Western Political Parties’ “People” Positioning and the Paradox of Their Practice

In recent years, Western party politics has encountered developmental difficulties, one of whose important causes is the disconnection between theory and practice. The function of political parties as intermediaries between the state and society has increasingly weakened, the split between political elites and ordinary people has grown ever more severe, and the conflict between their “people” positioning and the practice of “de-people-ization” has led some Western political parties into a deep crisis of representation.

近年来，西方政党政治遭遇发展困境，其重要原因之一，就是理念与实践脱节。政党作为国家与社会中介的功能愈益弱化，政治精英与普通民众之间的分裂愈益严重，其“人民”定位与“去人民化”实践的冲突，导致一些西方政党深陷代表性危机。

Expressions of the “People” in Western Political Party Discourse

西方政党话语中的“人民”表述

In today’s Western world, political parties are of every variety, with organizational forms differing in a thousand ways, political stances poles apart, and ideological viewpoints each distinct. If one seeks a commonality among these diverse parties, declarative expressions concerning the “people” can be said to be a shared feature. At present, apart from a very few parties, such as some communist parties that explicitly articulate their class character, nearly all Western political parties label themselves as “catch-all parties” or “people’s parties,” claiming to be representatives of the entire people, the nation, or all citizens, taking freedom, justice, solidarity and mutual assistance as their basic values, aiming to enhance the welfare of the broad masses and realize the interests of all or the overwhelming majority.

在当今西方世界，各类政党五花八门，组织形态千差万别、政治立场迥然相异、思想观点各有不同。如果要在各色政党中找出共同点的话，对于“人民”的宣示性表述可以说是一个具有共性的特征。目前，除极少数政党如部分共产党明确表达其阶级属性外，几乎所有西方政党都自我标榜为“全民党”“人民党”，声称自己是全体人民、国民或公民的代表者，以自由、公正、团结互助为基本价值理念，旨在增进普罗大众福祉，实现所有人或绝大多数人的利益。

Traditional mainstream Western parties, such as conservative parties, liberal parties, and Christian parties, all have their policy leanings and specific electoral bases. Yet, while stabilizing their core voter base, each party mostly actively displays a posture of being “open to all people of all strata and groups,” so as to absorb support more broadly across all social strata. For example, within the two major U.S. parties, the Democratic Party’s supporters come mainly from labor, people of color, ethnic minorities, etc., and its policies place greater emphasis on welfare and fairness, tending to defend the interests of the middle class; the Republican Party’s support base mainly includes big entrepreneurs, conservatives, white supremacists, etc., and its policy positions are heavily influenced by big capital. Yet in each party’s manifestly tendentious electoral platforms, to highlight their broad representativeness, words such as people, nation, citizens, everyone, and ordinary people are invariably repeated. For instance, opening the Democratic Party’s official website homepage, one sees the strikingly conspicuous declaration: “We are fighting for a better, fairer, and brighter future for every American”; while in the Republican Party’s 2016 campaign platform, “worker” appears 27 times, “citizen” 41 times, and the word “people” even appears as many as 110 times.

西方传统主流政党如保守主义政党、自由主义政党、基督教政党等，都有其政策偏向和特定的选民基础。但各政党在稳定其选民基本盘的前提下，大都积极展现“向所有阶层和群体的所有人”开放的姿态，以在社会各阶层中更广泛吸收支持力量。比如在美国两大党中，民主党的支持者主要来自劳工、有色人种、少数族裔等，在政策上更加强调福利和公平，倾向维护中产阶级利益；共和党的支持力量主要包括大企业家、保守派、白人至上论者等，政策主张受大资本影响较大。但在各党具有明显倾向性的选举纲领中，为凸显自己的广泛代表性，人民、国民、公民、所有人、普通民众等必是反复提及的词汇。比如，打开民主党官网首页，可以看到异常醒目的宣告即是“我们正在为每个美国人争取一个更美好、更公平、更光明的未来”；而在共和党2016年竞选纲领中，“工人”出现27次、“公民”出现41次，“人民”一词甚至出现了110次之多。

From traditional working-class parties to the modern transformation of “de-classification,” Western social democratic parties have undergone a process of development and change. European social democratic parties, established under the guidance of scientific socialist thought in the late 19th century, mainly conducted political activities around the working class, taking the liberation of the working class as their mission and the abolition of private ownership and the establishment of socialism as their ultimate goal. After World War II, to adapt to changes in social structure and the need to win more voters, social democratic parties abandoned their working-class party positioning and universally shaped a new image as a “people’s party” representing all social strata. Since the late 1980s, against the backdrop of accelerated globalization and growing doubts about the traditional social democratic economic and social model, social democratic parties successively launched reform waves of the “Third Way” and the “New Middle Way.” The core change in their social base was to break through the original voter base, expand the range of supporters, seek common ground while reserving differences with other political forces, and especially seek more supporters among the middle forces. To this day, the “people’s party” leaning toward protecting the interests of the middle and lower strata has remained the political spectrum positioning of Western social democratic parties. The 2018 Australian Labor Party national platform stated its mission as “removing barriers that prevent people from fully participating in economic and social life, so that everyone, regardless of their background, social class, or their parents’ wealth, can share in prosperity.” The British Labour Party’s 2019 election platform explicitly set its future goal as “building a fairer Britain that cares for everyone, shares wealth and power.”

从传统的工人阶级政党到实现“去阶级化”的现代转型，西方社会民主党经历了一个发展变化的过程。19世纪后期在科学社会主义思想指导下建立起来的欧洲社民党，主要围绕工人阶级进行政治活动，以解放工人阶级为使命，以消灭私有制和建立社会主义为最终目标。二战后，为适应社会结构变化以及争取更多选民的需要，社民党放弃工人党定位，普遍塑造了代表所有社会阶层的“人民党”的新形象。20世纪80年代末以来，在全球化加速发展以及传统社会民主主义经济社会模式受到质疑的背景下，社民党陆续开启“第三条道路”“新中间道路”改革浪潮，其在社会基础上的核心变化，就是要突破原来的选民基础，扩大支持者范围，与其他政治力量求同存异，尤其是在中间力量中寻求更多支持者。时至今日，偏向保护中下阶层利益的“人民党”一直是西方社民党的政治光谱定位。2018年澳大利亚工党全国纲领提出其使命是“消除阻碍人们全面参与经济和社会生活的障碍，不论其背景、社会阶级或父母的财富如何，每个人都能分享繁荣”。英国工党的2019年竞选纲领则明确其未来目标是“建设一个更加公平、关心所有人、分享财富和权力的英国”。

Western Green parties and ecological parties, which play the “ecological card,” likewise take safeguarding the broader interests of the “people” as their goal orientation. After putting forward policy positions such as “ecology first,” social justice, promoting sustainable economic development, and building a diverse, equal, and free society, each party’s platform often emphasizes that these propositions serve the interests of all people, everyone, aiming to “benefit everyone,” enable “everyone to develop freely,” and allow “all people to live a good life,” and so forth. The German Green Party’s 2020 draft new platform states that its “policies are directed at everyone,” “are not based on individual interests or the interests of minority groups, but combine different interests with a common vision for the future,” and are “committed to achieving common goals in a pluralistic society.”

主打“生态牌”的西方绿党、生态党，同样将维护更广泛的“人民”利益作为其目标指向。各党党纲在提出“生态优先”、社会正义、推动经济可持续发展、构建多元平等自由社会等政策立场之后，往往强调这些主张符合所有人、每个人利益，意在“造福于所有人”，使“每个人自由发展”“所有人能够过上美好生活”，等等。德国绿党2020年新党纲草案提出，其“政策将面向所有人”，“不是基于个人利益或少数群体利益，而是将不同利益与未来共同愿景结合起来”，“致力于在一个多元化的社会中实现共同目标”。

The “people” is even more the natural political label of Western populist parties. Since the 21st century, populist parties have risen in the West and continuously expanded their influence. Populist parties have complex compositions, and their policy propositions differ greatly, even being diametrically opposed, yet they share commonalities in the core concept of anti-establishment, anti-elite, and appealing to popular support to challenge traditional authority and political structures. Therefore, in the value logic of populist parties, the people/the masses are endowed with an extremely high status, becoming the starting point and落脚点 of all their radical rhetoric. For example, left-wing and right-wing and issue-based populist parties such as the Greek Coalition of the Radical Left, Spain’s Podemos, the French National Rally, the Austrian Freedom Party, and the Italian Five Star Movement all claim to be “spokespersons of the people,” exploiting issues that cause widespread public discontent, such as economic crisis, austerity policies, political corruption, and environmental degradation, to proclaim “the anger of the people,” and by proposing corresponding policy positions to respond to the people’s desire for change, attract public attention and identification. Some parties intertwine and superimpose populism with nationalist and xenophobic stances, putting forward some inflammatory and provocative slogans, such as “French first,” “Austrians first,” etc., thereby giving their people-oriented propositions an extremist coloring.

“人民”更是西方民粹主义政党天然的政治标签。21世纪以来，民粹主义政党在西方崛起并不断扩大影响。民粹主义政党构成复杂、政策主张差别很大甚至截然相反，但在反建制、反精英、诉诸民众支持挑战传统权威和政治结构的核心理念上却存在共通性。因此，在民粹主义政党的价值逻辑中，人民/大众被赋予极高地位，成为其一切激进言论的出发点和落脚点。比如，希腊激进左翼联盟、西班牙“我们能”党、法国国民阵线、奥地利自由党、意大利五星运动等左右翼和议题化的民粹政党，无不是以“人民的代言人”自称，利用引发民众普遍不满的问题，如经济危机、紧缩政策、政治腐败、环境恶化等宣扬“人民的愤怒”，通过提出相应政策主张回应人民变革愿望，吸引民众的目光和认同。有些政党将民粹主义与民族主义、排外主义立场交织叠加，提出了一些具有煽动性和鼓动力的口号，比如“法国人优先”“奥地利人优先”等，从而使其人民主张带上极端色彩。

The mutual contradiction between discursive positioning and practical reality has become an intractable paradox in Western party politics

话语定位与现实实践的相互矛盾，成为西方政党政治中一个难解的悖论

Observing and analyzing Western political parties, just as when we judge a person, we must not only listen to their words but also observe their deeds. From the long-term practice of Western party politics, the “people” are by no means a priority on the party policy agenda; the interests of big capital, represented by interest groups, and the party’s own interests are always placed above and before the interests of the people. Populist parties also cannot represent the people; their political mobilization is in essence a coercion and hijacking of the will of the masses. The declining Western party system is increasingly rigid and dysfunctional, and increasingly encounters public dissatisfaction and opposition. This practice of “de-people-ization” has turned the “people” discourse trumpeted by Western political parties into a “value symbol.” The mutual contradiction between discursive positioning and practical reality has become an intractable paradox in Western party politics.

观察和分析西方政党，如同我们判断一个人，不仅要察其言更要观其行。从西方政党政治的长期实践看，“人民”绝非政党政策清单上的优先项，以利益集团为代表的大资本利益以及本党利益永远高于、先于民众利益；民粹主义政党也并不能代表人民，其政治动员实质上是对大众意志的裹挟和绑架；走向衰败的西方政党制度日趋僵化和失灵，愈益遭遇民众不满和反对。这种“去人民化”实践，使西方政党高扬的“人民”话语变成了“价值符号”。话语定位与现实实践的相互矛盾成为西方政党政治中一个难解的悖论。

Capital interests are placed above the interests of the people. Theoretically, the essential attribute of any political party is its class character; all parties represent specific classes, strata, and social groups. Western competitive political parties are no exception. In the contemporary West, the mainstream political parties are bourgeois in nature, typically representing the interests of large capital in a particular sector or field. Although for the purpose of stabilizing governance they may make policy improvements and interest compromises to a certain extent and scope, their class character determines that the goal of safeguarding the primary and fundamental interests of capital cannot change. Capital interests have always been the core interests of mainstream Western political parties. In concrete practice, mainstream Western parties are habitually bound to large capital, especially interest groups. The two are interlinked in class character and also mutually need and support each other politically. Parties need interest groups to provide the financial support required for elections, while interest groups need to cultivate their own spokespersons to intervene in the political process and realize their own interests. This mutual relationship determines that after taking office, Western parties must inevitably repay the capital supporters behind them through various covert or clever means. In this process, when the interests of the people do not conflict with capital interests, the party will incidentally realize some of the people’s interests; but when the people’s interests conflict with the interests of capital and interest groups, the party will inevitably lean toward supporting capital interests. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic’s spread in the Western world, the reason governments hesitated over prevention and control decisions such as closing borders, locking down cities, and suspending work, thereby losing the best opportunity to effectively control the epidemic, was primarily that these measures beneficial to protecting people’s health and safety would have huge negative effects on economic development, thereby affecting the large capital interests behind the ruling parties. Behind the various decision-making delays, buck-passing, cover-ups, and rumor-mongering of Western governments during the pandemic, we can see that the immutable law of “capital first” has always dominated the behavior of mainstream Western parties.

资本利益高于民众利益。从理论上看，任何政党的本质属性是其阶级性，都是特定阶级、阶层和社会群体的代表者。西方竞争性政党同样也不例外。在当代西方，政坛主流政党都是资产阶级性质的政党，通常代表着某个部门或领域的大资本利益。尽管出于稳定统治的目的，可能做出一定程度和范围上的政策改良和利益妥协，但其阶级性决定了维护资本主要、根本利益的目标不可能改变。资本利益始终是西方主流政党的核心利益。从具体实践看，西方主流政党与大资本尤其是利益集团按惯性进行利益捆绑。二者在阶级性上相互勾连，在政治上也相互需要、相互支撑。政党需要利益集团提供竞选所需的财力支持，而利益集团也需要通过培植自己的代言人干预政治过程，实现自身利益。这种相互关系决定了西方政党执政后必然要通过各种或隐蔽或巧妙的方式回馈背后的资本支持者。在这一过程中，当民众利益与资本利益没有产生冲突时，政党会连带实现部分民众利益；但当民众利益与资本和利益集团利益出现矛盾时，政党必然偏向支持资本利益。新冠肺炎疫情在西方世界蔓延之初，各国政府面对关闭边境、封城、停工等防控决策之所以犹豫不决，丧失了有效控制疫情的最佳时机，其最主要原因就在于这些有利于保护人民健康安全的措施将会给经济发展带来巨大负作用，进而影响执政党背后的大资本利益。疫情期间，西方政府的各种决策迟缓、责任推脱、欲盖弥彰和制造谣言的背后，我们可以看到“资本至上”这个不变的法则始终主导着西方主流政党的行为方式。

Party interests transcend public interests. From the developmental logic of Western competitive democratic politics, the declarative expressions of various types of parties regarding the “people” are fundamentally based on the need for electoral competition. A vivid metaphor compares Western multiparty parliamentary democracy to a political market economy: in the economic market, stocks are sold, while in the political market, votes are peddled. To gain governing status, parties must win more votes in the political market; elections thus become the “baton” guiding party behavior. Western parties have gradually lost their intermediary function of representing and reflecting public opinion, degenerating into mere electoral tools. All their propositions and actions submit to electoral needs, currying favor with all classes, strata, and social groups, and making various unrealistic or even unfulfillable promises to win voters. Once in power, each party determines its policies and principles from the perspective of maximizing its own party’s interests and maintaining its own ideology and political stance, often setting aside national and public interests. The reason the simple public health issue of wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic triggered open confrontation between the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties is that the tangible mask had become a symbol of the two parties’ struggle for intangible political and ideological dominance. The starting point of the two parties’ dispute was not protecting people’s lives and health, but rather their respective political self-interests: maintaining the correctness of their own party’s values, denying the political legitimacy of their opponents, suppressing each other, and vying for voters. Similarly, at the critical moment when the epidemic was spreading, the Trump administration organized a rally of tens of thousands to campaign for the upcoming presidential election, while the federal government and state and municipal governments bickered and passed the buck out of partisan interests, disregarding the safety of the people and sacrificing the people’s interests for political gain. Regarding such chaos in American political society, Russian President Vladimir Putin pointed out in an interview that this is “a manifestation of the profound crisis within the United States, the fundamental reason being that the interests of the ruling party have already been placed above the interests of the entire society and the people.”

政党利益超越公众利益。从西方竞争性民主政治的发展逻辑看，各类型政党围绕“人民”的宣示性表述，根本上基于选举竞争的需要。一种形象的说法，是把西方多党议会民主制比喻为政治上的市场经济，经济市场上兜售的是股票，而政治市场上贩卖的是选票。为了获得执政地位，政党必须在政治市场上争得更多选票，选举因而成为主导政党行为的“指挥棒”，西方政党也日渐丧失了代表和反映民意的中介功能而沦为选举工具，一切主张和行动服从选举需要，向所有阶级、阶层和社会集团示好，为争夺选民提出各种不切实际甚至难以落实的承诺。而一旦上台执政，各党也是从本党利益最大化以及维护本党意识形态和政治立场出发确定方针政策，国家利益和公众利益往往被置之脑后。新冠肺炎疫情期间佩戴口罩这个原本单纯的公共卫生问题之所以引发美国民主、共和两党公开对峙，原因在于有形的口罩已成为两党争夺无形的政治和意识形态主导权的象征。两党争论的出发点不是保护民众生命和健康安全，而是为了各自的政治私利，维护本党的价值观正确，否定竞争对手的政治正当性，相互打压、争夺选民。同样，在疫情呈蔓延形势的关键时刻，特朗普政府组织万人集会为即将到来的总统大选拉票造势，以及联邦政府与各州、市政府之间出于党派利益相互龃龉、推诿扯皮，置民众安危于不顾，为了政治利益牺牲人民利益。对于美国政治社会的此类乱象，俄罗斯总统普京在接受采访时一针见血地指出，这是“美国国内深刻危机的表现，根本原因就在于执政党利益已经高于整个社会和人民的利益”。

Populism hijacks the will of the masses. The rise of populist parties in the West has its popular foundation; it is a concentrated reflection of a series of crises—such as trust, identity, and participation—brought about by social tearing caused by the intensification of issues like inequality, immigration, and security in Western societies in recent years. Populist parties, waving the banners of narrow nationalism, anti-immigration, and anti-globalization, vigorously promote “identity politics,” making a big issue of religious and cultural identity issues, and using public dissatisfaction with reality to shape their own political identity. In this sense, populist parties do not truly represent the people; rather, they hijack or kidnap the will of the general public by inflaming the irrational elements in public opinion. In concrete practice, after populist parties and politicians come to power, their narrow nationalist policies prioritizing their own country’s interests are forcibly implemented, not only threatening the stability of the world economy but even directly harming the interests of their own people. For example, U.S. populist politicians launched a “trade war” against China. On the surface, tariff increases seemed to expand domestic employment opportunities, but in reality, due to soaring production costs, increased economic instability, and the impact of related countermeasures, U.S. manufacturing employment and the international competitiveness of goods actually declined, ultimately harming the interests of the American people. At the same time, populist parties and politicians act against the tide of history, pursuing isolationism and protectionism, undermining the stability of the international political order with unilateralism, and replacing international cooperation with great-power competition. This not only negatively impacts the international order but also causes collateral harm to the interests of their own people. For instance, at the critical moment when the COVID-19 pandemic broke out and required global cooperation and joint efforts to fight it, the populist U.S. government not only failed to actively participate in international cooperation but also made moves that undermined global solidarity, such as withdrawing from the World Health Organization. As Western critics have pointed out, these actions “will not protect the lives or interests of the American people, but will make Americans sick and leave the United States isolated and helpless.”

民粹主义裹挟大众意志。民粹主义政党在西方兴起有其民意基础，是近年来西方社会不平等、移民、安全等问题加剧引发社会撕裂，以及由此带来的信任、认同、参与等一系列危机的集中反映。民粹主义政党打着狭隘的民族主义、反移民、反全球化旗号，极力推崇“身份政治”，围绕宗教、文化认同问题大做文章，借助民众对现实的不满来塑造自身的政治认同。从这个意义上说，民粹主义政党并不是真正代表人民，或者说只是通过激化民意中的非理性因素实现对普遍大众意志的裹挟或绑架。从具体实践看，在民粹主义政党和政客上台后，其带有狭隘民族主义色彩的本国利益优先政策被强制推行，不仅威胁世界经济发展稳定，甚至直接损害本国人民利益。如美国民粹主义政客发起对中国的“贸易战”，表面看来似乎因关税增加而使国内民众的就业机会扩大，但实际上由于生产成本激增、经济不稳定性加剧以及相关反制措施影响等，美国的制造业就业和商品的国际竞争力实际上反向下滑，最终使美国民众利益受损。与此同时，民粹主义政党和政客逆历史潮流而动，奉行孤立主义、保护主义，以单边主义冲击国际政治秩序稳定，以大国竞争取代国际合作，既对国际秩序产生消极影响，也对本国民众利益造成连带性危害。比如，在新冠肺炎疫情暴发，亟需世界各国通力合作、携手抗疫的关键时刻，美国民粹主义政府非但不积极参与国际合作行动，还做出了退出世卫组织等破坏全球团结的举动。正如西方批评人士所言，这些行为“不会保护美国人民的生命或利益，而是使美国人生病，使美国孤立无援”。

Party systems lose public trust. The party system, which reflects the true essence of Western democracy, has increasingly declined in recent years, becoming deeply entrenched in problems and frequent crises, and losing more and more public trust. The original design intention of the Western two-party and multiparty systems was to coordinate internal relations within the ruling group through party competition and to curb the abuse of power by a few through partisan checks and balances. However, this has led to lengthy decision-making, cumbersome procedures, and low efficiency. For example, in recent years, Western parties have repeatedly failed to reach agreement on important issues related to people’s livelihoods, such as education, immigration, fiscal policy, and healthcare reform, resulting in various decisions being debated without resolution and resolved without implementation. In the face of sudden public emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic, some Western governments have shown poor execution and extremely low efficiency, even being deemed “unable to fulfill the state’s most important duty of protecting citizens,” which has greatly affected the well-being of the people. In addition, the endogenous pathologies of Western party systems have become increasingly prominent. For instance, institutional arrangements such as “winner-takes-all” and setting parliamentary thresholds mean that the side obtaining a simple majority can secure seats, or some small parties are excluded, thereby preventing the will of part of the people from being expressed. The increasing rigidity and lack of flexibility in the system have also become important reasons for the public’s apathy toward party politics and for electoral participation rates continuously hitting new lows.

政党制度失去民众信任。作为反映西方民主真谛的政党制度，近年来日益走向衰败，积重难返、危机频现，越来越丧失民众信任。西方两党、多党制的设计初衷，是通过政党竞争来协调统治集团内部关系，以党派制衡来遏制少数人滥用权力，但由此衍生的决策冗长、程序繁琐、效率低下，如近年来屡屡爆出的西方政党在教育、移民、财政和医疗改革等关系民生的重要问题上难以达成一致，导致各种决策议而不决、决而不行。在新冠肺炎疫情这种突发紧急性公共灾难面前，一些西方政府执行力差、效率极低，甚至被认为“已经无法承担国家最重要的保护公民职责”等问题，都极大影响了民众的福祉。此外，西方政党制度的内源性弊病也日益凸显，如“赢者通吃”以及设置议会门槛等制度安排，造成获得简单多数的一方即能获得席位，或者一些政坛小党被排斥在外，从而使部分人民的意志无法获得表达。制度上日趋僵化、缺乏灵活性，也成为西方民众对政党政治冷漠，选举参与率不断刷新底线的重要原因。

In summary, the serious disconnect between parties and the people, resulting in insufficient party representation, not only weakens the legitimacy of Western party systems but, in the long run, also shakes the foundations of the liberal democratic system. Therefore, over the years, Western parties have continuously prescribed various remedies to increase the party’s “flexibility” and strengthen the connection between the party and the people. However, due to their class nature, these efforts have difficulty achieving their intended goals, and the paradox of Western party politics remains unresolved.

总之，由于政党与民众之间严重脱节造成政党代表性不足，不仅削弱了西方政党制度的合法性，长远看也在动摇着自由民主制度的根基。因此，多年来西方政党不断开出各种药方提高党的“灵活性”，以加强政党与人民的联系，但种种努力因为其阶级本质而难以达到预期目的，西方政党政治的悖论始终无法得到解决。

Taking the political practice of Western political parties as a mirror, our adherence today to the people-centered development thinking requires not only fully demonstrating the “what it is” and “why it is” questions, but also deeply considering the “what to do” and “how to do” questions. Only by concretely implementing understanding into action and running it through all the Party’s work can we truly interpret the ruling essence of the Chinese Communist Party’s “people first.” This is a key issue and a crucial issue in fulfilling the Party’s original aspiration and founding mission in the New Era.

鉴戒西方政党政治实践，我们今天坚持“以人民为中心”的发展思想，不仅要充分论证“是什么”和“为什么”的问题，更需要深入思考“做什么”和“怎么做”的问题。只有把认识切实落实到行动上，并贯穿到党的全部工作中，才能真正诠释中国共产党“人民至上”的执政底色。这是新时代履践党的初心和使命的重点问题也是关键问题。

Yu Haiqing, Deputy Director and Researcher of the Department of Foreign Studies, Institute of Marxism, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

于海青，中国社会科学院马克思主义研究院国外部副主任、研究员

Online Editor: Xinran

网络编辑：欣然