸掉普選票，但贏得304張選舉人票，希拉裏僅獲得227張選舉人票，特朗普以選舉人票數優勢當選總統。
美國民眾公認的選舉製度另一大弊病是“傑利蠑螈”。1812年，馬薩諸塞州州長傑利為謀求本黨利益，簽署法案將州內一個選區劃成類似蠑螈的極不規則形狀。這種做法後被稱為“傑利蠑螈”，即指通過不公平的選區劃分，幫助本黨贏得盡可能多的議席，鞏固優勢地位。美國每10年進行一次人口普查，然後按“各選區人口大致相等”原則並結合人口變化情況重新劃分選區。美國憲法將劃分選區的權力賦予各州立法機構，為州議會多數黨“傑利蠑螈”提供操作空間。“傑利蠑螈”主要靠兩種操作，一是“集中”，即盡可能將反對黨選民集中劃入少數特定選區，犧牲這些選區以換取其他選區絕對安全；二是“打散”，即將反對黨選民相對集中的地區拆分劃入周邊不同選區，從而稀釋反對黨選票。
民主黨主政的俄勒岡州於2021年9月27日在全美率先完成選區重新劃分，民主黨牢牢控製的選區由原來的2個增至4個，“搖擺選區”由2個減至1個，這意味著該黨可憑借57%的實際選民占比，控製該州83%的國會選區。反之，共和黨控製的得克薩斯州於今年10月25日確定新的選區劃分，牢牢控製的選區由原來的22個增至24個，“搖擺選區”由原來的6個減為1個，共和黨可憑借52.1%的實際選民占比，占據該州65%的國會眾議院席位。
2021年8月YouGov輿觀調查網民調顯示，僅16%選民認為本州能夠公平劃分選區，44%認為不能，其餘40%表示不確定。隨著美政治極化加劇，兩黨均竭力謀求自身利益最大化，“傑利蠑螈”成為不二選擇。
民主黨的“超級代表”製度也阻礙選舉公平。“超級代表”由民主黨主要領袖、全國委員會成員、參議院和眾議院所有民主黨議員、民主黨現任州長組成，提前“內定”產生，其投票意向完全根據個人喜好和黨內高層意誌，無法反映民意。《國會山報》政治專家馬克·普洛特金撰文表示，美國總統選舉民主黨黨內初選中的“超級代表”製度既不公正也非民主。這樣的“精英做法”應該立即被廢除。
5、民主製度失靈引發信任危機
美式民主如同好萊塢刻意布置的場景，展現的都是精心打造的人設，台前大喊人民、背後大搞交易，黨同伐異、金錢政治、否決政治根本不能帶來民眾所希望的高質量治理。美國民眾對美國政治愈發反感，對美式民主愈發消極。
2020年10月，美國蓋洛普民調公司調查顯示，對總統選舉非常有信心的美國受訪者比例僅有19%，創下自2004年以來該調查的最低紀錄。11月，《華爾街日報》網站指出，在2020年大選中，人們對美國民主製度的信心下降到20年來最低點。
根據美聯社—NORC公共事務研究中心的一項民意調查，隻有16%的美國人表示民主運作良好或非常好，45%的美國人認為民主運作不正常，而另外38%的美國人認為民主運作得不太良好。美國皮尤研究中心調查顯示，僅有20%的美國人一直或多數時候都信任聯邦政府。
2021年5月，布魯金斯學會網站撰文指出，在2020年大選結束後，美國全部50個州認證選舉結果，但仍有77%的共和黨選民以選票欺詐為由質疑拜登當選總統的合法性。這是自20世紀30年代以來第一次。9月，美國有線電視新聞網（CNN）民調顯示，56%的美國民眾認為美國民主“正在遭受攻擊”，52%認為選舉沒有或很少反映民意，51%認為未來幾年美國官員可能因本黨敗選而推翻選舉結果。
2021年，皮尤對16個發達經濟體的1.6萬人和2500名美國人的調查結果顯示，57%的國際受訪者和72%的美國人認為美國已經不是可供他國效仿的“民主典範”。
（二）民主實踐亂象叢生
美國民主的異化不僅表現在製度設計等結構性層麵，更體現在其實踐中。美國不是民主的優等生，更遑論“民主典範”。國會山的槍聲與鬧劇徹底揭開美式民主的華麗外衣。黑人弗洛伊德之死揭露了美國社會長期存在的係統性種族歧視，激起全美乃至全世界此起彼伏的抗議浪潮。新冠疫情持續失控，是否戴口罩、打疫苗成為社會分裂和對立的新導火索。經濟發展紅利分配不均，普通民眾收入長期停滯。美式民主難以有效維護公序良俗，無法充分提供公共福祉。
1、國會暴亂震驚全球
2021年1月6日下午，數千名美國民眾聚集在華盛頓國會山並強行闖入國會大廈，以阻止美國國會聯席會議確認美國新當選總統。事件導致美總統權力過渡進程中斷並造成5人死亡，140多人受傷。此次事件是自1814年白宮遭英軍縱火焚燒以來華盛頓最嚴重的暴力事件，200餘年來國會大廈首次被占領。美國國會參議院共和黨領袖將這一事件稱為“失敗的叛亂”。美國對外關係委員會學者驚呼，美國不像許多美國人想的那樣與眾不同，國會暴亂事件應給“美國例外論”和“山巔之城”的說法畫上句號。
衝闖國會事件動搖了美式民主製度三大基石。一是所謂“民主”並不民主。美國一些政客拒絕承認選舉結果，其支持者暴力衝闖國會大廈，重挫美國民主“公信力”。二是所謂“自由”並不自由。推特、臉書等社交媒體凍結美國一些政客的個人賬號，宣布其“社交性死亡”，戳破美“言論自由”的假象。三是所謂“法治”並不法治。美執法部門對待“黑人的命也是命”示威抗議和衝闖國會事件態度一嚴一寬，不同執法尺度再次暴露美“法治”的雙標本性。
衝闖國會事件震驚了國際社會，“哀其不幸，怒其不爭”。英國首相約翰遜發推特表示，美國國會發生的事件非常可恥。法國總統馬克龍講話稱，在世界最古老民主國家之一的美國，“一人一票”的普世價值正遭受重創。南非總統拉馬福薩表示，這動搖了美國民主的基礎。印尼前總統蘇西洛發推特表示，美國政治鬧劇值得深思，沒有完美的民主製度，民主實踐更不完美。
2、種族歧視根深蒂固
種族主義問題是美國民主無法磨滅的恥辱烙印。美國的開國元勳一邊說著“人人生而平等”，一邊卻在1789年施行的憲法中保留了蓄奴製度。時至今日，美國雖然表麵上廢除了種族隔離製度，但白人至上主義甚囂塵上，對黑人等少數族裔的歧視依然係統性存在。
美國的種族問題每隔一段時間就會“複發”。2020年5月25日，明尼蘇達州警察暴力執法導致黑人弗洛伊德不治身亡。弗洛伊德死前“我無法呼吸”的絕望哀求點燃了洶湧民憤，全美50個州上百個城市隨後爆發遊行示威，為弗洛伊德伸張正義，抗議種族歧視問題。直到事件發生百餘天後，有關遊行仍在持續。
弗洛伊德的遭遇隻是美國黑人百年來悲慘境遇的縮影。正如美國心理學會主席舒爾曼所說，美國始終處於一場種族主義的大流行病中，民權運動領袖馬丁·路德·金的夢想至今並未實現。印度主流媒體《印度快報》發表社論稱，美國的種族主義顛覆了美民主製度。
2021年2月，斯坦福大學新聞網發表文章檢視美各領域係統性種族歧視：在教育領域，有色人種兒童在學校受到更為密切的監視；在司法領域，有色人種尤其是黑人更容易成為被針對的目標；在經濟和就業領域，從應聘職位到獲取貸款，黑人等其他少數族裔群體在職場和整體經濟環境中受到歧視。美國華盛頓大學研究報告顯示，1980年至2018年間，美國約有30800人因警察暴力死亡，這一數字比官方公布的人數多出約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。
美各地爆發的憤怒不隻來自黑人，已跨越種族界限。以色列《耶路撒冷郵報》網站刊文指出，美國猶太人對白人至上主義團體驅動的右翼反猶主義和暴力行為感到擔憂。美國猶太人委員會年度民調顯示，2020年43%的在美猶太人認為其安全感比上一年更低，2017年有41%的人認為反猶主義在美國是一個嚴重問題，該比率遠高於2016年的21%、2015年的21%和2013年的14%。
美國國內對亞裔群體的欺淩也在不斷加劇。新冠疫情暴發以來，亞裔美國人在公共場合遭受羞辱甚至攻擊的事件此起彼伏。美國聯邦調查局公布的數據顯示，2020年全美針對亞裔的仇恨犯罪案件數量上升76%。從2020年3月到2021年6月，“停止仇恨亞裔美國人”組織接到了9000多起投訴報告。美國全國廣播公司網站一項針對美國亞裔年輕人的調查顯示，在過去1年中，四分之一的美國亞裔年輕人成為種族欺淩目標，近一半受訪者對自身所處境遇表示悲觀，四分之一的受訪者對自己及家人所處的境遇表示恐懼。
3、疫情失控釀成慘劇
美國號稱具有世界上最豐富的醫療資源，應對新冠肺炎疫情卻一片混亂，成為世界上確診人數和死亡人數最多的國家。
截至2021年11月底，根據約翰斯·霍普金斯大學統計數據，美國累計報告新冠肺炎確診病例超過4800萬例，累計死亡逾77萬例，兩項數據均名列世界第一。今年1月8日，美國單日新增新冠肺炎確診病例300777例，達到疫情在美暴發以來最高；1月13日，4170名美國人因感染新冠肺炎去世，遠超“9·11”恐怖襲擊事件喪生人數。11月末，美國日均新增確診病例數量超過7萬例，新增死亡病例逾700例，美國平均每500人就有1人死於新冠肺炎。截至目前，美國新冠病亡人數已超越1919年大流感病亡人數，也超過美在一戰、二戰、朝鮮戰爭、越南戰爭、伊拉克戰爭、阿富汗戰爭死亡人數之和。如果美國能夠科學應對，很多人不必付出生命代價。美國流行病學家、疾病控製與預防中心原負責人威廉·福格認為“這是一場屠殺”。
疫情重創美國經濟。美國企業倒閉和失業潮發生速度及規模超乎想象，大量民眾長期失業，社會不穩定因素增加等加劇了美國人的焦慮感和無力感。美國預算與政策優先事項中心2021年7月29日的《新冠困境報告》顯示，盡管情況比2020年12月有所改善，但2021年上半年美國人生活困難情況依舊十分普遍，仍有2000萬成年人所在家庭沒有足夠食物，1140萬成年租房者無法按時交納房租，麵臨被趕出租屋的風險。美國人口普查局數據顯示，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來源的比例仍高達22%。美民眾消費信心大幅下滑，就業市場複蘇放緩。高盛、摩根士丹利、牛津經濟研究院等機構紛紛顯著下調美經濟增長預期。同時，疫情、三輪大規模經濟刺激計劃等因素疊加導致美港口擁堵和供應短缺，進而推升美通貨膨脹率。今年10月，美消費者價格指數（CPI）同比上漲6.2%，連續6個月同比上漲幅度達到或超過5%，創2008年來最大漲幅。
疫情在美延宕，症結並非在於美國沒有科學，而是不信科學、不用科學。美國一些政客為了選舉，將黨派利益置於國家利益之上，將抗疫問題政治化，一門心思對外“甩鍋”推責。美聯邦與各州一盤散沙，不僅形不成合力，反而彼此爭鬥。在這個大背景下，抗疫舉措已被嚴重政治化，疫苗打與不打、口罩戴與不戴都成為了政黨、民眾爭執的焦點，反智主義甚囂塵上。
法國《世界報》報道指出，新冠疫情危機揭示了美國民主製度的脆弱性。美國把昂貴的醫療衛生體係留給富人，放任貧窮者被剝奪社會保障，使美國這一世界上最發達國家因社會不公而變得落伍，這是民主偏差導致無法有效管控疫情的經典案例。斯坦福大學新聞網指出，在醫療衛生領域，新冠疫情對有色人種造成了更嚴重的影響，凸顯了白人和有色人種之間健康水平差距。
4、貧富分化不斷加劇
美國是貧富分化最嚴重的西方國家。2021年美國基尼係數升至0.48，幾乎是半個世紀以來的新高。美國智庫政策研究院報告稱，1990年至2021年，美國億萬富翁的總體財富增長了19倍，而同期美國中位數財富隻增加了5.37%。這揭示了美國“富者愈富、窮者愈窮”的殘酷現實。
美聯儲2021年10月統計數據顯示，截至今年6月，美國收入在中間60%的“中產階級”擁有的財富在國家總財富中占比已經跌至26.6%，創過去30年來新低，而收入前1%的富人卻擁有27%的國家財富，超過了“中產階級”。
加州大學伯克利分校經濟學家伊曼努爾·薩茲發表的統計數據顯示，美國前10%富人人均年收入是後90%人口的9倍多，前1%富人人均年收入是後90%人口的40倍，而前0.1%富人人均年收入是後90%人口的196倍之多。
新冠疫情暴發以來，美國實施“大水漫灌”政策，在推高股市的同時也進一步拉大了貧富差距。美國億萬富翁擁有的總資產增加了1.763萬億美元，漲幅高達59.8%。排名前10%的美國富人持有89%的美國股票，創下曆史新高。
美國的貧富分化是由美國政治製度及其政府所代表的資本利益所決定的。從“占領華爾街”運動，到近期的“大猩猩”對視華爾街銅牛事件，美國民眾對貧富分化的聲討從未停止，但現狀毫無改變。美國治理者放任貧富差距擴大，疫情之下，資本優先、富人先行的社會規則更加橫行。
5、“言論自由”名不副實
在美國，媒體被稱為與行政、立法、司法三權並立的“第四權力”，記者更是被譽為“無冕之王”。美國媒體雖然標榜獨立於政治、為自由和真相服務，但早已服務於金錢和黨派政治。
少數傳媒集團壟斷美國新聞業，成為一手遮天的政治力量。1996年美國頒布了《電信法》，要求聯邦政府放鬆媒體所有權監管，由此掀起史無前例的兼並狂潮，對美國媒體的多樣性和獨立性造成毀滅性打擊。隨著美國媒體數量銳減，少數幾家公司不斷做大，形成壟斷巨頭。今天的美國，少數幾家企業控製90%以上的媒體，年收益甚至超過某些發展中國家的經濟總量。這些媒體“巨無霸”一邊大肆擴張商業版圖，一邊將觸手伸向美國政壇，通過遊說公關和競選獻金左右政治進程。
被壟斷的美國媒體成為公民政治權利的“隱形殺手”。美國傳播政治經濟學派代表人物、伊利諾伊大學香檳分校教授羅伯特·麥克切斯尼在《富媒體窮民主》一書中指出，出於追逐利潤的本性，媒體公司將民眾封鎖在娛樂節目的世界中，使民眾失去獲取多元化信息的渠道、關心公共問題的興趣以及明辨是非的能力，在社會政策製定過程中逐漸失聲。民主政治文化在媒體高度發達的美國社會變得極度萎縮，“政治疏離”導致民主成為一種“沒有公民”的政治遊戲。邁阿密《新先驅報》報道稱，在精英和財團控製的媒體誘導下，民眾已無法辨別哪些是事實真相，哪些是政治宣傳。
美國媒體不再是民主的“守門員”。媒體行業的“左右之爭”無形中加深了美國兩黨之間、精英與平民之間的隔閡與分歧，造成“左的更左”、“右的更右”，並導致極端思想和民粹主義在美國登堂入室。
韓國智庫世宗研究所刊文指出，超過80%的美國保守派選民將《紐約時報》等主流媒體報道視為虛假消息，對媒體的信任呈偏向性。選民隻聽信特定媒體，無視國家層麵溝通，大喊大叫、消極黨爭代替了冷靜討論和共識。牛津大學—路透社新聞研究所發布《2021全球數字新聞洞察報告》指出，在對46個國家的92000名新聞消費者調查後發現，美國民眾對媒體的信任度排名墊底，受調查人群中僅有29%的民眾信任媒體。
在傳統媒體衰落的信息時代，社交媒體一躍成為公眾“新寵”，但也免不了複製傳統媒體被大資本和利益集團控製的老路。社交媒體公司為了賺取流量，利用算法為用戶編織起“信息繭房”，對提供的極端內容不加管控，從而導致使用者日益自我固化，身份政治和民意撕裂更加嚴重。
2021年10月，前臉書公司員工豪根公布了數萬份關於臉書公司內部運作的爆炸性文件。豪根向美國哥倫比亞廣播公司透露，臉書公司為了保持用戶粘度，不惜犧牲公眾利益而攫取利潤。臉書平台是社會極端分子的主要陣地，充斥著仇恨言論、虛假信息和錯誤信息，而隻有3%至5%的仇恨以及約0.6%的暴力和煽動性言論得到管控。
（三）輸出所謂民主產生惡果
美國政府不顧世界上不同國家和地區在經濟發展水平和曆史文化方麵存在的巨大差異，將自己的政治製度和價值理念強加於人，推行“民主改造”，策劃“顏色革命”，肆意幹涉他國內政，甚至顛覆他國政權，造成災難性後果。美國按照自己的形象塑造其他國家、“輸出民主”的行為本身就不民主，從根本上違背了民主的核心價值理念。美式民主嫁接之地，不但沒有產生“化學反應”，反而引發“水土不服”，導致許多地區和國家深陷動蕩、衝突和戰爭泥潭。
1、“顏色革命”危害地區和國家穩定
美國慣於打著所謂“民主價值”的旗號，大肆幹涉別國內政、甚至策動政權更迭、扶持親美政府。前美國中央情報局高官曾宣稱“把人們塑造成為我們需要的樣子，讓他們聽我們的。隻要把腦子弄亂，我們就能不知不覺改變人們的價值觀念，並迫使他們相信一種經過偷換的價值觀念”。美國前國務卿蓬佩奧曾公開表示：“我曾擔任美國中央情報局局長。我們撒謊、我們欺騙、我們偷竊。我們還有一門課程專門來教這些。這才是美國不斷探索進取的榮耀。”
美國已形成了一整套實施“和平演變”的套路：首先借所謂“文化交流”、經濟援助、控製輿論等方式，為發動“顏色革命”製造輿論氛圍，盡量誇大現政權的錯誤、弊端，以激起群眾的不滿和反政府情緒；同時，向民眾灌輸美國的價值觀，使人們認同美國的經濟政治製度；培養大量非政府組織，全方位培訓反對派領導人，抓住重要選舉或突發事件的時機，通過各種街頭政治活動，推翻當地政權。
曆史上，美國借“推廣民主”之名在拉美推行“新門羅主義”，在歐亞地區煽動“顏色革命”，在西亞北非國家遙控“阿拉伯之春”，給多國帶來混亂和災難，嚴重損害世界和平、穩定和發展。
在拉美和加勒比地區，“美式民主”的美顏濾鏡早已破碎，美國“民主典範”的自我表演充滿了尷尬。1823年，美國發表“門羅宣言”，宣稱“美洲是美洲人的美洲”，鼓噪“泛美主義”。此後，美國無數次打著“傳播民主”的旗號，對拉美和加勒比地區進行政治幹涉、軍事介入和政權顛覆。無論是敵視封鎖社會主義古巴近60年，還是顛覆智利阿連德政府等，都是“順我者昌，逆我者亡”的霸權行徑。
2003年起，東歐、中亞地區接連發生格魯吉亞“玫瑰革命”、烏克蘭“橙色革命”和吉爾吉斯斯坦“鬱金香革命”。美國國務院公開承認在這些“政權更迭”中發揮了“中心作用”。2020年10月，俄羅斯對外情報局披露美國計劃在摩爾多瓦掀起“顏色革命”。
始於2010年的“阿拉伯之春”造成整個中東地區的強烈震蕩，而美國在其中扮演著幕後“操盤手”的重要角色。2011年《紐約時報》披露，少數由美國政府資助的核心組織正在“專製的”阿拉伯國家推廣民主。參與“阿拉伯之春”的若幹組織和個人曾從美國“國際共和研究所”“國際事務民主協會”和“自由之家”獲得培訓和資助。埃塞俄比亞非洲和國際事務專家穆斯塔法·阿哈馬迪在“金字塔在線”網站發表文章《應許之地》指出，埃及人民在奧巴馬“現在就意味著現在”的口號煽動下推翻了穆巴拉克，但埃及人民也因政局變動付出了沉重代價。美國的所作所為使阿拉伯人民認識到，美國希望將一種刻板的民主模式強加於阿拉伯人，而不管他們的意願如何。
環顧被美國強行“推銷”價值觀的國家，真正的民主、自由、人權不見蹤跡，持久混亂、發展停滯和人道主義災難卻隨處可見。美國對多國的價值觀輸出，阻斷了這些國家正常的發展進程，阻礙了這些國家探索適合本國國情的發展道路和模式，給當地帶來政治、經濟、社會的強烈動蕩，毀滅了一個個曾經美好的家園，滋生恐怖主義等長期後患，威脅和破壞地區乃至全球安全。正如法國《大晚報》所指出的，“民主”在美國手中早已成為對異見國家的“大規模殺傷性武器”。
美國在評價國內外民主方麵秉持不同標準，是褒是貶由美國自說自話、隨心所欲。2021年1月6日，美國發生衝闖國會山事件後，有位美國政客將其比作“9·11”恐怖襲擊，聲稱這是對美國國會、憲法和民主“可恥的攻擊”。但諷刺的是，2019年6月，此人卻將發生在香港立法會的暴力示威活動描繪成“一道美麗的風景線”，並對暴徒展現出的“勇氣”大加讚賞，暴露出赤裸裸的“雙重標準”。
2、強推所謂民主造成人道悲劇
美國強製輸出所謂民主，釀成多國人道災難。美國發動長達20年的阿富汗戰爭讓阿富汗滿目瘡痍，民生凋敝。據統計，總共47245名阿富汗平民以及6.6萬至6.9萬名與“9·11”事件無關的阿富汗軍人和警察在美軍行動中喪生，1000多萬人流離失所。阿富汗戰爭毀壞阿經濟發展基礎，讓阿富汗人民一貧如洗。
2003年，美國以所謂伊拉克持有大規模殺傷性武器為由，對伊拉克發動軍事打擊。戰爭導致的平民死亡人數有20萬至25萬人，其中美軍直接致死的超過16000人，並造成100多萬人無家可歸。美軍還嚴重違反國際人道主義原則，頻頻製造“虐囚”事件。時至今日，美國也拿不出所謂“伊拉克持有大規模殺傷性武器”的證據。
2016年至2019年，敘利亞有記載死於戰亂的平民達33584人。其中，美國領導的聯軍轟炸直接致死3833人，有半數是婦女和兒童。美國公共電視網2018年11月9日報道，僅美軍對拉卡市發動的所謂“史上最精確的空襲”，就導致1600名敘平民被炸死。
2018年，美國以“阻止敘利亞政府使用化學武器”為由，再次對敘展開空中打擊。但後來所謂敘利亞政府使用化學武器的證據，被證明隻不過是美國等國情報部門資助的“白頭盔”組織自編自演的擺拍視頻而已。
3、濫用製裁破壞國際規則
單邊製裁是美國的對外大棒。長期以來，美國濫用自身金融霸權和技術優勢，頻頻采取單邊霸淩行徑。美國製訂了《國際緊急經濟權力法》《全球馬格尼茨基人權問責法》《以製裁反擊美國敵人法》等國內惡法並炮製了一係列行政令直接對特定國家、組織或個人進行製裁，以“最低聯係原則”“效果原則”等模棱兩可的規則任意擴大美國內法管轄範圍，還濫用國內司法訴訟渠道對其他國家實體和個人搞“長臂管轄”，其中最典型的案例就是“阿爾斯通案”和“孟晚舟案”。據統計，特朗普政府累計實施逾3900項製裁措施，相當於平均每天揮舞3次“製裁大棒”。截至2021財年，美淨製裁實體和個人高達9421個，較2000財年增長933%。美實施非法單邊製裁與“長臂管轄”，嚴重損害他國主權安全，嚴重影響有關國家國計民生，嚴重違反國際法和國際關係基本準則。
2021年以來，美對外製裁沒有收手。美國政府聯合歐洲盟國加大對俄羅斯遏製打壓，以納瓦爾內事件、俄對美網絡攻擊、幹預美大選等為由對俄實施全麵製裁，並發動外交戰，驅逐俄外交人員。在“北溪-2”天然氣管道項目和數字稅等問題上，美國製裁歐洲盟友也毫不客氣。自中美第一階段經貿協議生效以來，美國不斷對華采取打壓遏製措施，將940多個中國實體和個人列入各類限製清單。根據美財政部外國資產控製辦公室數據，截至10月19日，美製裁含香港、澳門在內的中國實體和個人數量達391個。
美國塔夫茨大學教授、布魯金斯學會高級研究員丹尼爾·德雷茲納今年9月在《外交》雜誌發表文章，批評美國曆屆政府將製裁作為解決外交問題的首選方案，非但起不到效果，還造成人道主義災難，稱“美利堅合眾國”已成為“製裁合眾國”。
美國實施單方麵製裁，持續嚴重侵犯本國及他國人民的人權。其中最惡劣的例子就是對古巴持續實施封鎖。60多年來，美國罔顧聯合國大會的多項決議，基於通過禁運政策和《托裏切利法》《赫爾姆斯-伯頓法》等國內法構築起針對古巴的全麵封鎖體係，實施了現代曆史上持續時間最長、程度最嚴厲的係統性貿易禁運、經濟封鎖和金融製裁，嚴重損害古經濟社會發展，令古蒙受直接經濟損失逾千億美元。
自上世紀70年代末，美國對伊朗開始了長期封鎖和製裁。40多年來，美單邊製裁力度和頻度不斷加大，逐步形成以金融、貿易、能源和實體個人等多領域製裁為主要手段的嚴密體係，對伊朗施加全方位、多管齊下的製裁壓力。2018年5月，美國政府單方麵退出伊朗核問題全麵協議，隨後重啟並新增一係列對伊製裁。許多國家和相關實體被迫放棄與伊合作，大批國外石油企業陸續撤出伊，伊製造業難以正常運行，經濟增速下滑，同時造成通脹高企、貨幣大幅貶值。
美國還對白俄羅斯、敘利亞、津巴布韋等國實施多年製裁，加大對朝鮮、委內瑞拉等國“極限施壓”。
4、“民主燈塔”招致全球批評
全球民眾的眼睛是雪亮的，對於美國民主存在的種種缺陷、美國輸出“民主價值觀”的虛偽性以及美借民主之名在全球橫行霸道看得一清二楚。
俄羅斯外交部發言人指出，美國早已習慣於自詡為“世界民主燈塔”，要求別國人道對待和平請願，但在自己國內卻采取截然相反的做法，美國根本不是照亮民主的燈塔。美國政府首先應傾聽本國民眾呼聲，不要一邊在國內搞“獵巫行動”，一邊還道貌岸然地大談別國人權問題。美國在人權和公民自由問題上根本沒資格對別國指手畫腳。
2021年5月，德國民調機構拉塔納和由北約前秘書長、丹麥前首相拉斯穆森創建的民主國家聯盟基金會在53個國家對5萬多人進行的“2021年民主認知指數”調查結果顯示，44%的受訪者擔心美國對本國民主構成威脅，50%的美國受訪者擔心美國是非民主國家，59%的美國受訪者認為美國政府隻代表少數集團利益。
2021年6月，英國倫敦大學政治學副教授克拉斯在《華盛頓郵報》發表文章《美國民主失靈令世界震驚》。文章援引的皮尤民調顯示，美國不再是“山巔之城”，美多數盟友將美國民主視為“破碎的過往”，新西蘭、澳大利亞、加拿大、瑞典、荷蘭和英國分別有69%、65%、60%、59%、56%和53%的民眾認為美國政治體製運行得不太好或者很不好。法國、德國、新西蘭、希臘、比利時、瑞典等國均有超過四分之一的民眾認為“美國從來都不是民主典範”。
民調機構“歐盟觀點”發布的報告顯示，歐盟對美國製度的信心下滑，52%的人認為美國民主製度無效，這一比例在法國和德國分別為65%和61%。
2021年9月，英國知名學者馬丁·沃爾夫在《金融時報》發表文章《美國民主的奇異消亡》指出，美國的政治環境已走到快無法挽回的程度，民主共和國進一步向專製主義轉變。
2021年11月，瑞典智庫“國際民主及選舉協助研究所”發布年度報告《2021年全球民主現狀》，將美國首次列入“退步的民主國家名單”。該組織秘書長表示，美國民主狀況明顯惡化，體現為對可信的選舉結果提出質疑的趨勢愈發明顯、對參與選舉的壓製以及日益嚴重的極化現象。
印度政治活動家亞達夫指出，美國並非“民主典範”，世界認識到美式民主急需自我反思，美國需向其他民主國家學習。墨西哥《進程》雜誌評論稱，在看似民主自由的表象下，美國民主製度存在巨大缺陷。南非比勒陀利亞大學政治學係高級講師姆貝特在《郵衛報》上撰文稱，自由和公平選舉的許多標誌，比如普遍的選民名冊、集中的選舉管理、統一的規則和條例，其實在美國係統中是缺失的。非洲人所接受民主培訓中的良好選舉行為在美國從未存在。
結束語
山巔之城的美國，燈塔效應不再。
——《以色列時報》
當下的美國，對內應切實保障民眾的民主權利、完善自身民主製度，對外應承擔更多的國際責任，提供更多的公共產品，而不是對內隻講程序民主、形式民主而忽視實質民主和結果民主，對外將美式民主強加於人，以價值觀為手段劃分陣營，打著民主的旗號行幹涉、顛覆、侵略之實。
當前，國際社會正在應對新冠肺炎疫情、經濟增長放緩、氣候變化危機等全球性緊迫挑戰。麵對這些風險和挑戰，誰都無法獨善其身，團結合作是最有力的武器。把民主一元化、絕對化、工具化、武器化，人為製造集團政治和陣營對立，這與同舟共濟的精神背道而馳。
各國應該超越不同製度分歧，摒棄零和博弈思維，踐行真正的多邊主義，弘揚和平、發展、公平、正義、民主、自由的全人類共同價值，相互尊重、求同存異、合作共贏，共同構建人類命運共同體。China:Democracy That Works
The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China
Contents

Preamble
I.   Whole-Process People’s Democracy Under CPC Leadership
II.   A Sound Institutional Framework
III.  Concrete and Pragmatic Practices
IV.  Democracy That Works
V.  A New Model of Democracy
Conclusion
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.”

中國的民主
2021-12-04 10:45 來源：新華社
【字體：大中小】打印

新華社北京12月4日電國務院新聞辦公室4日發表《中國的民主》白皮書。全文如下：
中國的民主
（2021年12月）
中華人民共和國
國務院新聞辦公室
目錄
前言
一、中國共產黨領導人民實現全過程人民民主
二、具有科學有效的製度安排
（一）實行人民民主專政的國體
（二）實行人民代表大會製度的政體
（三）堅持和完善中國共產黨領導的多黨合作和政治協商製度
（四）鞏固和發展最廣泛的愛國統一戰線
（五）堅持和完善民族區域自治製度
（六）堅持和完善基層群眾自治製度
三、具有具體現實的民主實踐
（一）民主選舉
（二）民主協商
（三）民主決策
（四）民主管理
（五）民主監督
四、廣泛真實管用的民主
（一）人民享有廣泛權利
（二）人民民主參與不斷擴大
（三）國家治理高效
（四）社會和諧穩定
（五）權力運用得到有效製約和監督
五、豐富人類政治文明形態
（一）為人類民主事業發展探索新的路徑
（二）走符合國情的民主發展道路
（三）推動國際關係民主化
（四）加強文明交流互鑒
結束語
前言
民主是全人類的共同價值，是中國共產黨和中國人民始終不渝堅持的重要理念。
今年是中國共產黨成立100周年。100年前，中國共產黨一經誕生，就把為中國人民謀幸福、為中華民族謀複興確立為自己的初心和使命，為實現人民當家作主進行了不懈探索和奮鬥。100年來，黨高舉人民民主旗幟，領導人民在一個有幾千年封建社會曆史、近代成為半殖民地半封建社會的國家實現了人民當家作主，中國人民真正成為國家、社會和自己命運的主人。
中國的民主是人民民主，人民當家作主是中國民主的本質和核心。黨的十八大以來，黨深化對中國民主政治發展規律的認識，提出全過程人民民主重大理念並大力推進，民主價值和理念進一步轉化為科學有效的製度安排和具體現實的民主實踐。全過程人民民主，實現了過程民主和成果民主、程序民主和實質民主、直接民主和間接民主、人民民主和國家意誌相統一，是全鏈條、全方位、全覆蓋的民主，是最廣泛、最真實、最管用的社會主義民主。
民主是曆史的、具體的、發展的，各國民主植根於本國的曆史文化傳統，成長於本國人民的實踐探索和智慧創造，民主道路不同，民主形態各異。評價一個國家政治製度是不是民主的、有效的，主要看國家領導層能否依法有序更替，全體人民能否依法管理國家事務和社會事務、管理經濟和文化事業，人民群眾能否暢通表達利益要求，社會各方麵能否有效參與國家政治生活，國家決策能否實現科學化、民主化，各方麵人才能否通過公平競爭進入國家領導和管理體係，執政黨能否依照憲法法律規定實現對國家事務的領導，權力運用能否得到有效製約和監督。
民主不是裝飾品，不是用來做擺設的，而是要用來解決人民需要解決的問題的。一個國家民主不民主，關鍵在於是不是真正做到了人民當家作主，要看人民有沒有投票權，更要看人民有沒有廣泛參與權；要看人民在選舉過程中得到了什麽口頭許諾，更要看選舉後這些承諾實現了多少；要看製度和法律規定了什麽樣的政治程序和政治規則，更要看這些製度和法律是不是真正得到了執行；要看權力運行規則和程序是否民主，更要看權力是否真正受到人民監督和製約。
民主是各國人民的權利，而不是少數國家的專利。一個國家是不是民主，應該由這個國家的人民來評判，而不應該由外部少數人指手畫腳來評判。國際社會哪個國家是不是民主的，應該由國際社會共同來評判，而不應該由自以為是的少數國家來評判。實現民主有多種方式，不可能千篇一律。用單一的標尺衡量世界豐富多彩的政治製度，用單調的眼光審視人類五彩繽紛的政治文明，本身就是不民主的。
民主是多樣的，世界是多彩的。在世界文明的百花園裏，中國的民主之花絢麗綻放。中國願與各國交流互鑒、攜手合作，為人類政治文明發展進步貢獻智慧和力量。
一、中國共產黨領導人民實現全過程人民民主
中華民族是曆史悠久、勤勞智慧的民族，創造了輝煌燦爛的政治文明。在5000多年曆史長河中，中國人民探索形成的民本思想，蘊含著豐富的民主因素，體現了中國人民對民主的樸素認知和不懈追求。但是，在封建專製之下，廣大勞動人民始終處於受壓迫受剝削的最底層。近代以後，中國逐步成為半殖民地半封建社會，國家將傾，民族將亡，人民毫無民主可言。為救亡圖存，中國人民奮起抗爭，各種革命變革接連而起，各種救國方案輪番出台，但都未能取得成功。辛亥革命後，中國模仿議會製、多黨製、總統製等西方政治製度模式的各種嚐試都以失敗告終。以“民主”“科學”為基本口號的新文化運動的興起，俄國十月革命的勝利，五四運動的爆發，馬克思主義在中國的傳播，促進了中國人民的偉大覺醒，中國先進分子對民主有了更加深刻的思考和新的認知。
1921年，中國共產黨成立，點亮了中國的民主之光。新民主主義革命時期，黨領導人民為爭取民主、反抗壓迫和剝削進行了艱苦卓絕鬥爭，取得新民主主義革命勝利，成立新中國，實現了中國從幾千年封建專製政治向人民民主的偉大飛躍，中國人民從此站起來了，中國民主發展進入新紀元，人民當家作主從夢想變為現實。社會主義革命和建設時期，黨領導人民建立和鞏固國家政權，對生產資料進行社會主義改造，製定頒布新中國第一部憲法，確立人民代表大會製度、中國共產黨領導的多黨合作和政治協商製度、民族區域自治製度，人民當家作主的政治架構、經濟基礎、法律原則、製度框架基本確立並不斷發展，中國的民主大廈巍然聳立起來。改革開放和社會主義現代化建設新時期，黨領導人民堅定不移推進社會主義民主法治建設，堅持中國特色社會主義政治發展道路，堅持黨的領導、人民當家作主、依法治國有機統一，積極穩妥推進政治體製改革，鞏固和發展人民代表大會製度，進一步完善中國共產黨領導的多黨合作和政治協商製度、民族區域自治製度、基層群眾自治製度等基本政治製度，民主發展的政治製度保障和社會物質基礎更加堅實。
黨的十八大以來，中國特色社會主義進入新時代。以習近平同誌為核心的黨中央，立足新的曆史方位，深刻把握中國社會主要矛盾發生的新變化，積極回應人民對民主的新要求新期盼，深刻吸取古今中外治亂興衰的經驗教訓，全麵總結中國民主發展取得的顯著成就，團結帶領人民發展全過程人民民主，中國的民主發展進入曆史新時期。堅持和加強黨的全麵領導，深化黨和國家機構改革，黨對發展全過程人民民主的領導進一步加強。推進國家治理體係和治理能力現代化，確立和堅持中國特色社會主義根本製度、基本製度、重要製度，人民當家作主製度體係更加健全。全麵推進民主選舉、民主協商、民主決策、民主管理、民主監督，協同推進選舉民主與協商民主，人民依法有序政治參與不斷擴大，人民的民主生活豐富多彩。全過程人民民主，使人民當家作主更好體現在國家政治生活和社會生活之中，中國特色社會主義政治製度優越性得到更好發揮，生動活潑、安定團結的政治局麵得到鞏固發展，激發和凝聚了中國人民奮鬥新時代的磅礴力量。黨團結帶領人民，取得抗擊新冠肺炎疫情重大戰略成果，曆史性地解決絕對貧困問題，全麵建成小康社會，化解一係列重大風險，開啟全麵建設社會主義現代化國家新征程，向著全體人民共同富裕邁進，全過程人民民主在中華大地展示出勃勃生機和強大生命力，中國人民的民主自信更加堅定，中國的民主之路越走越寬廣。
全過程人民民主，是中國共產黨團結帶領人民追求民主、發展民主、實現民主的偉大創造，是黨不斷推進中國民主理論創新、製度創新、實踐創新的經驗結晶。中國共產黨的奮鬥史，是團結帶領人民探索、形成、發展全過程人民民主的奮鬥史。全過程人民民主，是近代以來黨團結帶領人民長期奮鬥曆史邏輯、理論邏輯、實踐邏輯的必然結果，是堅持黨的本質屬性、踐行黨的根本宗旨的必然要求。全過程人民民主，充分彰顯社會主義國家性質，充分彰顯人民主體地位，使人民意誌得到更好體現、人民權益得到更好保障、人民創造活力進一步激發。全過程人民民主，形成和發展於黨領導人民爭取民族獨立、人民解放和實現國家富強、人民幸福的不懈奮鬥，紮根在廣袤的中華大地，吸吮著中華民族漫長奮鬥積累的文化養分，學習借鑒人類文明優秀成果，符合中國國情，得到人民衷心擁護，具有深厚現實基礎和廣闊發展前景。全過程人民民主，具有完整的製度程序和完整的參與實踐，使選舉民主和協商民主這兩種重要民主形式更好結合起來，構建起覆蓋960多萬平方公裏土地、14億多人民、56個民族的民主體係，實現了最廣大人民的廣泛持續參與。全過程人民民主，既有鮮明的中國特色，也體現全人類共同價值，為豐富和發展人類政治文明貢獻了中國智慧、中國方案。
中國共產黨的領導，是中國發展全過程人民民主的根本保證。在中國這樣一個大國，真正把14億多人民的意願表達好、實現好並不容易，必須有堅強有力的統一領導。中國共產黨始終堅持以人民為中心、堅持人民主體地位，真正為人民執政、靠人民執政；充分發揮總攬全局、協調各方的領導核心作用，保證黨領導人民有效治理國家，保證人民民主的理念、方針、政策貫徹到國家政治生活和社會生活的方方麵麵；堅持一切為了群眾，一切依靠群眾，從群眾中來，到群眾中去的群眾路線，密切同人民群眾的聯係，凝聚起最廣大人民的智慧和力量；堅持黨內民主，實行民主選舉、民主決策、民主管理、民主監督，帶動和促進人民民主的發展；健全選人用人製度機製，使各方麵優秀人才進入黨的領導體係和國家治理體係，確保黨和國家的領導權掌握在忠於馬克思主義、忠於黨、忠於人民的人手中；堅持依法執政、依法治國，領導立法、保證執法、支持司法、帶頭守法，通過法治保障黨的政策有效實施、保障人民當家作主。
二、具有科學有效的製度安排
在中國，國家各項製度都是圍繞人民當家作主構建的，國家治理體係都是圍繞實現人民當家作主運轉的，全過程人民民主具有完整的製度程序。這些製度程序，形成了全麵、廣泛、有機銜接的人民當家作主製度體係，構建了多樣、暢通、有序的民主渠道，有效保證了黨的主張、國家意誌、人民意願相統一，有效保證了人民當家作主。
（一）實行人民民主專政的國體
中國是工人階級領導的、以工農聯盟為基礎的人民民主專政的社會主義國家。人民民主專政，體現中國的國家根本性質。
中國堅持民主與專政有機統一，保證了人民當家作主。一方麵，始終堅持人民民主專政中的“民主”，堅持國家的一切權力屬於人民，保證人民依照憲法和法律規定，通過各種途徑和形式，管理國家事務，管理經濟和文化事業，管理社會事務；另一方麵，始終堅持人民民主專政中的“專政”，充分履行國家政權的專政職能，依法打擊破壞社會主義製度、顛覆國家政權、危害國家安全和公共安全等各種犯罪行為，維護法律尊嚴和法律秩序，保護國家和人民利益。民主和專政不是矛盾的，都是為了保證人民當家作主。打擊極少數是為了保護大多數，實行專政是為了實現民主。
（二）實行人民代表大會製度的政體
人民代表大會製度，是適應人民民主專政國體的政權組織形式，是中國的根本政治製度，是中國人民當家作主的根本途徑和最高實現形式，是實現全過程人民民主的重要製度載體。人民代表大會製度，堅持國家一切權力屬於人民，最大限度保障人民當家作主，把黨的領導、人民當家作主、依法治國有機結合起來，有效保證國家治理跳出治亂興衰的曆史周期率。人民代表大會製度，正確處理事關國家前途命運的一係列重大政治關係，實現國家統一有效組織各項事業，維護國家統一和民族團結，有效保證國家政治生活既充滿活力又安定有序。
人民通過人民代表大會有效行使國家權力。人民代表大會代表人民統一行使國家權力，全國人民代表大會是最高國家權力機關，地方人民代表大會是地方國家權力機關。各級國家行政機關、監察機關、審判機關、檢察機關都由人民代表大會產生，對人大負責、受人大監督。人民代表大會有立法權、監督權、決定權、任免權。全國人民代表大會及其常務委員會行使國家立法權，全國人民代表大會行使修改憲法以及製定和修改刑事、民事、國家機構的和其他的基本法律的權力；全國人民代表大會對國家主席、副主席，國務院總理、副總理及其他組成人員，中央軍事委員會主席及其他組成人員，國家監察委員會主任，最高人民法院院長，最高人民檢察院檢察長行使人事任免權；全國人民代表大會對事關國家發展、人民利益的重大問題，包括國民經濟和社會發展計劃和計劃執行情況的報告、國家的預算和預算執行情況的報告行使審查和批準權等；全國人民代表大會及其常務委員會行使對憲法實施、“一府一委兩院”工作等的監督權。地方各級人民代表大會及其常務委員會依法行使相應職權。人民代表大會製度，實現了廣泛民主，使各級人民代表大會有高度的權力，保證了人民掌握和行使國家權力，國家和民族前途命運牢牢掌握在人民手中。
人大代表充分反映人民呼聲。人大代表來自人民，橫向上，來自各地區、各民族、各方麵、各階層；縱向上，全國、省、市、縣、鄉五級都有人民代表大會，具有廣泛代表性。截至2020年底，全國共有人大代表262萬名，其中縣鄉兩級人大代表占代表總數的94.5%。人大代表充分發揮植根人民的優勢，依法認真履職盡責，通過各種形式和渠道聽取和反映人民群眾的意見建議。一年一度的各級人民代表大會會議，鄉、縣、市、省、全國自下而上、逐級召開，使得人民群眾意願和呼聲能夠真實反映、向上傳遞。改革開放以來，每年的全國人大會議上，近3000名全國人大代表共商國家發展大計、共議民生熱點問題，黨和國家領導人當麵傾聽意見建議，讓人民的所思所盼融入國家發展頂層設計。各國家機關依法認真研究辦理人大代表提出的議案、建議，許多被吸納進政策決策中。
人民代表大會製度，為中國共產黨領導人民有效治理國家提供了重要製度保障。黨通過人民代表大會製度，使黨的主張通過法定程序成為國家意誌，使黨組織推薦的人選通過法定程序成為國家政權機關的領導人員，通過國家政權機關實施黨對國家和社會的領導，維護黨和國家權威、維護全黨全國團結統一。實踐充分證明，人民代表大會製度是符合中國國情和實際、體現社會主義國家性質、保證人民當家作主、保障實現中華民族偉大複興的好製度，必須長期堅持、全麵貫徹、不斷發展。
（三）堅持和完善中國共產黨領導的多黨合作和政治協商製度
中國共產黨領導的多黨合作和政治協商製度是中國的一項基本政治製度。這一製度植根中國土壤、彰顯中國智慧，又積極借鑒和吸收人類政治文明優秀成果，是中國新型政黨製度。憲法規定，中國共產黨領導的多黨合作和政治協商製度將長期存在和發展。
在中國，除了中國共產黨，還有八個民主黨派（注①）。在人民民主的共同旗幟下，中國共產黨與各民主黨派長期共存、互相監督、肝膽相照、榮辱與共，形成了中國共產黨領導的多黨合作和政治協商製度這一具有鮮明中國特色和顯著優勢的新型政黨製度。中國共產黨是執政黨，八個民主黨派是接受中國共產黨領導、同中國共產黨親密合作的參政黨，是中國共產黨的好參謀、好幫手、好同事。在中國，沒有反對黨，也沒有在野黨。中國既不是一黨專政，也不是多黨競爭、輪流執政，而是“共產黨領導、多黨派合作，共產黨執政、多黨派參政”。
中國共產黨和各民主黨派、無黨派人士以會議協商、約談協商、書麵協商等形式，就國家和地方重大政策和重要事務進行協商。中國共產黨自覺接受各民主黨派、無黨派人士的民主監督。中國共產黨和各民主黨派、無黨派人士在國家政權中合作共事，民主黨派成員和無黨派人士在各級人大代表、人大常委會組成人員及人大專門委員會成員中均占一定數量，一些民主黨派成員和無黨派人士擔任國家機關領導職務。各民主黨派、無黨派人士緊緊圍繞國家中心工作，積極參政議政、建言獻策，為國家發展發揮作用。
中國人民政治協商會議是實行中國共產黨領導的多黨合作和政治協商製度的重要機構。人民政協作為專門協商機構，在協商中促進廣泛團結、推進多黨合作、實踐人民民主，既秉承曆史傳統，又反映時代特征，充分體現了中國社會主義民主有事多商量、遇事多商量、做事多商量的特點和優勢，是國家治理體係的重要組成部分和具有中國特色的製度安排。在人民政協製度平台上，各黨派團體、各族各界人士發揮在界別群眾中的代表作用，通過全體會議、常委會會議、主席會議、專門委員會會議、專題協商會議、協商座談會議等，開展提案、委員視察考察、專題調研、反映社情民意等經常性工作，對國家大政方針、經濟社會各領域重要問題，在決策之前和決策實施之中進行廣泛協商、平等協商、有序協商、真誠協商，提出意見建議。中國共產黨采納和集中他們的意見建議，各黨派團體、各族各界人士接受黨的主張並在各界別群眾中宣傳解釋黨的方針政策，增信釋疑，最廣泛地反映民意，最充分地集思廣益，最大限度地凝聚共識，鞏固團結奮鬥的共同思想基礎。全國政協全體會議與全國人大會議每年同期召開，政協委員不僅要討論政協的問題，還要列席全國人大會議，參加對有關法律修改、“一府兩院”工作報告等的討論，這樣的製度安排真正實現了讓人人起來負責、人人監督政府工作，形成了具有中國特色的“兩會”式民主。
中國共產黨領導的多黨合作和政治協商製度，真實、廣泛、持久代表和實現最廣大人民根本利益、全國各族各界根本利益，有效避免了舊式政黨製度代表少數人、少數利益集團的弊端；把各個政黨和無黨派人士緊密團結起來、為著共同目標而奮鬥，有效避免了一黨缺乏監督或者多黨輪流坐莊、惡性競爭的弊端；通過製度化、程序化、規範化的安排集中各種意見和建議、推動決策科學化民主化，有效避免了舊式政黨製度囿於黨派利益、階級利益、區域和集團利益決策施政導致社會撕裂的弊端。
（四）鞏固和發展最廣泛的愛國統一戰線
統一戰線是中國共產黨凝聚人心、匯集力量的重要法寶。在人民民主實踐中，中國共產黨始終把統一戰線擺在重要位置，堅持大團結大聯合，堅持一致性和多樣性相統一，統籌做好民主黨派和無黨派人士工作、黨外知識分子工作、民族工作、宗教工作、非公有製經濟領域統戰工作、新的社會階層人士統戰工作、港澳台統戰工作、海外統一戰線工作和僑務工作，團結一切可以團結的力量、調動一切可以調動的積極因素，廣泛凝聚共識，尋求最大公約數、畫出最大同心圓，不斷促進政黨關係、民族關係、宗教關係、階層關係、海內外同胞關係和諧，最大限度凝聚起中華民族一切智慧和力量。
中國人民政治協商會議是中國人民愛國統一戰線的組織。全國政協設34個界別，由中國共產黨、各民主黨派、無黨派人士、人民團體、各少數民族和各界的代表，香港特別行政區同胞、澳門特別行政區同胞、台灣同胞和歸國僑胞的代表以及特別邀請的人士組成。全國政協十三屆一次會議共有委員2100多人，其中非中共黨員占60.2%。這樣的組織構成，體現了大團結大聯合的重要特征，能夠在熱愛中華人民共和國、擁護中國共產黨的領導、共同致力於實現中華民族偉大複興的政治基礎上，求同存異、聚同化異，最大限度地調動一切積極因素、團結一切可以團結的人，最大限度凝聚起共同團結奮鬥的強大力量。
（五）堅持和完善民族區域自治製度
中國是統一的多民族國家，鑄牢中華民族共同體意識，始終保持國家完整統一，實現各民族共同團結奮鬥、共同繁榮發展，是中國共產黨民族政策的方針宗旨。民族區域自治製度，是指在國家統一領導下，各少數民族聚居的地方實行區域自治，設立自治機關，行使自治權的製度。民族區域自治製度在憲法以及民族區域自治法中得到明確，是中國的一項基本政治製度。
中國實行民族區域自治，以領土完整、國家統一為前提和基礎，體現了統一與自治的結合、民族因素與區域因素的結合，完全符合中國國情和實際。中國的民族區域自治，是在國家統一領導下的自治，各民族自治地方都是中國不可分離的一部分，民族自治地方的自治機關都是中央政府領導下的一級地方政權，都必須服從中央統一領導。
實行民族區域自治，從製度和政策層麵保障了少數民族公民享有平等自由權利以及經濟、社會、文化權利。155個民族自治地方的人民代表大會常務委員會中，均有實行區域自治民族的公民擔任主任或者副主任；民族自治地方政府的主席、州長、縣長或旗長，均由實行區域自治的民族的公民擔任。中國根據各少數民族的特點和需要，幫助各少數民族地區加速經濟和文化發展。
民族區域自治製度，極大增強了各族人民當家作主的自豪感責任感，極大調動了各族人民共創中華民族美好未來、共享中華民族偉大榮光的積極性主動性創造性。在這一製度框架下，中華民族大團結的局麵不斷鞏固，各族人民交往交流交融日益廣泛深入，平等團結互助和諧的社會主義民族關係不斷發展，56個民族像石榴籽一樣緊緊抱在一起，中華民族共同體意識日益牢固。
（六）堅持和完善基層群眾自治製度
中國人口多、地域廣，基層治理差異大。中國實行以村民自治製度、居民自治製度和職工代表大會製度為主要內容的基層群眾自治製度，人民群眾在基層黨組織的領導和支持下，依法直接行使民主權利，實現自我管理、自我服務、自我教育、自我監督，有效防止了人民形式上有權、實際上無權的現象。
村（居）民自治。村（居）民在基層黨組織的領導下，成立村（居）民委員會，依法直接行使民主權利，依法管理基層公共事務和公益事業。實行民主選舉，由村（居）民選舉村（居）民委員會組成人員；實行民主協商，由村（居）民采取多種形式開展協商議事；實行民主決策，由村（居）民通過村（居）民會議或村（居）民代表會議對社區公共事務和公益事業等作出決定；實行民主管理，由村（居）民討論決定村（居）民自治章程、村規民約、居民公約等，並進行自我管理；實行民主監督，由村（居）民推選產生村（居）務監督委員會，監督村（社區）事務和村（居）務公開製度落實。截至2020年底，50.3萬個行政村全部建立了村民委員會，11.2萬個社區全部建立了居民委員會。
企事業單位職工依法行使民主權利。企事業單位建立以職工代表大會為基本形式的民主管理製度，職工在企事業單位重大決策和涉及職工切身利益等重大事項上發揮積極作用；企事業單位推行職工董事、職工監事製度，全麵實行廠務公開製度，探索領導接待日、勞資懇談會、領導信箱等形式，反映職工訴求，協調勞動關係和保障職工合法權益，對單位生產和管理提出意見建議，為單位發展獻計獻策。企業工會委員會是職工代表大會的工作機構，現階段，中國共有280.9萬個基層工會組織，覆蓋655.1萬個企事業單位。
基層民主創新十分活躍。從城鄉社區裏的村（居）民議事會、村（居）民論壇、民主懇談會、民主聽證會到黨代表、人大代表、政協委員聯合進社區，從“小院議事廳”到“板凳民主”，從線下“圓桌會”到線上“議事群”，中國人民在火熱的基層生活中，摸索創造了一個又一個充滿煙火氣的民主形式。人們通過這些接地氣、聚人氣的民主實踐，圍繞涉及自身利益的實際問題，發表意見建議，進行廣泛協商，利益得到協調，矛盾有效化解，促進了基層穩定和諧。基層民主許多好的經驗做法成為國家政策，為中國民主發展不斷注入新的動力。
基層群眾自治製度，增強了基層群眾的民主意識和民主能力，培養了基層群眾的民主習慣，充分彰顯了中國民主的廣泛性和真實性。基層群眾自治，使得社會細胞都活躍起來，使“微治理”富有活力、更有效率，為建設人人有責、人人盡責、人人享有的基層治理共同體提供了堅實製度保障。
三、具有具體現實的民主實踐
中國發展全過程人民民主，既有完整的製度程序，也有完整的參與實踐。全過程人民民主，把選舉民主與協商民主結合起來，把民主選舉、民主協商、民主決策、民主管理、民主監督貫通起來，涵蓋經濟、政治、文化、社會、生態文明等各個方麵，關注國家發展大事、社會治理難事、百姓日常瑣事，具有時間上的連續性、內容上的整體性、運行上的協同性、人民參與上的廣泛性和持續性，使國家政治生活和社會生活各環節、各方麵都體現人民意願、聽到人民聲音，有效防止了選舉時漫天許諾、選舉後無人過問的現象。
（一）民主選舉
人民通過選舉、投票行使權利，選出代表自己意願的人來掌握並行使權力，是中國民主的一種重要形式，是人民實現當家作主的重要體現。
中國的選舉是廣泛的，有國家機構選舉、村（居）委會選舉、企事業單位職工代表大會選舉等，涵蓋了國家政治生活和社會生活的各個方麵；中國的選舉是平等的，人民的選舉權和被選舉權得到充分保障，一人一票、票票等值；中國的選舉是真實的，不受金錢操控，選民按照自己的意願選出自己信任的人；中國的選舉是發展的，選舉形式手段隨著經濟社會的發展不斷創新和豐富。
國家機構選舉。國家機構選舉是指，選舉產生全國人民代表大會和地方各級人民代表大會，由各級人大選舉產生同級國家機關領導人員。在中國，年滿18周歲、具有中華人民共和國國籍、未被依法剝奪政治權利的公民，都有選舉權和被選舉權。從全國人大到鄉級人大，五級人民代表大會代表均由民主選舉產生，每屆任期5年。按照普遍、平等、直接選舉和間接選舉相結合以及差額選舉、無記名投票的原則，選民直接選舉產生縣鄉兩級人大代表，縣級以上人大代表由下一級人大選舉產生。各級國家機關領導人員均由同級人大選舉產生或者決定任命。
基層選舉。基層選舉是中國最廣泛、最生動的民主實踐，包括村（居）民委員會選舉和企事業單位職工代表大會選舉。村（居）民委員會由主任、副主任和委員組成，村（居）民委員會選舉與縣鄉人大選舉同步進行。村（居）民依法定期選舉產生村（居）民委員會成員。在企事業單位中，職工代表大會是職工當家作主、行使民主管理權力的機構，職工代表由全體職工通過民主選舉產生。
中國的民主選舉是符合中國國情的，是與中國的發展階段相適應的，是隨著經濟社會發展與時俱進的。幾十年來，中國適時修改選舉法，選舉全國人大代表時，農村和城市每位代表所代表的人口比例從新中國成立初期的8∶1，到1995年的4∶1，再到2010年的1∶1，逐步實現了城鄉人口的平等選舉。人們的民主意識不斷增強，參選率不斷提高。改革開放以來，中國先後進行12次鄉級人大代表直接選舉、11次縣級人大代表直接選舉，選民參選率均保持在90%左右。
（二）民主協商
有事好商量，眾人的事情由眾人商量，找到全社會意願和要求的最大公約數，是人民民主的真諦。人民在通過選舉、投票行使權利的同時，在重大決策前和決策過程中進行充分協商，盡可能就共同性問題取得一致意見。協商民主是中國民主獨特的、獨有的、獨到的民主形式。
具有深厚基礎。協商民主源自中華民族長期形成的天下為公、兼容並蓄、求同存異等優秀政治文化，源自近代以後中國政治發展的現實進程，源自中國共產黨領導人民進行不懈奮鬥的長期實踐，源自新中國成立後各黨派、各團體、各民族、各階層、各界人士在政治製度上共同實現的偉大創造，源自改革開放以來中國在政治體製上的不斷創新，具有深厚的文化基礎、理論基礎、實踐基礎、製度基礎。
形式廣泛多樣。在各領域各層級，人民群眾就改革發展穩定的重大問題以及事關自身利益的問題，通過提案、會議、座談、論證、聽證、評估、谘詢、網絡、民意調查等多種途徑和方式，在決策之前和決策實施之中開展廣泛協商。涉及全國各族人民利益的事情，在全體人民和全社會中廣泛商量；涉及一個地方人民群眾利益的事情，在這個地方的人民群眾中廣泛商量；涉及一部分群眾利益、特定群眾利益的事情，在這部分群眾中廣泛商量；涉及基層群眾利益的事情，在基層群眾中廣泛商量。
體係不斷健全。中國不斷完善協商民主的發展路徑，探索形成了政黨協商、人大協商、政府協商、政協協商、人民團體協商、基層協商、社會組織協商等協商渠道，推動協商民主廣泛多層製度化發展。政黨協商，是中國共產黨就中共全國代表大會和中共中央委員會的有關重要文件、憲法修改、有關重要法律的製定和修改、國家領導人建議人選、國民經濟和社會發展的中長期規劃以及年度經濟社會發展情況、關係改革發展穩定等重要問題、統一戰線和多黨合作的重大問題等，同民主黨派開展協商；人大協商，是各級人大在依法行使職權中與有關國家機關、社會組織、專家學者、人民群眾開展協商；政府協商，是各級政府在履職盡責中與人大代表、政協委員以及民主黨派、無黨派人士、相關人民團體、社會組織以及群眾代表等加強溝通協商；政協協商，是在中國共產黨領導下，參加人民政協的各黨派團體、各族各界人士履行職能，圍繞改革發展穩定重大問題等，在決策之前和決策實施之中廣泛協商、凝聚共識；人民團體協商，是人民團體就涉及群眾切身利益的實際問題，特別是事關特定群體權益保障的，加強與政府相關部門的協商，積極參與政協組織的協商活動；基層協商，是基層黨組織、基層政府、基層群眾性自治組織、經濟社會組織和群眾等，就基層社會發展及事關群眾切身利益的問題開展協商；社會組織協商，是各類社會組織就更好為社會服務，積極開展和參與協商。這七種協商渠道，極大豐富了民主形式、拓寬了民主渠道、加深了民主內涵。
中國的協商民主，廣開言路，集思廣益，促進不同思想觀點的充分表達和深入交流，做到相互尊重、平等協商而不強加於人，遵循規則、有序協商而不各說各話，體諒包容、真誠協商而不偏激偏執，形成既暢所欲言、各抒己見，又理性有度、合法依章的良好協商氛圍，充分發揚了民主精神，廣泛凝聚了全社會共識，促進了社會和諧穩定。
（三）民主決策
民主決策是全過程人民民主的重要一環。好的決策，反映人民意願，保障人民權益，增進人民福祉。在中國，察民情、聽民聲、順民意，群策群力、集思廣益成為常態，越來越多來自基層的聲音直達各級決策層，越來越多的群眾意見轉化為黨和政府的重大決策。
人大“開門立法”。各級人民代表大會及其常務委員會，堅持為民立法、民主立法，保障人民通過各種途徑參與立法活動，努力讓每一項立法反映人民意願、得到人民擁護。法律立項，通過召開座談會、聽證會、論證會等方式，廣泛聽取意見，讓人民的意誌在立法的最初階段就得到體現；法律草案起草，廣泛聽取公眾意見和專業人士建議，探索委托第三方起草法律法規草案，讓人民的訴求得到充分體現；法律草案公布，通過網絡和新聞媒體，向社會各界廣泛征求意見。基層群眾通過基層立法聯係點，直接參與法律草案的起草、立法調研、修改論證、立法後評估等多個環節。
政府“開門問策”。各級人民政府就即將實施的重大決策和各方提出的重大決策建議，充分聽取各方麵意見，保障人民群眾通過多種途徑和形式參與決策。在決策啟動環節，人大代表、政協委員通過建議、提案等方式提出建議，公民、法人和其他組織提出書麵建議，決策機關啟動決策程序；在決策研究製定環節，通過座談會、公開征求意見、聽證會、問卷調查、實地走訪等方式，廣泛聽取社會各界特別是直接關係人的意見和建議；在決策草案公示環節，通過政府網站和各類媒體，公布決策草案及其說明材料；在決策最終確定環節，按照民主集中製原則，在集體討論的基礎上作出決定；在決策後評估階段，聽取社會公眾意見，吸收人大代表、政協委員、人民團體、基層組織、社會組織和專家等參與評估。
廣大群眾參與基層決策。基層群眾通過村（居）民會議、村（居）民代表會議、村（居）民小組會議等形式，就經濟社會發展、基礎設施建設、社會綜合治理、基層文化服務、生態環境保護、自治章程製定等基層治理中的重大問題提出意見建議，參與決策製定和實施。
（四）民主管理
人民的事人民管，人民的事人民辦。在中國，廣大人民弘揚主人翁精神，發揮主體作用，積極行使民主權利，通過各種途徑和形式，管理國家事務，管理經濟和文化事業，管理社會事務。
參與國家政治生活和社會生活的管理。人民行使憲法賦予的各項權利並承擔憲法賦予公民的責任和義務，積極主動參加選舉、協商、決策、監督等，在各個層級、各個領域參與國家政治生活和社會生活的管理，知情權、參與權、表達權、監督權得到有力保障。
城鄉社區民主管理。根據憲法法律和有關規定，農村和城市社區居民結合本地實際，由村（居）民討論製定村（居）民自治章程、村規民約、居民公約等，明確規定村（居）民的權利和義務，村（社區）各類組織之間的關係和工作程序，以及經濟管理、社會治安、消防安全、環境衛生、婚姻家庭、鄰裏關係、計劃生育、精神文明建設等方麵的自治要求，普遍實現村（居）民在基層公共事務和公益事業中的自我管理、自我服務、自我教育、自我監督。
企事業單位民主管理。全國超過1.5億市場主體自主經營、自我管理、活力迸發，承載7億多人就業，推動了中國經濟總量、國家財力和社會財富穩定增長。根據憲法法律和有關規定，企事業單位普遍建立以職工代表大會為基本形式，以廠務公開製度、職工董事製度、職工監事製度為主要內容的民主管理製度。職工通過這些民主管理製度，參與企事業單位管理，維護單位職工合法權益，實現單位與職工協商共事、機製共建、效益共創、利益共享。目前，全國已建工會企業中，建立職工代表大會的企業有314.4萬家，其中，非公有製企業293.8萬家、占93.4%。
社會組織民主管理。社會團體、基金會、社會服務機構等社會組織，普遍製定章程，加強組織成員管理，自主開展活動，集中組織成員或服務對象的意見建議，以組織化的方式積極參與社會公共事務治理，在行業自律、社會服務、慈善事業等領域發揮民主管理作用。截至2021年11月，各級民政部門共登記社會組織超過90萬家，其中全國性社會組織2284家。形式多樣的社會組織成為人民民主管理的重要領域。
（五）民主監督
全麵有效的民主監督，保證人民的民主權利不因選舉結束而中斷，保證權力運用得到有效製約。在中國，解決權力濫用、以權謀私的問題，不能靠所謂的政黨輪替和三權分立，要靠科學有效的民主監督。中國結合本國實際，探索構建起一套有機貫通、相互協調的監督體係，形成了配置科學、權責協同、運行高效的監督網，對權力的監督逐步延伸到每個領域、每個角落。
人大監督。人民代表大會充分發揮作用，對憲法法律的實施、重大決策部署的落實等開展監督。各級人大及其常委會加強對“一府一委兩院”執法、監察、司法工作的監督，確保法律法規得到有效實施，確保行政權、監察權、審判權、檢察權得到正確行使。人民通過人大代表座談會、基層群眾座談會、問卷調查、網絡調研等“開門監督”的形式，積極參與人大監督工作。
民主監督。中國共產黨支持民主黨派和無黨派人士在堅持四項基本原則基礎上，在政治協商、調研考察，參與黨和國家有關重大方針政策、決策部署執行和實施情況的監督檢查，受黨委委托就有關重大問題進行專項監督等工作中，通過提出意見、批評、建議等方式，進行民主監督。參加人民政協的各黨派團體和各族各界人士在政協組織的各種活動中，依據政協章程，重點就黨和國家重大方針政策和重要決策部署的貫徹落實情況，以提出意見、批評、建議的方式進行協商式監督，協助黨和政府解決問題、改進工作、增進團結、凝心聚力。
行政監督。國家行政機關按照法定的權限、程序和方式，對行政機關自身的組織行為、行政行為進行監督，包括各行政機關自上而下、自下而上以及相互之間進行的監督。
監察監督。監察機關依法履行監察監督職責，對公職人員政治品行、行使公權力和道德操守情況進行監督檢查，督促有關機關、單位加強對所屬公職人員的教育、管理、監督。
司法監督。審判機關和檢察機關依照法定職權和程序對人民授權的國家公權力進行監督。司法監督是黨和國家監督體係中強製性程度最高的一種監督機製，是黨和國家利用監督手段、維護公權力正確行使的“最後一道防線”。
審計監督。審計機關依法對本級各部門和下級政府預算的執行情況和決算以及其他財政收支情況，進行審計監督。
財會監督。財政部門根據法律授權，對財政、財務、會計管理的法律、行政法規、部門規章等執行情況進行監督。
統計監督。統計部門及負有統計調查職責的相關機關，對所有行使統計權力、負有統計義務的組織和人員進行監督，防範和懲治統計造假、弄虛作假，確保統計資料真實準確、完整及時，為經濟社會發展提供紮實的統計保障。
群眾監督。公民、法人或者其他組織通過各種方式，對各級國家機關及其組成人員履職情況進行監督，既可以依法申請行政複議、提起行政訴訟，也有權向監察機關檢舉控告監察對象不依法履職，違反秉公用權、廉潔從政從業以及道德操守等規定，涉嫌職務違法、職務犯罪行為。
輿論監督。媒體充分發揮輿論監督作用，對濫用公權、失職瀆職等行為及時揭露曝光。隨著互聯網的快速發展，人們更多地借助網絡等平台，對各級國家機關和公職人員提出意見、建議和批評，網絡在輿論監督中發揮著越來越重要的作用。
四、廣泛真實管用的民主
完整的製度程序和完整的參與實踐，使全過程人民民主從價值理念成為紮根中國大地的製度形態、治理機製和人民的生活方式。人民當家作主，具體地、現實地體現在黨治國理政的政策措施上，具體地、現實地體現在黨和國家機關各個方麵各個層級工作上，具體地、現實地體現在實現人民對美好生活向往的工作上。民主的陽光照耀中華大地，中國人民享有廣泛充分、真實具體、有效管用的民主。
（一）人民享有廣泛權利
中國憲法規定，國家的一切權力屬於人民；人民依照法律規定，通過各種途徑和形式，管理國家事務，管理經濟和文化事業，管理社會事務。中國的政治權力不是依據地位、財富、關係分配的，而是全體人民平等享有的。國家權力不是為資本服務的，而是為人民服務的。
中國實行公有製為主體、多種所有製經濟共同發展，按勞分配為主體、多種分配方式並存，社會主義市場經濟體製等社會主義基本經濟製度，國民經濟命脈牢牢掌握在人民手中，人民當家作主具有堅實經濟基礎和物質保障。
在中國，人民依法享有選舉權和被選舉權，享有對國家和社會事務的知情權、參與權、表達權、監督權，享有對任何國家機關和國家工作人員提出批評和建議的權利，享有言論、出版、集會、結社、遊行、示威、宗教信仰等自由。人民既廣泛參與國家、社會事務和經濟文化事業的管理，也在日常生活中廣泛充分行使民主權利，每個人都有多重民主角色，都享有相應民主權利。
在中國，人權得到充分尊重和有效保障。人民幸福生活是最大的人權。中國經濟保持長期穩定快速發展，人民生活顯著改善。中國建成世界上規模最大的社會保障體係，基本醫療保險覆蓋超過13億人、基本養老保險覆蓋超過10億人。中國全麵建成小康社會，14億多人民徹底擺脫了絕對貧困，正邁向共同富裕。中國人民的獲得感、幸福感、安全感不斷提升，生存權、發展權、健康權得到充分保障，經濟、政治、文化、社會、環境等方麵權利不斷發展。
中國人民享有的權利不斷豐富發展。從新中國成立後在政治、經濟平等基礎上謀求生存發展，到改革開放後既追求物質富裕也追求精神富足，再到新時代打贏脫貧攻堅戰、全麵建成小康社會、紮實推進共同富裕、取得抗擊新冠肺炎疫情重大戰略成果，中國人民享有權利的內涵不斷豐富、外延不斷拓展，向著實現人的全麵發展不斷邁進。
（二）人民民主參與不斷擴大
人民隻有在投票時被喚醒、投票後就進入休眠期，隻有競選時聆聽天花亂墜的口號、競選後就毫無發言權，隻有拉票時受寵、選舉後就被冷落，這樣的民主不是真正的民主。在中國，民主觀念深入人心，人民的民主參與廣泛持續，民主實踐深深融入人們的日常工作和生產生活，民主蔚然成風，社會充滿活力。
人民參與民主的意願不斷增強，參與的廣度和深度不斷拓展。人民既參與國家和社會事務管理，又參與經濟和文化事業管理；既參與國家發展頂層設計的意見建議征詢，又參與地方公共事務治理；既參與民主選舉、民主協商，又參與民主決策、民主管理、民主監督；既通過人大、政協等渠道表達意願，又通過社會組織、網絡等平台表達訴求。從“數豆豆”（注②）到電子投票，從群眾跑腿到“數據跑路”，民主參與的形式不斷創新、渠道不斷拓展。黨和國家要做什麽、如何做、做得怎麽樣，人民參與貫穿始終。
人民利益要求既能暢通表達，也能有效實現。民主，起始於人民意願充分表達，落實於人民意願有效實現。人民意願隻能表達、不能實現，不是真正意義的民主。在中國，人民的期盼、希望和訴求，從國家大政方針，到社會治理，再到百姓衣食住行，有地方說、說了有人聽、聽了有反饋。人民的意願和呼聲，經過民主決策程序成為黨和國家的方針政策，並通過中央、省、市、縣、鄉鎮各個層級的緊密配合、層層落實，通過各個職能部門之間主管、主辦、協管、協辦的分工合作、協調配合，通過決策、執行、檢查、監督、問責等各個環節的相互配合、有機銜接，轉化為實現人民意願的具體實踐。對於涉及自身利益的實際問題，人們通過信訪平台、領導信箱、政務熱線、網絡“留言板”等提出意見和訴求，能夠得到及時反饋和回應。
（三）國家治理高效
民主與國家治理緊密相關。民主的發展與國家治理的現代化相伴相生，相互作用，相互促進。絕無國家治理“失靈”“低效”，國內問題成堆，民主卻是“世界樣板”的荒謬現象。好的民主一定是實現良政善治的，一定是推動國家發展的。
中國民主的高質量，促進了國家治理的高效能，提升了國家治理體係和治理能力現代化水平。中國的民主，充分彰顯了人民的主體地位，極大增強了人民的主人翁意識，人民既是民主的參與者，也是民主的受益者，智慧力量充分激發，既為自己也為國家、民族拚搏奮鬥。中國的民主，有效調節國家政治關係，發展充滿活力的政黨關係、民族關係、宗教關係、階層關係、海內外同胞關係，增強民族凝聚力，最大限度避免了牽扯，切實防止了相互掣肘、內耗嚴重的現象，形成了安定團結的政治局麵和團結幹事的強大合力。中國的民主，把黨的主張、國家意誌、人民意願緊密融合在一起，使得黨、國家和人民成為目標相同、利益一致、相互交融、同心同向的整體，產生極大耦合力，形成集中力量辦大事的製度優勢，有效促進了社會生產力解放和發展，促進了現代化建設各項事業，促進了人民生活質量和水平不斷提高。中國的民主，始終把中國人民利益放在第一位，有效維護了國家獨立自主，有效維護了國家主權、安全、發展利益，有效維護了中國人民和中華民族的福祉。
新中國成立70多年來，黨團結帶領人民，不斷戰勝前進道路上各種世所罕見的艱難險阻，成功走出中國式現代化道路，取得舉世矚目的發展成就，中國經濟實力、綜合國力、人民生活水平顯著提升。對於中國這樣一個人口多、體量大、人均資源稟賦處於世界較低水平的最大發展中國家，沒有人民的主人翁地位和主人翁精神，沒有億萬人民的團結奮鬥，實現這樣的發展是不可能的。中國的民主，真正把發展為了人民、發展依靠人民、發展成果由人民共享落到實處，充分調動起人民的主觀能動性，這是中國之治的“密碼”，是中國民主的力量。
（四）社會和諧穩定
民主是人類社會進步的產物和標誌。發展民主，要推動社會向著自由、平等、公正、文明、團結、和諧的方向前行。好的民主，應凝聚社會共識，而不是造成社會撕裂和衝突；應維護社會公平正義，而不是導致社會階層和利益固化；應保持社會穩定有序，而不是帶來混亂和動蕩；應讓社會充滿向美向善向上的正能量，而不是充斥假惡醜的負能量。
中國國情複雜，治理難度世所罕見。中國的人民民主，實現各方麵意誌和利益的協調統一，實現各方麵在共同思想、共同利益、共同目標基礎上的團結一致，人民安居樂業、心情舒暢，社會和諧穩定、生機勃勃。中國用幾十年時間走過了西方發達國家幾百年走過的工業化曆程，在劇烈的社會變革中，沒有發生後發國家在現代化進程中容易出現的社會動蕩，不僅創造了經濟快速發展奇跡，也創造了社會長期穩定奇跡。中國人民經曆了幾千年曆史上個人自由的最大發展，思想可以自由地表達，人員可以自由地流動，億萬人民的創新源泉充分湧流、創造活力競相迸發。今天的中國，人們自由自在地穿梭於城鄉之間、城市之間；每天有1.6萬戶企業誕生；10億網民通過網絡了解天下大事、進行交流、表達觀點……中國社會開放自由，但始終保持了社會團結和諧、穩定有序。人民民主既是中國社會進步的推進器，也是中國社會進步的潤滑劑。
（五）權力運用得到有效製約和監督
權力是把“雙刃劍”。權力在有效製約和監督下運行才能實現民主、造福人民，權力失去約束、恣意妄為必然破壞民主、危害人民。中國不斷加強對權力運行的製約和監督，始終堅持公權力姓公，始終堅持權為民所用，確保人民賦予的權力始終用來為人民謀幸福。
把權力關進製度的籠子裏。加強對權力的製約和監督，製度具有根本性、全局性、穩定性和長期性。持續推進依規治黨，持續推進依法治國、依法執政、依法行政，依法設定權力、規範權力、製約權力、監督權力，讓權力在陽光下運行。健全完善黨內法規製度體係，嚴明紀律規矩，使黨的各級組織和黨員幹部都在紀律規矩範圍內活動。普遍實行領導幹部任期製，實現了國家機關和領導層的有序更替。加強對領導幹部特別是高級領導幹部的管理，嚴格規範工作和生活待遇，堅決防止形成特權階層。健全黨和國家監督製度，堅持和完善黨和國家監督體係，完善黨務、政務、司法和各領域辦事公開製度，保證黨和國家領導機關和人員在法定的“權力清單”和“責任清單”範圍內、依照法定程序開展工作，最大限度防止權力出軌、個人尋租。
堅決反對和懲治腐敗。腐敗是人民民主的大敵。中國以“得罪千百人、不負十四億”的鮮明態度，堅定不移推進反腐敗鬥爭。堅持係統施治、標本兼治，不敢腐、不能腐、不想腐一體推進，懲治震懾、製度約束、提高覺悟一體發力。堅持反腐敗無禁區、全覆蓋、零容忍，堅持重遏製、強高壓、長震懾，堅持受賄行賄一起查，堅持有案必查、有腐必懲，以猛藥去屙、重典治亂的決心，以刮骨療毒、壯士斷腕的勇氣，堅定不移“打虎”“拍蠅”“獵狐”，以雷霆之勢、霹靂手段懲治腐敗，持續形成強大震懾，反腐敗鬥爭取得壓倒性勝利並全麵鞏固。在解決腐敗這個古今中外治國理政的頑疾方麵，中國不僅有鮮明態度，更有實際行動。
評判一種民主形式好不好，實踐最有說服力，人民最有發言權，歸根結底要看能不能讓人民過上好日子。中國的民主行不行、好不好，歸根結底要看中國人民滿意不滿意、中國人民擁護不擁護。有數據顯示，近年來，中國人民對中國政府的滿意度每年都保持在90%以上，這是中國民主具有強大生命力最真實的反映。中國的民主道路走得通、走得好，中國人民將沿著這條道路堅定走下去。
五、豐富人類政治文明形態
民主是人類社會曆經千百年探索形成的政治形態，在人類發展進程中發揮了重要作用。但是，20世紀以來，在波濤洶湧的民主化大潮中，有的國家停滯不前，有的國家陷入動蕩，有的國家分崩離析。當今世界，既麵臨“民主過剩”“民主超速”，也麵臨“民主赤字”“民主失色”。民主怎麽了？民主還管用嗎？回答“民主之問”，廓清“民主迷思”，關乎世界和平發展，關乎人類文明未來。一些國家的民主化出現挫折甚至危機，並非民主本身之錯，而是民主實踐出現了偏差。
中國的民主經曆了選擇、探索、實踐與發展的艱辛曆程。中國基於本國國情發展全過程人民民主，既有著鮮明的中國特色，也體現了全人類對民主的共同追求；既推動了中國的發展與中華民族的複興，也豐富了人類政治文明形態。
（一）為人類民主事業發展探索新的路徑
一個國家在現代化進程中，實現民主發展與政治穩定、社會進步的良性互動，極其重要，也極為不易。
中國的現代化，沒有走西方老路，而是創造了中國式現代化道路；沒有照搬照抄西方民主模式，而是創造了中國式民主。占世界人口近五分之一的14億多中國人民真正實現當家作主，享有廣泛權利和自由，提振了發展中國家發展民主的信心，為人類民主事業發展探索了新的路徑。這是中國對人類政治文明的重大貢獻，也是人類社會的巨大進步。
人民當家作主，是中國民主的初心。中國在發展民主的進程中，也走過彎路，遇到過挫折，但始終堅守初心，不動搖、不偏移、不走樣。今天的中國，人民當家作主的內涵不斷豐富、渠道不斷拓寬、效能不斷提升，中國民主不斷向前推進。
樹立正確的民主觀，並一以貫之地堅持、發展與創新，是發展民主的首要，是實現民主的“總鑰匙”和“總開關”。真民主、好民主，要做到人民當家作主，人民不僅有選舉、投票的權利，也有廣泛參與的權利；不僅能表達自己的意願，也能有效實現；不僅推動國家發展，也共享發展成果。
（二）走符合國情的民主發展道路
民主是多樣的，實現民主的道路並非隻有一條。各國的曆史文化不同、現實國情不同，民主的形式選擇必然不同。照搬照抄其他國家的民主模式，必然導致水土不服、弊病叢生，甚至陷入政治動蕩、社會動亂、人民流離失所。
對中國這樣一個大國來說，選擇什麽樣的民主發展道路至關重要。中國注重吸收借鑒人類政治文明一切有益成果，但絕不照抄照搬別國民主模式；歡迎一切有益的建議和善意的批評，但絕不接受“教師爺”般頤指氣使的說教。堅持中國的民主按照中國的特點、中國的實際來設計和發展，堅定不移走符合國情的民主發展之路，是中國民主發展的一條基本經驗。
中國發展民主，始終立足人口多、基礎弱、底子薄的基本國情，正確把握民主與發展的關係，始終把發展作為第一要務，以民主促進國家發展、在國家發展基礎上推進民主，不離開發展空談民主；始終傳承5000年中華文明，注重從中華優秀傳統文化中汲取智慧和養分；始終準確把握中國所處的曆史階段，緊密結合經濟社會發展水平推進民主，積極穩妥、穩中求進，不好高騖遠，不急於求成，不犯顛覆性錯誤；始終堅持問題導向，不斷發現問題、善於解決問題，每解決一個問題就把民主建設向前推進一步，不斷推動民主製度體係更加成熟、更加定型。
世界上不存在完全相同的政治製度，也不存在適用於一切國家的政治製度模式。各國應根據自身特點選擇符合自身現代化發展的民主形態，學習借鑒而不是照抄照搬。適合的就是最好的。隻有紮根本國土壤、汲取充沛養分的民主，才能不斷發展完善，才最可靠也最管用。外部幹涉和所謂的“民主改造”貽害無窮。中國不尋求輸出中國的“民主模式”，也絕不接受任何外部勢力企圖改變中國的製度模式。中國堅定支持各國自主選擇本國的民主發展道路，反對外部勢力以“民主”為借口幹涉他國內政。
（三）推動國際關係民主化
民主在一國內體現為人民當家作主，在國家間則體現為國際關係民主化。一個國家的尊嚴應該得到尊重，主權、安全和發展利益不應受到侵犯。以自己的尺度評判他國，甚至通過顏色革命、使用武力迫使他國照搬自己的政治製度、民主模式，這是反民主的。
中國是民主的忠實追求者、積極推動者和模範實踐者，不但在本國積極發展人民民主，而且在國際上大力推動國際關係民主化。麵對世界百年未有之大變局，中國高舉和平、發展、合作、共贏的旗幟，提出構建人類命運共同體理念，推動建設相互尊重、公平正義、合作共贏的新型國際關係。麵對全球範圍內經濟、科技等領域競爭，中國不是把對方視為對手，而是視為夥伴；不是搞冷戰和對抗、控製和操縱，而是促進交流合作、實現互利共贏。中國積極發展全球夥伴關係，構建總體穩定、均衡發展的大國關係框架，按照親誠惠容理念和與鄰為善、以鄰為伴周邊外交方針深化同周邊國家關係，秉持正確義利觀和真實親誠理念加強同發展中國家團結合作。中國推動共建“一帶一路”走深走實，與其他國家加強交流合作、共享發展機遇，“一帶一路”成為廣受歡迎的國際公共產品。
當今世界，民主平等、公平正義遠未實現。少數國家漠視國際公理、踐踏國際準則、違背國際民意，公然侵犯他國主權，幹涉他國內政，動輒以大欺小、恃強淩弱，把“地球村”變成弱肉強食的原始叢林。麵對充滿挑戰的世界，各國應大力弘揚民主精神，不論大小、強弱、貧富，在國際關係中一律平等。大國要有大國的樣子，要以人類前途命運為要，對世界和平與發展擔負更大責任，而不是依仗實力搞唯我獨尊、霸淩霸道。世界的命運應由各國人民共同掌握，國際規則應由各國共同製定，全球事務應由各國共同治理，發展成果應由各國共同分享。
（四）加強文明交流互鑒
實現民主有多種方式，不可能千篇一律。人類民主事業的真正阻礙，不是民主模式的差異，而是對他國民主探索的傲慢、偏見和敵視，是把本國民主模式強加於人的“唯我獨尊”。人類政治文明的百花園之所以絢爛多彩，正是由於不同文明各有千秋。各國應堅持平等非歧視原則，相互尊重彼此的民主模式，既致力於本國探索，又加強交流互鑒；既各美其美，又美美與共，共同推動人類文明向前發展。
“一人一票”是民主的一種形式，但絕非民主的唯一和全部。長期以來，民主本義被少數國家異化歪曲，“一人一票”、政黨競爭等西方選舉製度被包裝成民主的唯一標準。少數國家把民主作為政治工具，以同我即對、非我即錯的霸權思維，以民主名義幹涉別國內政、侵犯別國主權、服務自身政治目的，打著民主旗號在世界上煽動對抗與分裂，加劇國際緊張局勢，成為世界亂源。人類文明要繼續向前邁進，各國要實現和平共處、共同發展，必須探索民主真諦，把民主擦亮。
政黨是現代國家治理中的重要主體，是推動人類社會進步的重要力量。在人類文明發展的曆史潮流中，各國政黨應本著對人類前途命運高度負責的態度，擔當起引領推動人類民主事業發展的責任，以民為本，開放包容，求同存異，相互尊重，更好實現本國民主發展，更好實現人民幸福。中國共產黨願繼續同各國政黨和政治組織一道，深化交流，加強互鑒，共同促進人類社會發展進步。
結束語
民主沒有最好，隻有更好。人類對民主的探索和實踐永無止境。
中國的民主發展取得了顯著成就，同時，與現代化建設的新要求、與人民對民主的新期待相比，中國的民主還需要不斷發展完善。在全麵建設社會主義現代化國家新征程上，中國共產黨將繼續高舉人民民主旗幟，始終堅持以人民為中心的發展思想，堅定不移推進全過程人民民主，在不斷推動人的全麵發展、全體人民共同富裕中實現民主新發展，讓民主之樹根深葉茂、永遠常青。
當今世界，正處於百年未有之大變局，既充滿機遇和希望，也充滿風險和挑戰。隻有尊重各國人民自主選擇的民主道路，堅持和平發展，維護公平正義，拓展民主自由，提升人民幸福，才能匯聚全人類文明發展的強大合力，共同邁向更加美好的明天。
文明因交流而多彩，文明因互鑒而豐富。中國人民願同世界各國人民一道，弘揚和平、發展、公平、正義、民主、自由的全人類共同價值，本著相互尊重、求同存異的精神，共同豐富發展人類政治文明，共同推動構建人類命運共同體。
（注①）八個民主黨派包括：中國國民黨革命委員會（簡稱“民革”）、中國民主同盟（簡稱“民盟”）、中國民主建國會（簡稱“民建”）、中國民主促進會（簡稱“民進”）、中國農工民主黨（簡稱“農工黨”）、中國致公黨（簡稱“致公黨”）、九三學社、台灣民主自治同盟（簡稱“台盟”）。
（注②）新中國成立前，在抗日根據地、解放區的廣大農村，中國共產黨開展了廣泛的民主選舉活動。當時，絕大多數農民是文盲，為了讓他們都能參加選舉，中國共產黨使用了很多有創意的辦法，其中最為人所傳頌的就是“豆選”，即用豆子代替選票，選民隻要把豆子投到代表自己想要選的候選人的碗裏就可以了，最終以碗中豆子的多少決定誰當選。當時，很多地方流傳著這樣的歌謠：“金豆豆，銀豆豆，豆豆不能隨便投；選好人，辦好事，投在好人碗裏頭。”
【我要糾錯】責任編輯：李萌

風蕭蕭_Frank

The Democracy Wars: State Council White Papers--[中國的 ...

Preamble

I. Whole-Process People’s Democracy Under CPC Leadership

II. A Sound Institutional Framework

3. The System of Multiparty Cooperation and Political Consultation Under CPC Leadership

Panel 1 Political Consultation

4. Broad Patriotic United Front

5. The System of Regional Ethnic Autonomy

6. The System of Community-Level Self-Governance

Panel 3 The Fengqiao Model

III. Concrete and Pragmatic Practices

1. Democratic Election

Panel 4 The World’s Largest Community-Level Elections

2. Democratic Consultation

3. Democratic Decision-Making

Panel 5 Collecting Opinions When Formulating the 14th Five-Year Plan

Panel 6 Legislative Information Offices

4. Democratic Management

Panel 7 Grassroots Self-Governance Organizations in Covid-19 Response

5. Democratic Oversight

Panel 8 People’s Supervisors

IV. Democracy That Works

1. Extensive Rights of the People

Panel 9 The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China

2. Expanding Democratic Participation

Panel 11 Ensuring the People’s Demands Are Answered

3. Efficient National Governance

4. Social Stability and Harmony

5. Effective Constraint and Supervision of the Exercise of Power

V. A New Model of Democracy

1. Exploring New Paths to Democracy

2. Following the Most Suitable Path to Democracy

3. Promoting Democracy in International Relations

4. Increasing Exchanges and Mutual Learning Between Civilizations

Conclusion

中國的民主

國務院白皮書 中國行之有的民主 美國民主狀況