On the Unique View of Democracy Implied in Chinese-Path Modernization

General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in his important speech at the opening ceremony of the seminar on studying and implementing the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the CPC: “Chinese-path modernization implies a unique view of the world, of values, of history, of civilization, of democracy, and of ecology, and its great practice constitutes a major innovation in the theory and practice of world modernization.” Lenin believed that “in one form or another of democracy…each nation will have its own characteristics.” Empirical research shows that the view of democracy in East Asia has its unique features, that in the Confucian cultural sphere has its unique features, and that in China also has its unique features. The unique view of democracy implied in Chinese-path modernization is a series of theories, viewpoints, and perspectives on democracy formed by the Communist Party of China in the process of exploring the path of Chinese-path modernization. It is grounded in the practice of democratic development in the course of world modernization and the vision of human political civilization. It adheres to the general principles of democracy in the process of modernization, yet differs from the view of democracy in classical modernization theory. At the levels of the ontology, epistemology, and methodology of democracy, it inherits, enriches, and develops the Marxist view of democracy. It is a profound summary and elucidation of the laws governing Chinese-path modernization and socialist democratic construction, concentratedly expressed in the theory of whole-process people’s democracy, embodying its uniqueness, comprehensiveness, and progressiveness. Currently, the academic community has conducted interdisciplinary and multi-dimensional in-depth research on Chinese-path modernization, providing thorough explanations of the theory of whole-process people’s democracy from perspectives such as value, system, practice, and discourse, and exploring the view of democracy implied in Chinese-path modernization. Some scholars have also deeply analyzed the epistemological function, ontology, epistemology, and methodology of whole-process people’s democracy. Overall, research on the view of democracy from the perspective of Chinese-path modernization is still insufficiently systematic and in-depth. There are few studies that clearly explain the uniqueness of the view of democracy in Chinese-path modernization at the philosophical height of worldview and methodology. This provides space for us to explore this topic from the levels of democratic ontology, democratic epistemology, and democratic methodology.

习近平总书记在学习贯彻党的二十大精神研讨班开班式上的重要讲话中指出：“中国式现代化蕴含的独特世界观、价值观、历史观、文明观、民主观、生态观等及其伟大实践，是对世界现代化理论和实践的重大创新。”列宁认为，“在民主的这种或那种形式上……每个民族都会有自己的特点”。实证研究表明，东亚的民主观有其独特之处，儒家文化圈的民主观有其独特之处，中国的民主观也有其独特之处。中国式现代化蕴含的独特民主观，是中国共产党在探索中国式现代化道路过程中形成的一系列关于民主的理论、观点和看法，立足于世界现代化进程中民主发展实践与人类政治文明视野，既坚持了现代化进程中有关民主的一般原则，又有别于经典现代化理论中的民主观，在民主的本体论、认识论和方法论的层面继承、丰富和发展了马克思主义民主观，是对中国式现代化与社会主义民主建设规律的深刻总结与阐发，集中表达为全过程人民民主理论，体现其独特性、全面性与进步性。当前学界对中国式现代化进行了跨学科与多维度的深入研究，从价值、制度、实践、话语等视角对全过程人民民主理论进行了深入阐释，就中国式现代化蕴含的民主观进行了相关探索。还有学者对全过程人民民主的认识论功能、本体论、认识论和方法论进行了深入剖析。总体来看，立足于中国式现代化视野的民主观研究还不够系统和深入，在世界观和方法论的哲学高度阐释清楚中国式现代化民主观的独特性的研究不多，这为我们从民主本体论、民主认识论和民主方法论等层面研究该论题提供了探索空间。

I. Democratic Ontology: Adherence to the Restoration and Practice of the Essence of Democracy in the Process of Chinese-Path Modernization

一、民主本体论：中国式现代化进程中坚持对民主本质的复归与践行

Ontology is a philosophical concept, whose original meaning is to inquire into the origin and essence of the world, that is, the most important and core issues constituting the world. Democratic ontology answers the question of what democracy actually is. Marx pointed out, “It must have a certain meaning, otherwise it cannot exist. Therefore the whole problem lies in determining the true meaning of democracy.” From the perspective of ontology, democratic ontology inquires into the subjects who enjoy democracy, the objects it serves, and the goals it aims to achieve. The essence of democracy is that the people are the masters of the country, and its ultimate value lies in realizing and safeguarding the fundamental interests of the people. How is the people being the masters of the country to be embodied? Generally speaking, there are two relatively typical lines of thought. One emphasizes the people being the masters of the country in form and procedure. This view of democracy stresses representative systems and competitive elections, forming a Western-style exclusive—rent-seeking procedural view of democracy, and identifies this form as the “end of history” with “no alternative,” establishing “democratic monism” and universalism in the process of modernization. The other emphasizes the people being the masters of the country in content and substance. Whole-process people’s democracy, formed in the process of Chinese-path modernization, emphasizes the principal position of the people in democratic politics, redefining the essence of democracy at the ontological level as the people’s all-round participation in fields such as politics, economy, and culture. This theoretical innovation both breaks through the abstract concept of rights in Western representative democracy and transcends the monarch-subject dual structure of traditional people-oriented thought, forming a Chinese-style inclusive—developmental substantive view of democracy. The reconstruction of democratic ontology by Chinese-path modernization is essentially a paradigm innovation in the form of human political civilization. This innovation philosophically breaks through the individualist ontology of Western democracy, establishing a dialectical view of democracy that unifies the individual and the collective, freedom and order, and form and substance. The substantive view of democracy established by Chinese-path modernization realizes the mutual promotion and common progress of democratic development and modernization construction, achieving the practice and restoration of the essence of democracy.

本体论属于哲学概念，其本意是探究世界的本原与本质，即构成世界最为重要、最为核心的问题。民主本体论解答的是民主到底是什么这一问题。马克思指出，“它必须具备一定的意义，否则它就不能存在。因此全部问题就在于确定民主的真正意义。”从本体论的角度来看，民主本体论追问的是民主的享有主体、服务对象以及要达成的目标等问题。民主的实质就是人民当家作主，其终极价值在于实现和维护人民的根本利益。人民当家作主要如何体现呢？一般来说，有两种较为典型的思路。一种侧重于形式和程序上的人民当家作主。这种民主观强调代议制和竞争性选举，形成了西方式排斥性—分利型的程序民主观，并且将这种形式认定为“别无选择”的“历史终结”，确立了现代化进程中的“民主一元论”和普世论。另一种侧重于内容和实质上的人民当家作主。中国式现代化进程中形成的全过程人民民主，强调人民在民主政治中的主体地位，从本体论层面重新定义民主的本质是人民对政治、经济、文化等领域的全方位参与，这种理论创新既突破了西方代议制民主的抽象权利观，又超越了传统民本思想的君民二元结构，形成了中国式包容性—发展型的实质民主观。中国式现代化对民主本体论的重构，本质上是对人类政治文明形态的范式创新，这种创新在哲学层面突破了西方民主的个体主义本体论，建立了个体与集体、自由与秩序、形式与实质相统一的辩证民主观。中国式现代化确立的实质民主观，实现民主发展和现代化建设的互促共进，实现对民主本质的践行与复归。

(I) Constructing a Democratic Ontology with the People as the Subject of Value, the Subject of Power, and the Subject of Practice

（一）建构了以人民为价值主体、权力主体和实践主体的民主本体论

The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC points out: “People’s democracy is the lifeblood of socialism and an essential requirement for building a modern socialist country in all respects.” The construction of democratic ontology by the view of democracy in Chinese-path modernization is rooted in Marxist historical materialism, inherits and develops the Marxist view of democracy, and achieves a creative integration and innovative development with the traditional political wisdom of Chinese civilization.

党的二十大报告指出：“人民民主是社会主义的生命，是全面建设社会主义现代化国家的应有之义。”中国式现代化的民主观对民主本体论的建构，根植于马克思主义唯物史观，是对马克思主义民主观的继承与发展，并实现与中华文明传统政治智慧的创造性结合与创新性发展。

Marxism emphasizes that the people are the creators of history, and the essence of democracy is “the people being masters of their own affairs.” The view of democracy inherent in Chinese-path modernization inherits and develops this ontological cognition, establishing the ultimate position of the people as the subject of power, the subject of practice, and the subject of value, shifting democracy from the contract theory of rights transfer in Western political philosophy to a practical ontology. Marxism holds that the subject of democracy should be the broad masses of the people, emphasizing that the people are the masters of the country and that all power in the country belongs to the people. In *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, Marx clearly states that the subject of democracy should be the people: “In democracy, the constitution itself appears only as one determination, and indeed as the self-determination of the people. In monarchy, we have the constitution of the people; in democracy, we have the constitution of the people.” He argues that “it is not the constitution that creates the people, but the people who create the constitution,” and that “in democracy, the constitution, the laws, the state itself, insofar as it is a political constitution, are only the self-determination of the people and a specific content of the people.” In capitalist society, the essence of democracy is bourgeois democracy. To truly realize the people being the masters of the country, the proletariat must establish its own democratic rule and create a new state system. This state system must be able to truly express the will of the people, realize the sovereignty of the people, and ensure that the people are both the source of power and the subject of governance. The view of democracy in Chinese-path modernization inherits the Marxist democratic ontology regarding the principal position of the people, establishes the collective political subject concept of “the people,” acknowledges that the people are the true creators of history, emphasizes that the broad masses of the people are the true subjects of democracy, that democracy serves the broad masses of the people, and strives to ensure that the masses of the people can exercise their abilities fairly and freely, sublimating democracy from a “rule of the power game” to the people’s self-governance, self-improvement, and self-perfection. General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed that “developing socialist democratic politics means embodying the will of the people, safeguarding the rights and interests of the people, and stimulating the creative vitality of the people,” fully respecting the subjectivity of the people, respecting the pioneering spirit of the masses, releasing the initiative, enthusiasm, and creativity of the people, and providing powerful impetus for the construction of Chinese-path modernization.

马克思主义强调人民是历史的创造者，民主的本质是“人民自己当家作主”，中国式现代化内蕴的民主观继承并发展了这一本体论认知，确立人民作为权力主体、实践主体与价值主体的终极地位，将民主从西方政治哲学的权利让渡契约论转向实践本体论。马克思主义认为，民主的主体应该是广大人民群众，强调人民是国家的主人，国家的一切权力属于人民。在《黑格尔法哲学批判》中，马克思明确指出，民主制的主体应该是人民，“在民主制中，国家制度本身只表现为一种规定，即人民的自我规定。在君主制中是国家制度的人民；在民主制中则是人民的国家制度”，认为“不是国家制度创造人民，而是人民创造国家制度”，“民主制中，国家制度、法律、国家本身，就国家是政治制度来说，都只是人民的自我规定和人民的特定内容。”在资本主义社会中，民主的实质是资产阶级的民主，真正实现人民当家作主，无产阶级必须建立自己的民主统治，建立一种新的国家制度，这种国家制度要能真正表现人民的意志，实现人民的主权，确保人民既是权力来源又是治理主体。中国式现代化的民主观继承了马克思主义关于人民主体地位的民主本体论，建立“人民”这一集体政治主体概念，承认人民才是历史的真正创造者，强调广大人民群众是民主的真正主体，民主是为广大人民服务的，尽力保证人民群众能公平自由地施展他们的能力，将民主从“权力游戏规则”升华为人民的自我治理、自我提升与自我完善。习近平总书记提出，“发展社会主义民主政治就是要体现人民意志、保障人民权益、激发人民创造活力”，充分尊重人民的主体性，尊重人民群众的首创精神，释放了人民的主动性、积极性和创造性，为中国式现代化建设提供强大的动力。

The fine traditional Chinese culture contains rich political wisdom of people-oriented governance, such as “the people are the foundation of the state” and “Heaven hears as the people hear, Heaven sees as the people see” in the *Book of Documents*, “the world is shared by all” in the *Book of Rites: The Conveyance of Rites*, and “the people are the most important, the state is secondary, and the sovereign is the least important” and “there is a way to gain the world: gain the people, and thus gain the world” in the *Mencius*. Propositions in the fine traditional Chinese culture such as “for the people,” “trust the people,” “love the people,” and “nurture the people” still offer inspiration for the development of modern democratic politics. Although traditional people-oriented thought contains value concepts such as “the people are the foundation of the state” and “the people are more important than the sovereign,” its ontological logic still takes “the Mandate of Heaven and the sovereign” as the ultimate authority, with the people in a subordinate position. Whether it is the indirect authorization of “Heaven hears as the people hear” in the *Book of Documents* or the moral obligation of “benevolent governance and love for the people” in Confucianism, in essence, both treat the “people” as an instrumental carrier of the legitimacy of rule, with their well-being dependent on the ethical consciousness of the sovereign, lacking institutionalized power guarantees. The democratic view of Chinese-path modernization inherits the traditional value core of “taking the people as the foundation.” Through the transformation and integration of Marxist philosophy and modern political civilization, it eliminates the passive, subordinate, and instrumental status of the people in traditional people-oriented thought, achieving a paradigm shift from “instrumental people-orientation” to “subjective democracy,” and reconstructing a new political philosophical paradigm centered on “people’s subjectivity.” This integration and transformation not only maintains the socialist political attribute of democracy but also endows it with the unique ethical value dimension of Chinese civilization, constructing a foundation of legitimacy with civilizational continuity at the philosophical level. The democratic view of Chinese-path modernization takes Marxist historical materialism as its theoretical foundation, reconstructs the political ontology through the “theory of people’s subjectivity,” and establishes the fundamental status of the people as the creators of history and the owners of power. This breakthrough is manifested in three dimensions: First, at the ontological level, it overturns the traditional power structure. With the assertion that “the country is the people, and the people are the country,” it elevates the people from political objects to subjects of power, constructing a whole-process people’s democracy system in the political sphere. It establishes the principle that “all power in the country belongs to the people” through the Constitution, transforming “people’s subjectivity” into the legal procedure of “the people exercising state power,” and realizing the practical transformation of people’s sovereignty through the whole-process people’s democracy system. In the economic sphere, it innovates the “three distributions” mechanism [4]4 The “three distributions” mechanism refers to the primary distribution by the market, redistribution by the government, and tertiary distribution through social charity and voluntary efforts, aimed at promoting common prosperity., achieving the material confirmation of subjectivity through the goal of “common prosperity.” In the cultural sphere, it activates the modern transformation of traditional people-oriented thought, sublimating the classical wisdom of “the people are the foundation of the state” into the development concept of “people-centered,” forming the historical continuity of the construction of subjectivity. Second, at the axiological level, it breaks through the ethical limitations of “instrumental people-orientation,” combining the group concern of “people-orientation” with the Marxist theory of democracy, constructing a modern democratic system that unifies rights and obligations. It guarantees citizens’ rights such as the right to vote, the right to participate, and the right to supervise through the rule of law, transforming democracy from the moral charity of rulers into an institutional path for the people’s self-realization. Third, at the practical level, it transcends the traditional “static harmony” governance model, reconstructing the political community with the dynamic governance philosophy of “co-construction, co-governance, and shared benefits.” It embeds “people-centered” into the entire process of policy formulation and implementation, surpassing the Western individual-based representative democracy paradigm through the institutional innovation of whole-process people’s democracy. It promotes the leap of the people-centered thought from an abstract ideal to concrete governance practice, elevating democracy from a “technology of power checks and balances” to a realization method of the “value of people’s subjectivity.”

中华优秀传统文化中蕴含着丰富的民本政治智慧，如《尚书》中“民惟邦本”“天听自我民听，天视自我民视”，《礼记·礼运》中的“天下为公”，《孟子》中的“民为贵，社稷次之，君为轻”“得天下有道：得其民，斯得天下矣”等等，中华优秀传统文化中的“为民”“信民”“爱民”“养民”等主张，亦对现代民主政治发展仍不乏启迪之意。传统民本思想虽蕴含“民惟邦本”“民贵君轻”等价值理念，但其本体论逻辑仍以“天命—君主”为终极权威，民众处于依附性地位。无论是《尚书》中“天听自我民听”的间接授权，还是儒家“仁政爱民”的道德义务，本质上都将“民”视为统治合法性的工具性载体，其福祉依赖于君主的伦理自觉，缺乏制度化权力保障。中国式现代化民主观继承了传统“以民为本”的价值内核，通过马克思主义哲学和现代政治文明的改造与融合，革除了传统民本思想中人民的消极被动和附属与工具地位，实现了从“工具性民本”到“主体性民主”的范式跃升，重构以“人民主体性”为核心的新型政治哲学范式。这种融合和改造既保持了社会主义民主的政治属性，又赋予其中华文明特有的伦理价值维度，在哲学层面构建了具有文明连续性的合法性基础。中国式现代化民主观则以马克思主义唯物史观为理论根基，通过“人民主体论”重构政治本体，确立人民作为历史创造者与权力所有者的根本地位。这一突破体现在三个维度：其一，在存在论层面颠覆传统权力结构，以“江山就是人民，人民就是江山”的论断将人民从政治客体升格为权力主体，在政治领域构建全过程人民民主制度体系，通过宪法确立“一切权力属于人民”原则，将“人民主体性”转化为“人民行使国家权力”的法定程序，并以全过程人民民主制度实现人民主权的实践转化；在经济领域创新“三次分配”机制，通过“共同富裕”目标实现主体性的物质确证；在文化领域激活传统民本思想的现代转化，将“民惟邦本”的古典智慧升华为“以人民为中心”的发展理念，形成主体性建构的历史连续性。其二，在价值论层面突破“工具性民本”的伦理局限，将“民本”的群体关怀与马克思主义的民主理论相结合，构建权利与义务统一的现代民主体系，通过法治保障选举权、参与权、监督权等公民权利，使民主从统治者的道德施惠转变为人民自我实现的制度路径。其三，在实践论层面超越传统“静态和谐”治理模式，以“共建共治共享”的动态治理哲学重构政治共同体，将“以人民为中心”嵌入政策制定与执行全过程，以全过程人民民主的制度创新超越了西方个体本位的代议制民主范式，推动以人民为中心的思想从抽象理想向具象治理实践的跃迁，将民主从“权力制衡技术”升华为“人民主体价值”的实现方式。

(II) Practicing a People-Centered, Results-Oriented View of Substantive Democracy

（二）践行以人民为中心的、以结果为导向的实质民主观

In the continuous struggle to realize Chinese-path modernization, the broad masses of the people are not only the main body of construction for this grand undertaking but also the main body bearing the fruits of Chinese-path modernization development. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out that “the ultimate goal of modernization is the free and comprehensive development of human beings,” and the essence of modernization is the modernization of people. The goals and planning of Chinese-path modernization embody the original aspiration and mission of the Chinese Communists and are a vivid manifestation of the Chinese Communists’ adherence to the people-centered development thought. Lenin proposed that “only from the time of the realization of socialism will all spheres of social and personal life begin to experience a rapid, genuine, truly mass, that is, involving the majority of the population and then the entire population, forward movement.” [5]5 V. I. Lenin, *The State and Revolution* (1917). Only socialism can ensure that democracy is not merely formal and procedural democracy, but is in fact and in essence “people-centered,” rather than centered on capital or the interests of other groups, guaranteeing the correct direction of “people-centeredness” in modernization and ensuring that the fruits of modernization are shared by the people. American scholar Carl Cohen once pointed out that the substance of democracy is far more important than its form, “we must remember that the existence or non-existence of democracy does not depend on any particular form of institution, but on the nature of the actual decision-making process.” [6]6 Carl Cohen, *Democracy* (1971).

在实现中国式现代化的接续奋斗历程中，广大人民群众不仅是这项宏伟事业的建设主体，更是共享中国式现代化发展成果的承载主体。习近平总书记指出，“现代化的最终目标是实现人自由而全面的发展”，现代化的本质是人的现代化，中国式现代化的奋斗目标和规划部署蕴含着中国共产党人的初心和使命，是中国共产党人坚持以人民为中心的发展思想的生动呈现。列宁提出，“只是从社会主义实现时起，社会生活和个人生活的各个领域才会开始出现迅速的、真正的、确实是群众性的即有大多数居民参加然后有全体居民参加的前进运动”。只有社会主义才能确保民主不仅仅是形式与程序上的民主，而是事实上和本质上的“以人民为中心”，而不是以资本或其他集团的利益为中心，保证现代化建设中“人民为中心”的正确方向，确保现代化成果为人民共享。美国学者科恩曾提出，民主的实质比它的形式要重要得多，“我们必须牢记民主的存在与否，不取决于任何形式的制度，而取决于实际决策过程的性质。”

The democratic view of Chinese-path modernization exhibits significant characteristics of substantive justice at the practical level, transforming ontological commitments into governance effectiveness, and achieving the dialectical unity of value orientation, institutional innovation, and governance effectiveness. The socialist economic system with Chinese characteristics is an economic system dominated by socialist public ownership, fundamentally changing the political logic of capital dominating state power in Western countries, and surpassing the dominance and control of capital over citizens’ democratic rights in Western countries. The socialist economic system with Chinese characteristics makes it possible to realize a people-centered, substantive democracy oriented towards the free and comprehensive development of human beings. In the process of Chinese-path modernization, the protection of people’s rights, the safeguarding of people’s fundamental interests, and the practice of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and towards common prosperity fundamentally benefit from the strong guarantee and material support of the socialist economic system with Chinese characteristics. The socialist political system with Chinese characteristics constructs a composite democratic structure of “electoral democracy and consultative democracy,” and through the organizational principle and system of “democratic centralism,” establishes highly responsible and responsive people’s governments at all levels, continuously responding to the people’s needs and expectations for a better life. Through the system of people’s congresses, consultative democratic systems such as political consultation under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the system of self-governance by urban and rural residents, and the system of regional ethnic autonomy, the people participate in and manage state affairs at all levels in the process of modernization. Through people’s democracy, it organically unifies the socialist modernization strategic goals that reflect and express the fundamental and long-term interests of the people with the current and partial interests of the people. For example, the “targeted poverty alleviation” policy determines the targets of assistance through democratic procedures such as grassroots democratic consultation, village meetings, and the “four discussions and two disclosures” [7]7 “Four discussions and two disclosures” is a village-level democratic decision-making procedure in China: proposals discussed by the Party branch, then by village cadres, then by Party members, and finally by villagers’ representatives; the resolution and implementation results are disclosed to the public., fully mobilizing the enthusiasm of the masses for participation, making the masses truly the main body in the process of poverty alleviation, and embodying the principle of the people being the masters of the country. Another example is the democratic participation form of “open-door planning,” which gathers the rationality and wisdom of the people, prompts the people to consider the long-term interests of the country, overcomes short-sighted populist phenomena, and steadily and solidly promotes modernization construction step by step. Through the above institutional arrangements, the democratic view of Chinese-path modernization practices the value pursuit of substantive democracy, achieving a paradigm breakthrough from “formal justice” to “substantive justice.” It overcomes both the “capital-first trap” of insufficient Western democracy, directly targeting the substantive goals of the people’s interests, and the “populist trap” of democratic excess. It avoids the crisis of idle operation in Western democracy while achieving the unity of scientific decision-making and representativeness of public opinion. This people-centered, results-and-effectiveness-oriented democratic model not only provides a path reference for developing countries but also proves the possible form of “democratic authenticity” at the philosophical level, becoming an important milestone in the evolution of human political civilization. At the level of global political civilization, it provides a governance plan centered on “people’s character,” demonstrating the philosophical wisdom of the dialectical unity of Chinese civilization’s tradition and modernity.

中国式现代化的民主观在实践层面展现出显著的实质正义特征，将本体论承诺转化为治理效能，实现价值导向、制度创新与治理效能的辩证统一。中国特色社会主义经济制度是以社会主义公有制为主导的经济制度，根本上改变了西方国家资本支配国家权力的政治运行逻辑，超越了西方国家资本对公民民主权利的主导与宰制。中国特色社会主义经济制度为以人民为中心、以人的自由全面发展为指向的实质民主的实现成为可能，中国式现代化进程中对人民权利的保障、对人民根本利益的维护、使亿万人民摆脱贫困奔向共同富裕的实践，从根本上来说得益于中国特色社会主义经济制度的坚强保障和物质支撑。中国特色社会主义政治制度构建了“选举民主-协商民主”的复合民主结构，并通过“民主集中制”的组织原则和制度建立了高度负责型和回应型的各级人民政府，不断回应人民需要以及对美好生活的期待；通过人民代表大会制度、中国共产党领导的政治协商等协商民主制度、城乡居民自治制度、民族区域自治制度等，人民参与和管理现代化进程中的国家各级事务；通过人民民主将反映和表达人民群众根本利益、长远利益的社会主义现代化战略目标与人民群众的当前利益、局部利益的有机地统一起来。如“精准扶贫”政策通过基层民主协商、村民大会、“四议两公开”等民主程序确定帮扶对象，充分调动群众参与的积极性，使群众在扶贫过程中真正成为主体，体现了人民当家作主的原则。再如“开门编规划”的民主参与形式，汇聚民众理性与智慧，促使民众思考国家长远利益，克服短视民粹现象，切实一步一个脚印、稳扎稳打地推动现代化建设。通过上述制度安排，中国式现代化民主观践行了实质民主的价值追求，实现从“形式正义”到“实质正义”的范式突破，既克服了西方民主不足的“资本至上陷阱”，直接指向人民利益的实质目标，又克服了民主泛滥的“民粹主义陷阱”，既避免了西方民主的空转危机，又实现了决策科学性与民意代表性的统一。这种以人民为中心、以结果效能为导向的民主模式，不仅为发展中国家提供了路径参考，更在哲学层面证明了“民主真实性”的可能形态，成为人类政治文明演进的重要里程碑。在全球政治文明层面提供了以“人民性”为核心的治理方案，彰显了中华文明传统与现代性辩证统一的哲学智慧。

II. Democratic Epistemology: Obtaining Regular Understanding of Democratic Construction from the Practice of Chinese-Path Modernization

二、民主认识论：从中国式现代化实践中获得对民主建设的规律性认识

The understanding of the laws of democratic construction and development in the process of Chinese-path modernization is based on the cognitive foundation of historical materialism, regarding democracy as a product of the interaction between social existence and social consciousness, rather than an abstract theoretical framework. The laws and logic of democratic development all originate from practice and are tested by practice. For example, the “Fengqiao Experience”[8]8 The Fengqiao Experience (枫桥经验) originated in Fengqiao Town, Zhejiang Province, in the early 1960s. It is a grassroots governance model promoted by the CPC that emphasizes mobilizing and relying on the masses to resolve conflicts and maintain social stability at the local level, rather than relying solely on higher-level state organs. extracts the democratic governance logic of “relying on the masses to resolve contradictions on the spot” from grassroots governance practice. The viewpoint of practice is a fundamental viewpoint of Marxism. Practice is not only an important category of Marxist philosophy but also the theoretical foundation and methodological basis of Marxism. Only by understanding democratic issues in the process of modernization based on practice can we obtain regular and truthful knowledge about democracy, break free from the “rigid theorems” written by Western scholars in academic works or textbooks, and form a unique view of democracy based on national conditions, the socialist economic base, and the nation’s own circumstances. The unique view of democracy embedded in Chinese-path modernization is not a subjective fantasy of the Communist Party of China or the Chinese people, but a summary of the laws and correct views on socialist democratic construction formed by the CPC leading the Chinese people in the practical exploration of modernization. It is deeply rooted in Marxist epistemology based on historical materialism, transcends the metaphysical limitations of Western democratic theory, and breaks the historical idealist democratic epistemology of the “end of history”[9]9 “End of history” (历史终结论) refers to the thesis popularized by American political scientist Francis Fukuyama in 1989, arguing that the end of the Cold War signaled the universal triumph of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. The text criticizes this as a form of historical idealist epistemology..

中国式现代化进程中对民主建设与发展规律的认识是基于唯物史观的认知基点，将民主视为社会存在与社会意识互动的产物，而不是抽象的理论框架，民主发展的规律与逻辑均来自于实践并受实践检验，如“枫桥经验”从基层治理实践中提炼出“依靠群众就地化解矛盾”的民主治理逻辑。实践的观点是马克思主义的基本观点，实践不仅仅是马克思主义哲学的重要范畴，也是马克思主义的理论基础和方法论依据，基于实践来认识现代化进程中的民主问题，才能获得关于民主的规律性和真理性认识，才能跳出西方学者写在学术著作或教材课本上的“刻板定理”，形成基于民族和国情、基于社会主义经济基础的独特的民主观。中国式现代化蕴含的独特民主观，不是中国共产党或中国人民的主观臆想，是中国共产党领导中国人民在现代化的实践探索中形成的关于社会主义民主建设的规律性总结和正确观点，深深扎根于以唯物史观为基础的马克思主义的认识论，突破西方民主理论的形而上学局限，打破“民主终结论”的历史唯心主义民主认识论。

(I) Dissolving the Discourse Hegemony of Dependent Development with Civilizational Subjectivity, Establishing an Autonomous Evolutionary Path of Democratic Growth

（一）以文明主体性消解依附性发展的话语霸权，确立自主演进的民主成长路径

The development of democratic politics in the process of Chinese-path modernization breaks through the cognitive framework of Western-centrism and establishes a democratic epistemology of autonomous evolution and practical testing. Healthy democracy in the process of modernization generally has endogenous growth laws, manifested as the exploration of a democratic path with subjectivity and autonomy, a gradually perfected process of institutional construction and development, and a democratic system with its own characteristics and practicality. Democracy is an institutional arrangement for power restriction and rights protection based on a country’s national conditions, politics, history, cultural traditions, and class structure. Those democratic models that have been proven relatively successful are all democratic systems suitable for their own national conditions and carrying their own “cultural genes”; that is, they mainly “grow” from the cultural matrix of a country and belong to the “endogenous political modernization model.” “A nation with a great and long historical tradition, its excellent historical civilization should adapt to the new demands of the times and change; it must never be discarded or despised.”[10]10 This appears to be a paraphrase or quotation from a Chinese source discussing the relationship between historical tradition and modernization, emphasizing the need for adaptation rather than abandonment of tradition. Through the practice of modernization, we have realized that democracy cannot be simply transplanted; we must explore a path suitable for ourselves through our own practical development. After experiencing twists and turns in modernization and democratic construction, Deng Xiaoping repeatedly emphasized, “If China wants to achieve modernization, it absolutely cannot engage in liberalization, absolutely cannot take the Western capitalist road,” and “When we talk about democracy, we cannot copy bourgeois democracy, we cannot engage in the separation of three powers.”[11]11 These are paraphrases of statements made by Deng Xiaoping in the late 1980s, particularly in the context of opposing bourgeois liberalization and reaffirming China’s commitment to a socialist path distinct from Western political models like the separation of powers (三权鼎立). General Secretary Xi Jinping points out, “All nations that have successfully achieved development and rejuvenation have found a path suited to their own actual conditions.”[12]12 This is a paraphrase of a statement by Xi Jinping, often made in the context of discussing the paths of different nations, emphasizing that successful development requires finding a path suited to one’s own specific conditions. Those countries that have successfully achieved modernization, whether endogenous or exogenous, have all carried out major political reforms. Their political reforms and democratic construction have all involved path selection and institutional exploration based on their own national conditions, and all pay attention to following the endogenous factors of democratic growth. In the process of Chinese-path modernization, adhering to the subjectivity and autonomy of political development, we have successfully explored and established a “three-in-one” path of democratic political development that adapts to modernization construction: “the organic unity of Party leadership, the people being the masters of the country, and law-based governance.”

中国式现代化进程中的民主政治发展突破了西方中心主义的认知框架，确立自主演进和实践检验的民主认识论。现代化进程中健康的民主一般具有内生性的成长规律，体现为具有主体性与自主性的民主道路探索、逐渐完善的制度建构与发展过程、具有自身特色与现实性的民主制度。民主是一国民情、政治、历史、文化传统和阶级结构基础上的权力制约与权利保障的制度安排，那些已经被证明是比较成功的民主模式，都是适合自己国情、带着自身“文化基因”的民主制度，即主要从一国文化母体中“生长”出来的，都属于“内生型政治现代化模式”，“一个具有伟大的悠久历史传统的民族，它的优秀历史文明应适应时代的新需求而变化，绝不能遭到抛弃或鄙视。”我们在现代化的实践中认识到，民主不能靠简单移植，要在自己的实践发展中探索适合自己的道路。经历现代化和民主建设的曲折之后，邓小平多次强调“中国要搞现代化，绝不能搞自由化，绝不能走西方资本主义道路”，“我们讲民主，不能搬用资产阶级的民主，不能搞三权鼎立那一套。”习近平总书记指出，“一切成功发展振兴的民族，都是找到了适合自己实际的道路的民族”，那些成功实现现代化的国家，无论是内源型现代化还是外源型现代化国家，都进行了政治领域的重大变革，其政治改革和民主建设都进行了基于本国国情的道路选择和制度探索，都注重遵循民主成长的内生性因素。中国式现代化进程中，坚持政治发展的主体性与自主性，成功探索出确立适应现代化建设的“坚持党的领导、人民当家作主和依法治国的有机统一”的“三位一体”的民主政治发展道路。

The path of democratic development pioneered by Chinese-path modernization is neither a simple transplantation of Western democratic theory nor a mechanical continuation of traditional governance models. Instead, it breaks through the confines of dependency theory, activates the consciousness of subjectivity within civilizational genes, transforms civilizational subjectivity into the genetic code of institutional construction, and achieves the creative activation of traditional governance wisdom and the autonomous growth of institutional rationality in the process of modernization transformation. Through the modern decoding of civilizational genes, China has broken the linear evolutionary theory of democracy presupposed by Western modernization theory, which holds that “the democratic societies existing in the developed Western countries today are reliable models for the rest of the world.”[13]13 This is a paraphrase of a core assumption of modernization theory, often associated with scholars like Walt Rostow, which posits a linear path of development culminating in Western-style democracy. From the perspective of civilizational subjectivity, the governance concept of “the people are the foundation of the state”[14]14 “The people are the foundation of the state” (民惟邦本) is a classical Chinese political maxim from the “Book of Documents” (尚书), emphasizing the primacy of the people in governance. in fine traditional Chinese culture achieves value coupling with the system of people’s congresses; the traditional philosophical wisdom of “harmony in diversity”[15]15 “Harmony in diversity” (和而不同) is a Confucian concept from the “Analects” (论语), advocating for unity and harmony while respecting differences, which the text argues is the philosophical basis for China’s political consultation system. is transformed into the procedural design of the political consultation system. This institutional innovation neither simply returns to the tradition of rule by rites nor mechanically transplants representative democracy, but transforms the collective rationality within civilizational genes, such as the value consensus of “the world is for all”[16]16 “The world is for all” (天下为公) is a concept from the “Book of Rites” (礼记), describing an ideal society where public spirit prevails, which the text argues is transformed into a value consensus underlying modern governance., into the underlying logic of modern national governance. For example, during the formulation process of the 14th Five-Year Plan, through the composite mechanism of “public suggestions – expert argumentation – democratic consultation,” over one million citizen opinions were transformed into organic components of the national strategy. This policy formation mechanism transcends both the fragmented decision-making model of Western interest group lobbying and the development path dependence set by traditional dependency theory. At the methodological level, China has created a two-way movement mechanism of institutional evolution, constructed a compound democratic ecosystem with Chinese characteristics of “election + consultation,” transformed civilizational subjectivity into a practical tool for breaking the dependency dilemma, innovated the practical methods of democratic centralism and the CPC’s mass line, achieved coordinated progress between modernization and political stability, and resolved the “Huntington Paradox”[17]17 The “Huntington Paradox” refers to the argument made by Samuel P. Huntington in his 1968 book “Political Order in Changing Societies” that while modernity (a developed, stable society) brings stability, the process of modernization (rapid social and economic change) often leads to political instability and disorder, posing a particular challenge for late-developing countries. proposed by Samuel Huntington that “modernity produces stability, but modernization produces instability,” i.e., the institutional dilemma of late-developing countries. From the perspective of the democratic process, drawing lessons from domestic and international experience, China recognizes the gradual nature of the democratic process and does not engage in “shock therapy” or “a mountain peak flown in from elsewhere”[18]18 “A mountain peak flown in from elsewhere” (飞来峰) is a metaphor used by Xi in the political system. Modernization, as a holistic historical process, must pay attention to both the development of productive forces and the reactionary effect of the superstructure, and continuously carry out reforms and adjustments according to changes in the economic base and the development status of productive forces, promoting coordination and consistency between democratic construction and changes in the economic base and the modernization of productive forces. Democratic development has both long-term development strategies and phased objectives; it cannot be “accomplished in one single battle.”[19]19 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Work Related to People’s Congresses,” October 13, 2021. If the development of democracy exceeds its limits, it will turn into its opposite. Modernization without democracy is incomplete modernization and is also modernization that easily falls into a “trap”; democracy without modernization will also fall into poverty and chaos. The history of modernization shows that it is impossible to unilaterally promote the great development of productive forces without changing the relations of production and the superstructure, nor is it possible to unilaterally carry out a “Great Leap Forward”[20]20 The “eight can or cannot” (八个能否) refers to eight criteria for judging whether a political system is democratic, proposed by Xi Jinping in 2014; the “four musts and four musts even more” (四个要看、四个更要 in the superstructure. “One cannot imagine suddenly moving in a ‘mountain peak flown in from elsewhere’ in the political system.”[21]21 "Black Lives Matter" (BLM): a social movement originating in the United States that campaigns against violence and systemic racism toward Black people. The author's reference here is critical, arguing that it fails to address the underlying capitalist racialized structure of exploitation. Democracy cannot be set as an abstract premise, building the “high-rise buildings” of democratic politics directly without laying a solid “foundation,” engaging in a unilateral breakthrough in democratic political construction. Instead, changes and adjustments must be made according to the conditions of productive forces and the economic base, gradually perfecting the democratic system. The great achievements of Chinese-path modernization demonstrate the importance and superiority of the coordinated and parallel advancement of democratic political construction with the economic base and the modernization of productive forces.

中国式现代化开创的民主发展道路，既非对西方民主理论的简单移植，亦非传统治理模式的机械延续，而是突破依附性理论的窠臼，通过激活文明基因中的主体性意识，将文明主体性转化为制度建构的基因密码，在现代化转型中实现了传统治理智慧的创造性激活与制度理性的自主性生长。中国通过文明基因的现代解码，打破了西方现代化理论所预设的“现在存在于西方发达国家的民主社会是世界其余各国的可靠样板”的线性民主进化论。从文明主体性看，中华优秀传统文化中“民惟邦本”的治理理念与人民代表大会制度实现价值耦合，“和而不同”的传统哲学智慧转化为政治协商制度的程序设计，这种制度创新既非简单回归礼治传统，亦非机械移植代议制民主，而是将文明基因中的集体理性如“天下为公”的价值共识转化为现代国家治理的底层逻辑。如“十四五”规划编制过程中，通过“群众建言-专家论证-民主协商”的复合机制，使超过百万条公民意见转化为国家战略的有机组成，这种政策形成机制既超越了西方利益集团游说的碎片化决策模式，也突破了传统依附理论设定的发展路径依赖。从方法论层面看，中国创造了制度演进的双向运动机制，构建了具有中国特色的“选举+协商”的复合型民主生态系统，将文明主体性转化为破解依附困境的实践工具，创新民主集中制和中国共产党群众路线的实践方法，实现现代化与政治稳定的协调推进，破解了亨廷顿提出“现代性带来稳定，现代化引起动乱”的“亨廷顿悖论”，即后发国家制度化困境。从民主进程看，从国内外经验教训中认识到民主进程的渐进性，不搞政治制度上的“休克疗法”与“飞来峰”。现代化作为一个整体的历史进程，既要重视生产力的发展，同时，又要重视上层建筑的反作用，并根据经济基础变革和生产力发展状况不断进行改革调整，推动民主建设与经济基础变革和生产力现代化的协调一致。民主发展既有长远的发展战略，又有阶段性目标，不可能“毕其功于一役”，民主的发展超过了限度，则会走向反面。没有民主的现代化是不完整的现代化，也是容易走入“陷阱”的现代化；没有现代化的民主，也将落入贫困和混乱。现代化的历史表明，现代化进程中既无法在不变革生产关系和上层建筑的基础上片面推动生产力的大发展，也无法单方面搞上层建筑的“大跃进”，“不能想象突然就搬来一座政治制度上的‘飞来峰’”，不能把民主作为一个抽象的前提加以设定，在没有打好“地基”之前就直接建设民主政治的“高楼大厦”，搞民主政治建设的单向突围，而是要根据生产力和经济基础状况进行变革和调整，逐步完善民主制度。中国式现代化的巨大成就说明了民主政治建设与经济基础和生产力现代化协同推进、并行发展的重要性与优越性。

(II) Breaking Through the Western Single Cognitive Framework of “Competitive Elections” with the Three-Dimensional Evaluation Standard of Democracy as “the Most Extensive, Most Genuine, and Most Effective Form of Democracy”[22]22 V. I. Lenin, “The State and Revolution,” in *Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964), p. 461.

（二）以“最广泛、最真实、最管用”的民主三维评价标准，突破西方单一的“竞争性选举”认知框架

The view of democracy in Chinese-path modernization reconstructs the coordinate system for evaluating democratic politics, breaking through the mindset that reduces democracy to procedural technique and shifting toward a holistic grasp of the subjects, processes, and effectiveness of democratic practice. When the West simplifies electoral competition into the gold standard of democracy, China develops the people-centered stance of the Marxist party and the traditional Chinese concept of “minxin zhengzhi” (governance based on popular sentiment) into the value core of whole-process people’s democracy, and takes this as the standard for evaluating democracy. After World War II, Western academia created an academic discourse tradition of “scientization” and “indexation” of democracy, and “democracy = elections,” monopolizing the criteria for democratic evaluation. Whether competitive elections exist became the most important, even the sole, yardstick for judging whether a political system is democratic, while whether the people can truly be masters of the country became unimportant. In response, Western scholars have also criticized that defining democracy as electoral competition among elites, in the name of realism, “deprives democracy of all its ethical content.” [19]19 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Work Related to People’s Congresses,” October 13, 2021. The view of democracy in Chinese-path modernization adheres to the historical materialist standard of democratic evaluation, assessing democracy from facts rather than from definitions and

中国式现代化的民主观重构了民主政治的评价坐标系，突破将民主异化为程序技术的思维定式，转向对民主实践主体、过程与效能的整体性把握。当西方将选举竞争简化为民主的黄金标准时，中国将马克思主义政党的人民立场与中国“民心政治”的传统理念发展为全过程人民民主的价值内核，并以此作为民主评价的标准。二战后的西方学术界制造了民主“科学化”“指数化”“民主=选举”的学术话语传统，垄断了民主评价标准，有没有竞争性的选举成为他们评判一个政体是否民主的最重要甚至唯一标尺，至于人民是否真正能当家作主则显得不重要了。对此，西方学者也曾批评到把精英之间的选票竞争定义为民主，是以现实主义的名义“剥夺了民主的所有伦理内容”。中国式现代化的民主观坚持民主评价的唯物史观标准，从事实出发而不是从定义与理论出发评价民主与否。习近平总书记指出，我们的民主是“是最广泛、最真实、最管用的民主”，以客观实践和效果为基础的民主评价观，摒弃民主认知上的形而上学。

General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: “Whether a country is democratic or not hinges on whether the people are truly the masters of the country; we must see whether the people have the right to vote, and even more whether they have the right to participate extensively; we must see what promises were made to the people during the election process, and even more whether these promises were fulfilled after the election; we must see what political procedures and rules are stipulated by the system and laws, and even more whether these systems and laws are truly implemented; we must see whether the rules and procedures for the exercise of power are democratic, and even more whether power is truly subject to the supervision and restraint of the people.” [19]19 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Work Related to People’s Congresses,” October 13, 2021. This standard truly grounds the criteria for judging whether a political system is democratic in the realization and guarantee of the people’s rights, in the state governance structure and governance effects in the process of modernization, and in the efficacy of being “the broadest, most genuine, and most effective.” It breaks through the metaphysical thinking in Western political science that reverses theory and reality by starting from conceptual definitions and data models in evaluating democracy. Proceeding from the basic requirement of historical materialism—seeking truth from facts—it makes a scientific evaluation of whether a political system is democratic. The criterion for measuring whether a political system is democratic is no longer the existence of free, competitive multiparty elections. A survey based on the perceptions of democracy among citizens in 23 countries shows that the highest levels of agreement are with “the people can smoothly express their interests and demands” (91.4%), “democracy should focus on solving the people’s practical problems” (91.4%), and “state power should be effectively supervised by the people” (91.2%). Among these, developing countries have the highest level of agreement with “democracy should focus on solving the people’s practical problems” (92.4%), and globally, youth aged 18-35 have the highest level of agreement with the principle of “the people can smoothly express their interests and demands,” reaching 92.3%. The true essence of democracy does not lie in formal adversarial performance, but in whether it can form the broadest political consensus, construct the most genuine channels for participation, and achieve the most effective governance transformation. In fact, there are two traditions of democracy. One is the Western-style democratic tradition originating from ancient Greece and developed and flourishing in Britain and the United States—this is the well-known democracy. The second is the democratic tradition originating from Marxist state theory. This democratic tradition is closely integrated with the socialist movement in modern times, with the revolutionary process of colonial and semi-colonial countries pursuing democratic nation-building, and with the contemporary creative transformation and innovative development of traditional Chinese people-oriented thought. It strives to return to the essence of people’s democracy. The democracy contained in Chinese-path modernization is the inheritance and development of this second democratic tradition. This democratic tradition has been neglected by domestic and international academia under the hegemony of Western-style democratic discourse and democratic theory. Socialist democratic politics with Chinese characteristics has long been unable to receive adequate, effective, scientific, and rational academic expression, both domestically and internationally. To break free from the framing and cognitive blind spots of Western-style democratic standards, we must return to this second democratic tradition and construct an independent Chinese academic knowledge and discourse system for democratic politics. Our Party has put forward the “eight can or cannot,” “four musts and four musts even more,” and “six effective preventions,” [20]20 The “eight can or cannot” (八个能否) refers to eight criteria for judging whether a political system is democratic, proposed by Xi Jinping in 2014; the “four musts and four musts even more” (四个要看、四个更要 which are a transcendence of Western-style democratic traditions and standards and a model for constructing an independent Chinese knowledge system: evaluating whether a country is democratic proceeds from the facts and effects of the country’s system operation, from people’s actual feelings, from whether democratic efficacy serves the requirements of modernization, and from whether it can enable the people to live a good life as the ultimate goal. It returns to the essential function of democracy and meets the genuine needs of the people for a good life. It evaluates democracy from a functional perspective, not from a formal perspective. As some scholars have pointed out, systems that appear formally ‘democratic’ (such as regular elections and multiparty competition) may not necessarily operate in accordance with democratic principles. Today’s Western democracy is already “alienated democracy, castrated democracy, harmless democracy, and defunctionalized democracy.”

习近平总书记指出：“一个国家民主不民主，关键在于是不是真正做到了人民当家作主，要看人民有没有投票权，更要看人民有没有广泛参与权；要看人民在选举过程中得到了什么口头许诺，更要看选举后这些承诺实现了多少；要看制度和法律规定了什么样的政治程序和政治规则，更要看这些制度和法律是不是真正得到了执行；要看权力运行规则和程序是否民主，更要看权力是否真正受到人民监督和制约。”这一标准把政治制度民主与否的判定标准真正落实到人民权利的实现和保障上，落实到现代化进程中国国家治理结构和治理效果上，落实到“最广泛、最真实、最管用”的效能上，突破西方政治学关于民主评价中从概念定义和数据模型出发的理论与现实颠倒的形而上学思维，从实事求是这一唯物史观的基本要求出发，对政治制度民主与否进行的科学评价，衡量一个政治制度是否民主的标准就不再是存不存在自由的、竞争性的多党选举。一项基于23个国家民众对民主的认知调查显示，最认同“民众能够畅通表达利益诉求”（91.4%）、“民主应注重解决人民实际问题”（91.4%）、“国家权力应得到民众有效监督”（91.2%）等。其中，发展中国家对于“民主应注重解决人民实际问题”（92.4%）认同度最高，全球18-35岁青年对于“民众能够畅通表达利益诉求”原则的认同度最高，达到92.3%。民主的真谛不在于形式上的对抗性表演，而在于能否形成最广泛的政治共识、构建最真实的参与渠道、实现最有效的治理变革。实际上，民主的传统有两种，一种是源自古希腊，发展繁荣于英美的西式民主传统，这是众人所熟知的民主。第二种是源于马克思主义国家理论中的民主传统，这一民主传统与近代以来社会主义运动紧密结合、与殖民地半殖民地国家追求民主建国的革命历程结合、与中国传统民本思想在当代的创造性转化、创新性发展结合，力图回归到人民民主的本质。中国式现代化蕴含的民主就是对第二种民主传统的承接与发展。这一民主传统在西式民主话语和民主理论霸权之下被国内外学术界忽视，中国特色社会主义民主政治一直不能得到充分有效、科学理性的国内外学术表达。我们要打破西式民主标准的框定和思维盲区，就必须回到第二种民主传统中，构建中国自主的民主政治学术知识和学术话语体系。我们党提出“八个能否”、“四个要看、四个更要看”“六个切实防止”，是对西式民主传统和民主标准的超越，是构建中国自主知识体系的典范：评价一国民主与否，从一个国家的制度运行的事实与效果出发，从人们的实际感受出发，从民主效能是否服务于现代化建设的要求来评价，以是否能让人民过上好日子为旨归来评价，回归民主的本质功能，满足人民过上好日子的真正需求。从功能视角来评价民主，而不是从形式视角来评价民主。正如有学者指出，形式上看似‘民主’的体制（如有定期选举和多党竞争）运作起来也未必符合民主的原则，今天的西方民主已经是“异化后的民主、去势后的民主、无害化的民主、去功能化的民主。”

When Western political theory falls into the cognitive predicament of “electoral fundamentalism,” the three-dimensional standard of Chinese democratic practice provides new possibilities for reconstructing democratic epistemology. This epistemological breakthrough lies not only in expanding the subject boundary of democracy but also in understanding democracy as a continuous process of deepening cognition, and ultimately taking practical efficacy as the test standard.

当西方政治理论陷入“选举原教旨主义”的认知困境时，中国民主实践的三维标准为重构民主认识论提供了新的可能。这种认识论突破不仅在于拓展了民主的主体边界，更在于将民主理解为持续的认识深化过程，并最终以实践效能作为检验标准。

III. Democratic Methodology: Innovating Democratic Practice with a Full-Chain, All-Around, and Comprehensive System Method

三、民主方法论：以全链条、全方位、全覆盖的系统方法创新民主实践

The methodology of democracy addresses the question of how democracy is realized and operates, mainly involving the institutional mechanisms of democracy. Modernization is a comprehensive systemic project. “We must uphold a systemic perspective. All things are interconnected and interdependent. Only by observing things with a universally connected, comprehensive, and developmental viewpoint can we grasp the laws of development of things.” [21]21 "Black Lives Matter" (BLM): a social movement originating in the United States that campaigns against violence and systemic racism toward Black people. The author's reference here is critical, arguing that it fails to address the underlying capitalist racialized structure of exploitation. To view and understand things from a systemic and holistic perspective, the most basic and core requirement is to grasp wholeness. “The process of modernization is not limited to one sphere of social reality but encompasses all aspects of social life.” [22]22 V. I. Lenin, “The State and Revolution,” in *Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964), p. 461. Chinese-path modernization is a modernization of the coordinated development of material civilization, political civilization, cultural-ethical progress, social civilization, and ecological civilization. In the practical exploration of Chinese-path modernization, we believe that democracy is not only an institutional arrangement in the political sphere, not only concerning whose democracy it is and who truly governs the country, but also concerning what institutional forms, in what fields, and within what scope governance is carried out. That is, democratic construction in the process of modernization must adapt to the requirements of the comprehensiveness of modernization, establish a systemic perspective, and adhere to the systemic, holistic, and comprehensive nature of democratic development. Developing whole-process people’s democracy and constructing a democratic practice system of institutional aggregation, process embedding, and efficacy orientation solves, in terms of methodology, the structural dilemma between democratic norms and democratic reality. It achieves the unity of “instrumental rationality” and “value rationality,” opens up a path for democratic practice in a super-large country, and avoids the separation of procedural justice and substantive justice in Western democracy, as well as the tension and conflict between modernization and democratization.

民主的方法论解决民主如何实现和运行的问题，主要涉及民主的制度机制。现代化是一个全面的系统工程，“必须坚持系统观念。万事万物是相互联系、相互依存的。只有用普遍联系的、全面系统的、发展变化的观点观察事物，才能把握事物发展规律，”以系统的、整体的观点去看待和认识事物，其最基本、最核心的要求就是把握整体性。“现代化的过程不局限于社会现实的一个领域，而是包括社会生活的一切方面”，中国式现代化是物质文明、政治文明、精神文明、社会文明、生态文明协调发展的现代化。在中国式现代化的实践探索中，我们认为民主不仅是政治领域的制度安排，不仅涉及谁的民主、由谁来真正统治国家，还涉及以什么样的制度形式、在何种领域与在哪些范围来进行统治，即现代化进程中的民主建设要适应现代化的全面性的要求，树立系统观念，坚持民主发展的系统性、整体性与全面性。发展全过程人民民主，建构制度聚合、过程嵌入、效能导向的民主实践体系，在方法论上解决了民主的规范与民主的现实之间的结构性困境，实现“工具理性”与“价值理性”的统一，开创超大规模国家的民主实践路径，避免西方民主中程序正义与实质正义的割裂、现代化与民主化的紧张与冲突。

(I) Adhere to a Systemic Perspective and Develop a Full-Chain, Whole-Process Democratic Procedure and Institutional System

（一）坚持系统观念，发展全链条全过程的民主程序与制度体系

Marxism holds that “the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes,” and that “in democracy, no moment acquires a meaning different from its own proper meaning. Each moment is really only a moment of the whole people.” [21]21 "Black Lives Matter" (BLM): a social movement originating in the United States that campaigns against violence and systemic racism toward Black people. The author's reference here is critical, arguing that it fails to address the underlying capitalist racialized structure of exploitation. This requires that every democratic moment truly become a concrete process in which the “whole people” can participate and take control, “forming a complete set of institutional procedures and participatory practices, ensuring that the people have extensive, sustained, and in-depth rights of participation in daily political life.” [22]22 V. I. Lenin, “The State and Revolution,” in *Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964), p. 461. Applying this mode of thought, we can see that democracy is not a ready-made arrangement but a processual and continuously improving system of institutional arrangements. Genuine democratic innovation must be rooted in a systematic, historical, and dialectical grasp of the movement of social contradictions.

马克思主义认为，“世界不是既成事物的集合体，而是过程的集合体”，“在民主制中，任何一个环节都不具有与它本身的意义不同的意义。每一个环节实际上都只是整体人民的环节”，让每一个民主环节真正成为“整体人民”能够参与和掌握的具体过程，“形成完整的制度程序和参与实践，保证人民在日常政治生活中有广泛持续深入参与的权利”。运用这一思维方式，我们可以看到民主不是一个既成的安排，而是一个过程性的、不断完善的制度体系安排，真正的民主创新必须植根于对社会矛盾运动系统的、历史的、辩证的把握。

The democratic view of Chinese-path modernization follows the scientific worldview and methodology of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, establishes a systematic concept and holistic thinking, and clarifies that democracy is a system of institutions that ensures the people are the masters of the country. It clarifies that democracy includes not only the method of election but also the method of political consultation; democracy includes not only the election of representatives of public opinion but also participation in decision-making, management, supervision, and legislation, administration, and judiciary. It clarifies that democracy develops not only in the political sphere but also includes democratic demands in the economic, social, and cultural spheres. It holds that the democratic procedure is not a one-time electoral process, and that democratic elections, democratic consultation, democratic decision-making, democratic management, and democratic supervision are all important links in the democratic process, achieving a seamless, full-chain connection and mutual integration of democratic procedures. The practical

中国式现代化的民主观遵循习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想科学的世界观与方法论，确立系统观念和整体性思维，明确了民主是一套保证人民当家作主的制度体系；明确民主不仅有选举一种方式，还有政治协商的方式；民主不仅有选举民意代表，还有参与决策、管理、监督和立法、行政、司法等方面；明确了民主不仅在政治领域发展，还包括经济与社会文化领域的民主要求。认为民主的程序不是一次性的选举过程，认为民主选举、民主协商、民主决策、民主管理、民主监督等都是民主过程的重要环节，实现民主程序的全链条无隙缝衔接，互相贯通。中国民主的实践创新体现在制度构建的全链条贯通，将民主从“竞争性选举”的单一维度扩展为“人民当家作主”的系统工程。在民主具体环节上，创设“选举、协商、决策、管理、监督”五大环节的闭环设计，使民主从“瞬时性权力让渡”升级为“持续性权力行使”的完整制度链。全链条对应社会再生产过程的不可割裂性，全方位反映经济基础与上层建筑的交互作用，全覆盖体现群众史观对民主主体的终极关怀。在纵向维度上，形成了“顶层设计-基层探索”自上而下与自下而上的双向互动的制度创新通道；横向维度上，政党协商、人大协商、政府协商、政协协商、人民团体协商、基层协商以及社会组织协商等七大协商渠道协同运作。资本主义民主制度将公民参与简化为选举，民主即是让人民在几个相互竞争的精英团体中进行选择，民众参与政治的作用便被限制在四、五年选一次政府的范围内，造成民主的窄化、异化，民主政治异化为选举政治。当前西方民主仅聚焦选举环节，造成“政治领域的工段化”，割裂“意愿形成-决策制定-执行监督”的有机联系，“在实践中，民主的‘全过程’被放弃，民主政治原则被国家机器暴力地分割裁剪成为最高权力的分权制衡、一人一票的竞争选举与轮流执政的党派政治等相互分离的单元，且在每个单元中民主原则仅仅是碎片化地被使用，以期呈现出最低程度的形式民主。”当前，当西方政治学者还在追问“审议型小型公众”（Deliberative Mini-publics）是否提升民主质量时，中国早已经在基层民主、政党协商、政府协商等各层级实践中充分实现了这一寻求共识的民主精神。

(2) Adhering to holistic thinking, developing an all-encompassing and full-coverage democracy that unifies form and content

（二）坚持整体思维，发展全方位全覆盖的形式与内容相统一的民主

Marx once criticized the "isolation of the political sphere" in bourgeois democracy, arguing that although bourgeois political revolution achieved the separation of the "political state" from religion, it created a new split at the social level—splitting the human being into the "abstract citizen" and the "real private individual," leading to a fundamental isolation of the political sphere from socio-economic life. This critique not only dismantles the legitimacy of bourgeois political philosophy but also provides a key to understanding the contemporary crisis of democracy: that true democracy must break the dualistic isolation of politics and economics and realize the comprehensive freedom of the human being in social emancipation. Modern Western representative democracy still follows the logic of "political isolation": citizens are "equal" when voting, but in policy-making they are manipulated by capital interest groups—as in U.S. lobbying politics—while the rise of identity politics issues such as race and gender obscures the fundamental problem of class contradiction; the "Black Lives Matter" movement did not touch the capitalist racialized structure of exploitation. Mao Zedong once proposed: "Democracy must be all-sided; it is needed in politics, in military affairs, in economics, in culture, in Party affairs, and in international relations—in all these, democracy is needed." It can be seen that, from the perspective of Marxism, all-encompassing democracy must penetrate the economic, social, cultural, ecological, and other fields, implementing democratic principles and logic throughout the entire sphere of social life, and promoting the free and comprehensive development of the human being.

马克思曾批判资产阶级民主的“政治领域隔离”，认为资产阶级政治革命虽然实现了“政治国家”与宗教的分离，却在社会层面制造了新的分裂——将人割裂为“抽象的公民”与“现实的私人”，导致政治领域与社会经济生活的根本性隔离。这一批判不仅瓦解了资产阶级政治哲学的合法性，也为理解当代民主危机提供了钥匙，即真正的民主必须打破政治与经济的二元隔离，在社会解放中实现人的全面自由。现代西方代议制民主仍遵循“政治隔离”的逻辑：公民在投票时“平等”，但在政策制定中被资本利益集团操控如美国的游说政治，同时，种族、性别等身份政治议题的兴起，掩盖了阶级矛盾这一根本问题，“黑命贵”运动未触及资本主义种族化剥削结构。毛泽东曾提出：“民主必须是各方面的，是政治上的，军事上的，经济上的，文化上的，党务上的以及国际关系上的，一切这些，都需要民主。”可以看出，马克思主义视域下的全方位民主必须穿透经济、社会、文化、生态等领域，在整个社会生活的领域中贯彻民主的原则与逻辑，推动人的自由而全面的发展。

The view of democracy in Chinese-path modernization adheres to holistic thinking, emphasizing the overall coordination and developmental consistency between the modernization process and democratic development. Democratic politics is both a requirement of modernization and a concomitant product within the modernization process. Guided by holistic thinking, it does not one-sidedly emphasize the institutional forms of democracy, does not pursue democracy for its own sake, and does not rashly seek rapid progress in democratic construction beyond the stage of development. Instead, it endows the democratic system with solid substantive support, regards people as the ultimate goal of modernization, and holds that democracy is not merely a demand for rights in the political sphere but also a basic demand for material prosperity in the economy and the satisfaction of equal rights and spiritual enjoyment in the social and cultural spheres. Democracy in the modernization process is meant to meet people’s inner needs for self-improvement and self-development. All-round and full-coverage democracy is deeply connected with the free and comprehensive development of the individual and closely aligns with the holistic and comprehensive requirements of modernization. It runs through all areas—economic construction, political construction, cultural construction, social construction, and ecological civilization construction—and covers every link in the country’s political life and social life. Democratic construction must not only satisfy the people’s needs and aspirations for prosperity in the economic sphere but also meet their demands for the rights to survival and development, social fairness and justice, rich spiritual culture and social life, and a beautiful and clean ecological environment, thereby developing all-round and full-coverage democracy. In terms of democratic forms and channels, Chinese-path modernization develops multiple democratic forms and channels, with direct democracy and indirect democracy coexisting. There is both electoral democracy and various levels of consultation among political parties, people’s congresses, governments, CPPCC committees, people’s organizations, grassroots organizations, and social organizations. There are both channels and avenues for participation in physical space and the mass line online and political participation in virtual space. This constitutes a democracy that spans all time and space, an all-round democracy in which people enjoy the full right to exercise democracy in vertical time and multidimensional space and fully participate in the modernization process. By constructing all-round, full-coverage channels for expression and participation and an institutional framework and operational mechanism for the fair distribution of public interests, it realizes, safeguards, and develops the fundamental interests of the broadest majority of the people, truly achieving people-centered modernization. In the process of Western modernization, liberal democratic theories have all emphasized political democracy and political equality while neglecting economic democracy and economic equality. In subsequent innovations in democratic theory, whether participatory democracy theory or deliberative democracy theory, the focus of democracy has in practice been placed on the political sphere, and they have never been able to adopt holistic thinking and a systematic perspective to view the comprehensiveness and totality of democratic development and its deep connection with the economic base. Lenin once profoundly criticized: “Democracy in capitalist society is a truncated, impoverished, and hypocritical democracy, a democracy only for the rich, only for a minority.” [22]22 V. I. Lenin, “The State and Revolution,” in *Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964), p. 461. Today, this situation has not improved but has worsened. Some countries have become societies “of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%,” and democracy has been transformed from a guarantee of economic rights and a function of mediating class contradictions in the modernization process into a game of voting for big capital and its agents.

中国式现代化的民主观坚持整体思维，强调现代化进程与民主发展的整体协调与发展一致性，民主政治是现代化建设的要求，亦是现代化进程中的伴生物。在整体思维指导下，不片面强调民主的制度形式，不为了民主而民主，不超越发展阶段片面追求民主建设的突飞猛进，而是赋予民主制度以坚实的内容支撑，把人当作现代化的最终目的，认为民主不仅仅是一项政治领域的权利要求，更是经济上物质富裕的基本诉求以及社会与文化领域平等权利和精神享受的满足，现代化进程中的民主是要满足人们内在的自我提升与自我发展的需要。全方位、全覆盖的民主与人的自由全面发展深刻关联，与现代化的整体性和总体性要求深度契合，贯穿经济建设、政治建设、文化建设、社会建设、生态文明建设各个领域，覆盖国家政治生活和社会生活各个环节。民主建设不仅在经济领域满足人民富裕起来的需求和愿望，更要满足人们对生存和发展权利、社会公平正义、丰富的精神文化和社会生活以及美丽清洁的生态环境的要求，发展全方位全覆盖的民主。在民主形式和途径上，中国式现代化进程中发展多种民主形式和途径，直接民主和间接民主的并存，既有选举民主，也有不同层次的政党协商、人大协商、政府协商、政协协商、人民团体协商、基层协商以及社会组织协商；既有现实空间参与渠道和途径，也有虚拟空间的网络群众路线和网络政治参与，是一种全时空、全方位的民主，在纵向时间和多维空间中享有完整行使民主的权利，充分参与现代化建设进程。通过建构全方位、全覆盖的表达与参与渠道和公正分配公共利益的制度框架与运作机制来实现好、维护好、发展好最广大人民根本利益，真正实现以人民为中心的现代化。西方现代化进程中的自由民主理论均强调政治民主与政治平等，而忽视经济民主与经济平等，在后续的民主理论创新中，无论是参与式民主理论还是协商民主理论，实际上均把民主的重点放在政治领域，始终无法采用整体思维和系统观念去看待民主发展的整体性、全面性以及与经济基础的深刻关联性。列宁曾深刻批判：“资本主义社会里的民主是一种残缺不全的、贫乏的和虚伪的民主，是只供富人、只供少数人享受的民主。”今天，这种情况未变得更好而是更坏，一些国家已变成“1%的人拥有、1%的人治理、1%的人享受”的社会，民主已经从现代化进程中的经济权利保障、阶级矛盾调解功能变成为大资本及其代理人投票的游戏。

Conclusion

结语

The unique view of democracy embedded in Chinese-path modernization transcends “capital-centricity” with “people’s subjectivity,” breaks through the epistemological trap of “democratic fundamentalism,” and develops a systematic practical paradigm of “full-chain, all-round, full-coverage.” This elevates democracy from a procedural arrangement in the political sphere to a holistic reconstruction of the form of civilization. China’s practical innovation in democracy, driven by the methods of historical materialism and dialectical materialism, is providing humanity with a new solution for exploring “high-quality democracy” that transcends confrontational thinking and balances order and vitality, offering a new option for the development of political civilization in the process of human modernization. The value of this exploration lies not in exporting an alternative model, but in proving a truth with greater civilizational inclusiveness: the vitality of democracy lies not in imitating a fixed model, but in whether it can grow, on the soil of its own country, an institutional form that guarantees the people’s principal position and fundamental interests. Genuine democratic progress must inevitably be a pluralistic narrative autonomously written by the people of each country under the guidance of historical dialectics.

中国式现代化蕴含的独特民主观，以“人民主体性”超越“资本中心性”，突破“民主原教旨主义”的认识论陷阱，发展出“全链条－全方位－全覆盖”的系统实践范式，使民主从政治领域的程序性安排升维为文明形态的整体性再造。中国以历史唯物主义和辩证唯物主义方法推动的民主实践创新，正为人类探索“优质民主”提供着超越对抗思维、平衡秩序与活力的新方案，为人类现代化进程中的政治文明发展提供了新选项。这种探索的价值不在于输出替代模式，而在于证明了一个更具文明包容性的真理：民主的生命力不在于模仿某种固定模式，而在于能否在本国土壤中生长出保障人民主体地位和根本利益的制度形态。真正的民主进步，必然是各国人民在历史辩证法指引下自主书写的多元叙事。

Online editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆