On the Critique and Transcendence of Chinese Democratic Discourse over Western Democratic Discourse

The construction of the Chinese discourse system must, on the one hand, adhere to the principle of “making foreign things serve China” and fully absorb and draw upon beneficial resources from abroad, especially from Western philosophy and social sciences. On the other hand, it must also pay attention to breaking the Western formatted mode of thinking, academic paradigms, and discourse models. Precisely because of this, since reform and opening up, our Party has always been highly vigilant against the infiltration and influence of Western liberalization trends. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, General Secretary Xi Jinping has also emphasized the need to accelerate the construction of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics and strengthen the construction of the discourse system, pointing out that this concerns the issue of the spiritual independence of our country and nation. “Without our own spiritual independence, the independence of politics, thought, culture, institutions, and other aspects will be completely undermined.” [1]1 This is a quotation from Xi Jinping, referring to the idea that a loss of spiritual independence would undermine the foundations of political, ideological, cultural, and institutional independence. “Spiritual independence, in summary, refers to a society having its own independent thinking, values, and methods for understanding, analyzing, evaluating, and solving problems at the spiritual level, which are not dominated or controlled by others. When a society has its own unique mode of thinking in understanding the world, its own unique value stance in evaluating the world, and its own unique methodological path in responding to the world, we can say that this society has preserved its ‘spiritual independence.’”

中国话语体系的建设一方面要坚持“洋为中用”原则，充分吸收借鉴国外特别是西方哲学社会科学的有益资源，另一方面也要注意打破西方格式化的思维方式、学术范式与话语模式。正由于此，改革开放以来，我们党一直高度警惕西方自由化思潮的渗透影响。党的十八大以来，习近平总书记也强调要加快构建中国特色哲学社会科学，加强话语体系建设，并指出这关系到我们国家和民族的精神独立性问题。“如果没有自己的精神独立性，那政治、思想、文化、制度等方面的独立性就会被釜底抽薪。”“精神独立性，概而言之，是讲一个社会在精神层面上对如何认识问题、分析问题、评价问题、解决问题有自己独立的不受他者主宰与左右的思维、价值和方法。当一个社会在如何认识世界上有自己独特的思维方式，在如何评价世界上有自己独特的价值立场，在如何应对世界上有自己独特的方法路径时，我们就可以讲这个社会保有了它的‘精神独立性’。”

The construction of a discourse system is a systematic project that needs to be advanced across multiple disciplines and fields, but there are also priorities. The so-called priorities refer to those discourse contents that the Western discourse system has long been aggressively exporting to us, which have had a significant negative impact on our cognition and even practice over a long period, and which urgently need reflection and clarification in our modernization construction. According to the above analysis, the construction of democratic discourse should be one of the key contents of the current construction of the Chinese discourse system. Since the May Fourth New Culture Movement, [2]2 The May Fourth New Culture Movement (circa 1915-1920s) was an intellectual and cultural movement in China that promoted modernization, science, and democracy, often seen as a foundational moment for modern Chinese thought. democracy, as an enlightenment concept, has been widely disseminated among advanced Chinese intellectuals, and “Mr. Democracy” [3]3 “Mr. Democracy” (德先生, De Xiansheng) was a popular term used during the May Fourth Movement to personify the concept of democracy, alongside “Mr. Science” (赛先生, Sai Xiansheng). has attained a supreme status. However, the democratic discourse accepted by the Chinese people at that time was actually a pure Western import. Since reform and opening up, Western democratic discourse has again become popular in China through the translation and introduction of a large number of Western political science and legal theories. For a relatively long period, Chinese people were basically in the role of mere learners and passive recipients. Under such circumstances, Western democratic discourse and the values and thinking embedded within it have had a very deep influence, even becoming internalized as unconsciousness in some people. Although such a process helps to broaden horizons and promote absorption and improvement, to a certain extent, it has also inevitably led to the problem of spiritual colonization of some groups. In this sense, the current process of constructing Chinese democratic discourse particularly requires a thorough work of reflection and critique on Western democratic discourse, as well as a work of summarizing and elevating China’s own democratic practice. In recent years, domestic academia has already launched relevant research on this, and this article is also an exploration and attempt in this regard.

话语体系建设是一个系统工程，需要多学科多领域予以推进，但亦有重点。所谓重点，即是西方话语体系一直以来向我们强势输出，长期对于我们的认知乃至实践产生很大消极影响，在我们现代化建设中亟须反思与澄清的话语内容。按照以上分析，民主话语建设应该是当前中国话语体系建设的重点内容之一。自五四新文化运动始，民主就作为启蒙理念在中国先进知识分子中广为传播，“德先生”获得了至高无上地位，但当时国人所接受的民主话语实际上是西方的纯粹舶来品。改革开放以来，西方民主话语又经由大量西方政治学、法学理论等的译介在国内流行开来，国人较长一段时间内基本处于单纯学习者、被动承受者的角色。在这种情况下，西方民主话语及其内含的价值与思维影响极深，甚至内化为某些人的无意识。这样一个过程尽管有助于打开视野、吸纳提高，但一定程度上也不可避免地导致部分群体精神被殖民化的问题。在此意义上，当前中国民主话语建构进程中尤其需要对西方民主话语进行一番彻底的反思批判工作，对中国自己的民主实践进行一番总结提升工作。近年来国内学术界对此已展开相关研究，本文也是在此方面的一个探索与尝试。

I. The Essence of Western Democratic Discourse

一、西方民主话语的实质

Western democratic discourse has its specific content, embodies a specific mode of thinking, and implies specific interest pursuits. Therefore, the analysis and critique of Western democratic discourse can be carried out from three dimensions: content, thinking, and interests. The powerful ideological weapon for deconstruction is Marxism, which has profoundly criticized Western ideology and exposed its essence. Marx and Engels not only conducted incisive analyses of bourgeois political discourse in their works, but the basic principles of Marxism also have fundamental guiding significance for our perspective on today’s Western democratic discourse.

西方民主话语有其特定内容，体现特定思维方式，隐含特定利益追求。因此，对西方民主话语的分析、批判可以从内容、思维与利益三个维度展开，而解构的有力思想武器则是对西方意识形态进行过深刻批判、揭露了其实质的马克思主义。马克思恩格斯不仅在自己的著作中对资产阶级政治话语进行过鞭辟入里的分析，马克思主义基本原理对于我们透视今天的西方民主话语也具有根本性的指导意义。

1. The Ideology of Liberal Democracy

1.自由民主的意识形态

After several hundred years of development in modern and contemporary times, the content of Western democratic discourse has become quite complete. This is the so-called “liberal democracy” that the Western world often boasts about. As a typical liberal ideology, the so-called “liberal democracy” mainly includes aspects such as the theory of natural rights, the theory of competitive elections, the theory of civil society, and the theory of separation of powers.

经过近现代以来几百年的发展，西方民主话语的内容已经颇为完备，这就是西方世界经常自我鼓吹的所谓“自由民主”。作为典型的自由主义意识形态，所谓“自由民主”主要包括天赋人权论、竞争选举论、公民社会论、三权分立论等方面的内容。

The theory of natural rights is the theoretical foundation of Western democratic discourse. According to Western democratic theory, democratic rights ultimately originate from natural rights such as freedom, equality, property, and security, and are also intended to guarantee these natural rights. Marx, in *On the Jewish Question* and *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, had already made a pointed critique of the hypocrisy of this so-called natural rights. Marx pointed out that so-called human rights are the rights of members of civil society after the disintegration of feudal society, and these members of civil society, as asset-holders, are egoistic individuals. In this sense, the so-called natural rights are merely a typical ideology of the bourgeois era; all specific human rights provisions ultimately serve the maintenance of the individualistic interests of the asset-holder and the self-expansion of capital. “Liberty as a right of man is not founded upon the relations between man and man, but rather upon the separation of man from man. It is the right of such separation. The right of the circumscribed individual, withdrawn into himself.” [4]4 This and the following quotations are from Karl Marx, *On the Jewish Question* (1843), where Marx critiques the abstract and individualistic nature of bourgeois human rights. “The practical application of the right of liberty is the right of private property… The right of private property is the right to enjoy and dispose of one’s possessions arbitrarily, without regard for other men, independently of society, the right of selfishness… Equality, in its political sense, is nothing but the equality of the liberty described above, namely, that every man is equally regarded as a self-sufficient monad.” “Security is the supreme social concept of civil society, the concept of the police, that the whole of society exists only to guarantee each of its members the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property.” [5]5 This quotation is also from *On the Jewish Question*, where Marx argues that the concept of security in civil society is essentially a police concept, serving to protect private property. Since natural rights are in essence merely the rights of the bourgeoisie, the democratic rights that originate from and serve natural rights are mainly bourgeois democracy; in other words, it is the rule of capital. Of course, such an analysis does not deny the gradual participation of ordinary people in Western democracy in the course of its development and its certain degree of authenticity, but rather addresses its fundamental and essential nature. This capital-dominated characteristic of Western democracy is particularly evident in contemporary America. It is also this capital-dominated democracy that determines that, without a powerful shock or transformation, the polarization of the gap between rich and poor in capitalist society will be a long-term inevitable trend. This is precisely the conclusion drawn by Thomas Piketty in his analysis in *Capital in the Twenty-First Century*.

天赋人权论是西方民主话语的理论基础。按照西方民主理论，民主权利归根结底源于自由、平等、财产、安全等天赋人权并且也是为了保障天赋人权。马克思在《论犹太人问题》《黑格尔法哲学批判》中对这种所谓天赋人权的虚伪性早就有过一针见血的批判。马克思指出，所谓人权是封建社会瓦解后市民社会成员的权利，而这种市民社会的成员作为资产者是利己的人。在此意义上，所谓天赋人权不过是资产阶级时代的典型意识形态，所有具体的人权规定最终都服务于资产者个人主义的利益维护与资本增殖。“自由这一人权的实际应用就是私有财产这一人权……私有财产这一人权是任意地、同他人无关地、不受社会影响地享用和处理自己的财产的权利；这一权利是自私自利的权利……平等，在这里就其非政治意义来说，无非是上述自由的平等，就是说，每个人都同样被看成那种独立自在的单子。”“安全是市民社会的最高社会概念，是警察的概念；按照这个概念，整个社会的存在只是为了保证维护自己每个成员的人身、权利和财产。”既然天赋人权究其实质不过是资产阶级的权利，源于并服务于天赋人权的民主权利也就主要是资产阶级的民主，换言之，是资本的当家作主。当然，这样分析并不是否认西方民主在发展进程中普通大众的逐步参与及其一定程度的真实性，而是就其根本与实质而言。西方民主这种资本主导的特点，在当代美国体现得尤为明显。也正是这种资本主导的民主，决定了资本主义社会如果没有强有力的冲击或变革，贫富差距的两极化将是一个长期的必然趋势，这正是皮凯蒂《21世纪资本论》分析得出的结论。

The theory of competitive elections is the core content of Western democratic discourse. Democracy dominated by capital cannot realize substantive democracy or democracy for the entire people, so the elitization of democracy is an inevitable trend. It is precisely in response to this demand for the elitization of democracy that classical democracy in the sense of rule by the majority and modern democracy in the sense of popular sovereignty have been transformed into modern electoral democracy, which produces leading elites through competitive elections in the political sphere. This transformation and shift was mainly achieved through Schumpeter’s elite theory of democracy. “(In classical democratic theory) the electoral representation was secondary to the primary end of the democratic arrangement, which was to vest the power of deciding political issues in the electorate. Suppose we reverse the roles of these two elements and make the deciding of issues by the electorate secondary to the election of the men who are to do the deciding. … we now take the view that the role of the people is to produce a government, or else an intermediate body which in turn will produce a national executive or government. And we define: the democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.” Through this transformation, procedural democracy replaced substantive democracy, and political elites replaced the masses of the people. To put it more bluntly, “democracy is the rule of the politician.” Schumpeter, with the exceptional frankness of an economist, laid bare the elitist character of capitalist democracy. Since then, the theory of electoral democracy in the political sphere has been continuously re-argued and reinterpreted, gradually becoming widely prevalent in the West as the dominant discourse, to the point where it has become an unconscious assumption for many Western scholars, who use it to distinguish so-called democratic regimes from non-democratic ones. In fact, many Western scholars today have reached a point where they cannot speak of democracy without reference to partisan competitive elections, and it is precisely on this basis that they harbor many misunderstandings about democracy in non-Western societies. This practice of narrowing democracy to electoral democracy is in fact a form of alienation of democracy. “We do not believe that elections determine policy; for the masses, they are merely a symbolic comfort. Drawing the masses into political activity helps consolidate the legitimacy of the government.” “It has proven more difficult to resolve social and economic inequality through the electoral process than to directly abolish discriminatory laws and decrees.” “Most Americans believe—and are taught this in school—that the egalitarian democratic ideal applies only to the political sphere, not to the economic sphere. In the economic sphere, freedom is the free market, to the extent that any attempt to correct the injustices and inequalities produced by the free market by placing capital under political control is seen as undemocratic, even dictatorial. Under the sway of this worldview, it is difficult for people to understand that the economic system itself can become a system of power, under which people, such as workers, are ruled in a non-democratic manner.” It is precisely because the connotation of democracy has been narrowed to electoral democracy, and the true meaning of democracy has been castrated, that the bourgeoisie calls for and embraces democracy.

竞争选举论是西方民主话语的核心内容。资本主导的民主是不可能实行实质民主与全民民主的，所以民主的精英化是一种必然趋势。正是顺应这种民主的精英化要求，多数人统治意义上的古典民主与人民主权意义上的近代民主被改造为通过政治领域的竞争性选举产生领导精英的现代选举民主。这一改造与转换主要是通过熊彼特的精英民主理论实现的。“（在古典民主理论中）选举代表对民主制度的最初目标而言是第二位的，最初目标是把决定政治问题的权力授予全体选民。假如我们把这两个要素的作用倒转过来，把选民决定政治问题放在第二位，把选举做出政治决定的人作为最初目标。换言之，我们现在采取这样的观点，即人民的任务是产生政府，或产生用以建立全国执行委员会或政府的一种中介体。同时我们规定：民主方法就是那种为做出政治决定而实行的制度安排，在这种安排中，某些人通过争取人民选票取得做决定的权力。”通过这一改造，程序民主代替了实质民主，政治精英代替了人民大众。说得更露骨一些，“民主政治就是政治家的统治”。熊彼特以一个经济学家的异常坦率赤裸裸揭示了资本主义民主的精英特质。在此以后，政治领域的选举民主论被不断重新论证与诠释，逐渐作为主导话语在西方广泛流行，以致成为很多西方学者的无意识，他们据此来划分所谓民主政体与非民主政体。事实上，今天很多西方学者已经到了离开党派的竞争选举就不知如何言说民主的境地，也正基于此，他们对非西方社会的民主误解多多。这种将民主狭隘化为选举民主的做法实际上是一种民主的异化。“我们并不认为选举能左右决策；对民众来说，它们只是一种象征性的安慰而已。吸引民众参与政治活动有利于巩固政府的合法地位。”“事实证明通过选举这一途径来解决社会和经济的不平等比直接废除歧视性的法律和法令更为艰难。”“大多数美国人相信——他们在学校里被这样教育——平等的民主理念只能适用于政治领域，不适用于经济领域。在经济领域，自由就是自由市场，以至于任何通过把资本置于政治控制之下的方式来矫正自由市场所产生的不公正和不平等的做法都被看作是非民主的甚至是独裁的。在这种世界观的笼罩下，人民很难理解到经济体系本身也能成为一个权力体系，在这种体系下，人们比如工人被一种非民主的方式所统治。”也正是因为民主内涵被狭隘化为选举民主，民主的真义被阉割，资产者才会呼吁并拥护民主。

The theory of civil society is an important pillar of Western democratic discourse. According to prevailing views, civil society is the sphere of autonomous civic activity outside of government and the market, with structural elements including social organizations, public opinion, social movements, and so on. According to the propaganda of Western civil society theory, civil society safeguards citizens’ rights, resists state coercion, defends against capital encroachment, cares for public interests, and ensures social fairness. It can not only cultivate citizens’ capacity for autonomous association and social participation, but also effectively supervise and balance powerful power and capital in national political life, and compensate for government failure and market failure by providing non-monopolistic public goods or quasi-public goods. Objectively speaking, the above understanding has a certain degree of rationality, and the existence of civil society does indeed have certain social functions. However, civil society in practice is far from the ideal portrayed by Western theory; it is by no means a purely normative realm full of positive energy. Social organizations, considered the core element of civil society, are a mixed bag, good and bad intermingled. Their funding sources largely rely on government or corporate subsidies or foreign donations, severely lacking autonomy. Moreover, many social organizations themselves engage in for-profit activities, are solely profit-driven, and suffer from low internal governance efficiency and numerous problems. Public opinion is also not pure; various viewpoints clash and contend, not lacking in lies, sophistry, deception, and prejudice, behind which often lie improper interests. In fact, public opinion is a reflection of economic and social life. As long as the interests of classes, strata, and groups in real life are differentiated and in conflict, the clamorous media and public opinion cannot be completely ideal. Seeing the problem this way is consistent with Marxism. Similarly, various social movements with different demands are not entirely normative, and their nature requires specific analysis. In summary, Western civil society theory has a significant discrepancy with reality. That pure, homogeneous, completely normative, free and equal civil society is largely an ideological myth, an unreal assumption.

公民社会论是西方民主话语的重要支撑。依据流行的观点，公民社会是在政府与市场之外的公民自主活动领域，结构性要素包括社会组织、公共舆论、社会运动等。按照西方公民社会理论的宣传，公民社会维护公民权利、对抗国家强制、抵御资本侵害、关心公共利益、保障社会公平，不仅可以培养公民自主结社、社会参与的能力，而且可以在国家政治生活中对强势的权力与资本进行有效监督制衡，并通过提供非垄断性公共物品或准公共物品弥补政府失灵与市场失灵。客观而言，以上认识具有一定的合理性，公民社会的存在确实也具有一定社会功能，但实践中的公民社会却远非西方理论所宣传的那样理想，绝非充满正能量的纯然规范之域。被认为是公民社会核心要素的社会组织鱼龙混杂、良莠不齐，其经费来源很大程度上依靠政府与企业资助或外国捐款，严重缺乏自主性，且很多社会组织本身也从事营利活动，唯利是图，内部治理效率低下、问题多多。公共舆论也并不纯粹，各种观点冲突交锋，其中不乏谎言、诡辩、欺骗与偏见，而背后则往往是不正当的利益寻求。实际上，公共舆论是经济与社会生活的反映，只要现实生活中阶级、阶层与群体的利益存在分化与冲突，众声喧哗的媒体与舆论就不可能是完全理想的，这样看问题才符合马克思主义。同理，各种具有不同诉求的社会运动也不是完全规范的，其性质也需要具体分析。概言之，西方公民社会理论与现实出入很大，那种纯净同质、完全规范、自由平等的公民社会很大程度上是一种意识形态神话、一种并不真实的假设。

The theory of the separation of powers is the institutional concept of Western democratic discourse. Since modern times, when democratic theory was introduced to China, the concept of the separation of powers has had a very broad influence. According to Western democratic discourse, only the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers can better achieve checks and balances among powers and realize the supervision and restraint of power. Therefore, the separation of powers is the institutional design for realizing so-called popular sovereignty. It should be said that this view has a certain degree of rationality, but to truly understand the institutional design of the separation of powers, one must trace back to the original context of this institutional design. An in-depth analysis of the original context and historical conditions of the Western separation of powers reveals that the fundamental goal of this institutional design was to guard against so-called “tyranny of the majority,” resist the pressure of popular participation, and protect the private property of the propertied class. American scholar Thomas Dye, in his book *The Irony of Democracy*, provides a very detailed discussion of this by analyzing the ideology of America’s founding elites. “The founders believed that a government with limited powers could not endanger liberty or property. Given that the founders believed power was a corrupting force and that concentrated power was dangerous, they favored dividing governmental power into several independent entities that could check or impede each other, just in case any one branch posed a threat to liberty or property.” “To serve as a defense against majoritarianism (majority rule by the populace) and as a supplementary means of protecting elite liberty and property.”

三权分立论是西方民主话语的制度理念。自近代以来民主理论传入中国，三权分立理念就产生了非常广泛的影响。按照西方的民主话语，只有立法、行政、司法三权分立才能更好地实现权力之间的制衡，实现对权力的监督制约，所以三权分立是实现所谓人民主权的制度设计。应该说，这种看法具有某种程度的合理性，但要真正理解三权分立的制度设计还必须回溯到这种制度设计的原初语境。深入分析西方权力分立的原初语境与历史条件，可以看到，这一制度设计的根本目标是警惕所谓“多数人的暴政”，抵御民众的参与压力，保障有产者的私有财产。美国学者托马斯·戴伊在《民主的嘲讽》一书中通过分析美国开国精英的观念意识对此有非常详细的论述。“开国者们相信权力受限的政府不可能危及自由或财产。鉴于开国者们认为权力是一种会变坏的势力因而集中权力是危险的，他们赞成将政府权力分割成若干能够相互制约或妨碍的独立实体，以防万一某个部门对自由或财产构成威胁。”“以将其作为一种对付多数主义（民众多数政治）的防御工具和作为一种保护精英自由与财产的补充手段。”

2. The Mode of Thinking of Hierarchical Universalism

2.等级普世的思维方式

The content and expression of discourse both embody a specific mode of thinking. Western liberal democratic discourse not only has specific content originating from Western, especially Anglo-American, countries, but also embodies a mode of thinking based on specific modes of production, lifestyles, and cultural connotations. In the process of constructing and establishing Western democratic discourse, the powerful Western discursive subjects had already begun to use it as a standard to analyze and judge other countries and nations in the course of world history, and devoted themselves to the external dissemination of this democratic discourse. The so-called Western discursive subjects include not only the elite groups who construct and operate democratic discourse, but also the ordinary people who have been effectively indoctrinated by it. In their interactions with the non-Western world, they display and promote the “civilization” and “greatness” of Western democratic discourse with a sense of superiority from on high. Viewing the entire history of the world through the lens of this powerful and hegemonic Western democratic discourse, the political comparison between the West and the non-West takes on a hierarchical distinction between civilization and barbarism. Western political civilization, as the model for the entire world’s civilization, thus possesses universal value. Western liberal democracy, as the pinnacle of human political civilization, also becomes the historical goal towards which the barbaric or semi-civilized non-West will ultimately tend. In this sense, the mode of thinking of civilizational hierarchy, the mode of thinking of value universalism, and the mode of thinking of the end of history constitute the specific mode of thinking embedded within Western democratic discourse.

话语的内容与表述都体现着特定的思维方式。西方自由民主话语不仅具有源于西方特别是英美国家的特定内容，还体现了基于特定生产方式、生活方式与文化内涵的思维方式。在西方民主话语建构与确立的过程中，西方强势的话语主体就已经开始以之作为标准来分析、评判世界历史进程中的其他国家与民族，并致力于这种民主话语的对外传播。所谓西方的话语主体，不仅包括建构与运作民主话语的精英群体，也包括被民主话语有效灌输的普通民众。他们在与非西方世界的交往中，以一种高高在上的优越感展现与宣扬着西方民主话语的“文明”与“伟大”。以强势而霸权的西方民主话语审视整个世界历史，西方与非西方的政治对比便具有了文明与野蛮的等级差别，而西方政治文明则提供了整个世界文明的范本因而具有价值上的普适性，西方自由民主作为人类政治文明的顶峰也成为野蛮或半开化的非西方最终将趋向的历史目标。在此意义上，文明的等级思维、价值的普世思维、历史的终结思维构成了西方民主话语内含的特定思维方式。

The hierarchical thinking of civilization. Since modern times, the Western-led process of globalization has been set in motion. In the course of global colonization, the West, relying on its formidable power, began to construct a new imagination of world order, and a hierarchical thinking of civilization began to take shape and develop. Western countries styled themselves as civilized nations, and the Western world styled itself as the civilized world, while the distinction between democracy and non-democracy was the core content of this civilizational distinction. Here, “‘civilization’ is not an ordinary neutral concept, but a proper noun used by ‘Western society’ (mainly the great powers such as Britain and France) to express its self-consciousness; ‘civilization’ is not an isolated word either; behind it lies a set of discursive systems, a far-reaching and extensive hierarchical theory, corresponding to which is a world model imagined by Western society.” [7]7 Liu He, “The Birth of the Concept of Civilization and Its Critique of Historical Practice,” *Social Sciences in China*, 2010, no. 1, p. 18. In the eyes of Western colonizers, with the Western economic model, democratic system, lifestyle, and values as comprehensive standards, the entire world could be divided geographically into different zones such as civilized, semi-civilized, benighted, and barbaric. This spatial difference simultaneously carried temporal significance, because this division also reflected different levels of civilization and the evolutionary order that history was bound to follow. In this way, spatial differences were interpreted as a linear temporal sequence, and geographical divisions were elevated into the path of history. Such hierarchical thinking of civilization was embodied in the various modern disciplines pioneered by the West, such as modern political science, geography, sociology, anthropology, history, linguistics, and law. In other words, these modern disciplines, at the time of their formation, shared the cultural hierarchy as an ideology and participated to varying degrees in its construction. In particular, this doctrine entered secondary education in countries such as Britain and the United States in the early 19th century, becoming common knowledge for Western citizens and gradually internalizing into an unconscious national psychology and entrenched prejudice. As the West colonized globally, this concept spread to other parts of the world, and for a long time it was even endorsed by the elites of colonial and semi-colonial countries. Of course, the reason the elites of backward countries endorsed this concept was that, based on evolutionary thinking, they sought to advance their own countries’ national salvation and development in the historical context of the time. In this sense, one can understand why so many elites in modern and contemporary China were so envious of and revered Western democracy. Today, this hierarchical thinking of civilization has long been subjected to strong criticism, and its influence is far less than before, but it still lingers in Western ideology.

文明的等级思维。近代以来，西方主导的全球化进程开启，西方在全球殖民的过程中依托强大实力开始建立起一种新的关于世界秩序的想象，一种文明的等级思维开始孕育形成，西方国家自诩为文明国家，西方世界则自诩为文明世界，而民主与非民主的区分即是这种文明区分的核心内容。在此，“‘文明’不是一个普通的中性概念，而是‘西方社会’（主要是英法等列强）表达自我意识的一个专有名词；‘文明’也不是一个孤立的词汇，其背后隐含在一套话语系统，一种影响深远且广泛的等级理论，与其相对应的是西方社会想象中的一种世界模式”。在西方殖民者眼中，以西方的经济模式、民主制度、生活样式、价值理念为综合标准，整个世界在地理空间上可以划分为文明、半开化、蒙昧、野蛮等不同区域，而这种空间差异同时又具有时间意义，因为这种划分同时体现了文明的不同等级与历史必将遵循的进化次序。这样，空间的差别被诠释为时间的线性次序，地理的划分被提升为历史的道路。这样一种文明的等级思维体现在由西方开创的各现代学科中，比如现代政治学、地理学、社会学、人类学、历史学、语言学、法学等。换言之，这些现代学科在形成之初共享了作为意识形态的文化等级论，并不同程度地参与了对此的塑造。特别是这一学说于19世纪初期还进入了英美等国的中学教育，成为西方国民的通识，并逐渐内化为一种无意识的民族心理与牢固偏见。而随着西方的全球殖民，这一观念又流传至世界其他各地，很长时间内一度也为殖民地半殖民地国家的精英所认同，当然，落后国家的精英之所以认同这一观念，是基于进化主义的思维力图在当时的历史语境下推进自身国家的救亡与发展。在此意义上就可以理解近现代中国诸多精英对西方民主为何如此艳羡与推崇。今天，这种文明的等级思维早就受到强烈批判，影响远不如昔，但在西方的意识形态中依旧阴魂不散。

The universalist thinking of values. The establishment of hierarchical thinking of civilization meant that Western civilization became the benchmark and norm, that Western political civilization should ultimately expand globally, and that the political ideas and political frameworks of backward countries and nations should align with the Western model of liberal democracy. In this regard, Western democratic discourse possesses a strong universalist thinking. Based on this universalist thinking, Western elites even developed a sense of “mission,” believing they have the responsibility and obligation to promote their democratic discourse worldwide, and when necessary, they can force or coerce backward countries to “progress” and democratize. This universalist thinking that preaches “progress” not only provided a pretext for modern Western colonial aggression but also became a fig leaf for Western countries today to arbitrarily criticize and intervene in so-called non-democratic countries. “Even today, some people insist that certain ‘traditional’ and ‘underdeveloped’ societies need a great deal of guidance from others to reach a similar ‘developed’ stage. A long time has passed since the initial discovery of barbarians. At that time, people talked a great deal about the mission of civilization, which later had a profound impact on history. Now, people are quick to intervene in traditional societies. Although they live in a different era, the language and ideas of these people’s actions are not unfamiliar at all.” [8]8 Immanuel Wallerstein, *European Universalism: The Rhetoric of Power*, trans. Huang Dejun (Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2021), p. 3.

价值的普世思维。文明等级思维的确立也就意味着西方文明成为标杆和规范，意味着西方的政治文明应该最终拓展至全球，意味着落后国家与民族的政治理念与政治架构应该和西方的自由民主模式看齐，就此而言，西方民主话语具有强烈的普世思维。基于这种普世思维，西方精英甚至产生出一种“使命”意识，认为有责任和义务向全世界推销其民主话语，在必要时可以迫使或强制落后国家“进步”与民主化。这种宣扬“进步”的普世思维不仅为近代西方的殖民侵略提供了借口，而且也成为今天西方国家对所谓非民主国家任意指责、干预的遮羞布。“直到今日还有人强调，一些‘传统’和‘欠发达的’社会需要别人的大量指导，才能达到类似的‘发达’阶段。从最初发现野蛮人到今天，很长一段时间过去了。那时，人们大谈文明的使命，后来对历史产生了深刻影响。现在，人们动辄要对传统社会实行干预，尽管身处不同的时代，但这些人做事的语言和想法却一点不让人感到陌生。”

The thinking of the end of history. When it comes to the “end of history thesis,” it is generally believed to be a view proposed by Fukuyama after the end of the Cold War. Indeed, the end of the Cold War immersed the overjoyed Western world in a feeling of total victory, exclusive supremacy, and the global dominance of Western liberal democracy, and the thinking of the end of history emerged from this. But in reality, the thinking of the end of history reflects the inevitable logic of Western democratic discourse itself. The theoretical assumption of natural rights, the self-positioning as the benchmark of civilization and the measure of progress, coupled with the hegemonic status and good feelings since modern times, have made it impossible for Western elites to imagine a better model of political system than liberal democracy. In the hierarchical view of civilization and the linear view of history, liberal democracy will be realized globally and exist forever, which is the end of historical development. According to this thinking, modernization means Westernization, meaning that the Western democratic model will be the inevitable choice for the democratic development of all countries. Of course, people today have come to realize that modernization does not mean Westernization, that the path of political modernization is not singular, and that democratic models are diverse. In particular, China has provided other developing countries with a new path choice different from Western democratic development.

历史的终结思维。谈到“历史终结论”，一般认为是冷战结束后福山提出的观点。确实，冷战的结束让沉浸在狂喜中的西方世界产生了大获全胜、唯我独尊，西方自由民主一统天下的感觉，历史终结思维由此出笼。但实际上，历史终结思维体现了西方民主话语自身的必然逻辑。天赋人权的理论设定，文明标杆、进步尺度的自我定位，加之近现代以来的霸权地位与良好感觉，让西方精英无法想象出还有比自由民主更好的政治制度模式，在等级的文明观与线性的历史观中，自由民主将会实现于全球并永世存在，就是历史发展的终结。按此思维，现代化也就意味着西方化，意味着西方民主模式将是各国民主发展的必然选择。当然，今天人们已认识到，现代化并不意味着西方化，政治现代化道路并不具有唯一性，民主模式也是多种多样的。尤其中国更是为其他发展中国家提供了一条不同于西方民主发展的新的道路选择。

3. The pursuit of interests by powerful capital

3.强势资本的利益追求

Behind discourse lies interest. As the ideology of Western countries, liberal democratic discourse pursues and safeguards the interests of the propertied classes in Western countries, especially the powerful capitalist groups. Natural rights were initially only for Western white people as capital elites, because ordinary people and vulnerable groups in Western countries, people from semi-civilized, uncivilized, benighted, and barbaric countries and nations, and the indigenous inhabitants of colonies and semi-colonies were not even regarded as human beings. Electoral democracy degenerates into a game of "electoral autocracy" [9]9 "Electoral autocracy" (选主) is a critical term used by some scholars to describe a system where elections exist but are controlled by elites, reducing democracy to a procedure for selecting rulers rather than genuine popular governance. controlled by elites; power and capital largely dominate so-called civil society; the separation of powers makes it difficult for ordinary people to influence the elite-dominated government system, thereby effectively avoiding the impact of mass democracy on capital interests. So-called democratic countries in the West have not demonstrated strong governance effectiveness in many areas. Particularly in the United States, which claims to be the beacon of democracy for the world, problems such as a huge gap between rich and poor, racial conflict, riots, human rights violations, class division, and government failure abound. In other words, there is a significant tension between the liberal democracy proclaimed by the United States and the actual state of democracy. "Although the appearance of American politics originates from democratic political thought, to understand the reality of American politics, elite theory is more useful than democratic political thought." [10]10 Thomas R. Dye, *Who's Running America? The Clinton Years* (1999), or a similar work; Dye is an American political scientist known for his elite theory analysis of U.S. politics. American scholar Thomas R. Dye deeply analyzed the reality of American politics and summarized six points of elite theory: (1) Society is divided into a powerful minority and a powerless majority. Only a few people are responsible for the distribution of social benefits; national policy is not determined by the people. (2) The ruling minority does not represent the ruled majority. Elites mostly come from the upper socioeconomic strata. (3) Non-elites can only enter the ruling group by accepting the basic views of the elites. (4) Elites agree on the basic principles of the social system and maintaining the existing social system unchanged, differing only on a few issues. (5) National policy does not reflect the demands of the people, but only the values prevalent among the elites. (6) Elites are rarely directly influenced by the people; elites have more influence on the people than the people have on the elites. Dye's analysis can be described as hitting the nail on the head. In this regard, Western democratic discourse contains enormous tensions between form and content, majority and minority, the people and elites, labor and capital, and theory and practice. Furthermore, Western democratic discourse has become a tool for Western countries to conduct ideological infiltration and instigate color revolutions in other countries. Developing countries that have adopted the Western democratic system model often experience social chaos, political turmoil, and regime change. They not only easily become political vassals of the West, but their social spheres are heavily infiltrated by Western so-called non-governmental organizations, and their economic spheres are controlled by powerful Western capital. This is because Western democratic discourse is based on liberal market economy theory. If other countries politically adopt Western liberal democracy, the economic counterpart is often excessive liberalization and privatization, which most facilitates the entry and control of Western capital. In this regard, Western democratic discourse is not only a political discourse but also a comprehensive discourse containing specific political, social, and economic requirements. Precisely because behind discourse lies interest, and Western democratic discourse embodies the unspoken logic of capital, Western countries spare no effort in exporting their own democratic model.

话语背后是利益。自由民主话语作为西方国家的意识形态，追求和维护的是西方国家有产阶级特别是强势资本集团的利益。天赋人权一开始就是对作为资本精英的西方白人而言的，因为西方国家中的普通民众、弱势群体，半开化、未开化、蒙昧、野蛮国家和民族的人，殖民地半殖民地的原住民根本就不被视为人。选举民主沦为精英把持的“选主”游戏，权力与资本很大程度上主导所谓公民社会，三权分立使得普通民众难以影响精英主导的政府体制从而有效避免了大众民主对于资本利益的冲击。西方所谓民主国家在很多领域并没有体现出很强的治理效能，特别是自认是世界民主灯塔的美国，贫富差距悬殊、种族冲突、骚乱事件、侵害人权、阶层撕裂、政府失灵等问题大量存在。换言之，美国所宣扬的自由民主与实际的民主现状之间张力很大。“美国政治的表象虽然来源于民主政治思想，但要了解美国政治的真实情况，精英理论却比民主政治思想更为有用。”美国学者戴伊深入分析了美国政治的现实，归纳了精英论的六点内涵:（1）社会分为有权的少数和无权的多数。负责社会收益分配的只是少数人，国家政策不是由民众决定的。（2）统治人的少数不代表被统治的多数。精英大多出自社会经济的上等阶层。（3）非精英只有接受精英的基本观点，才能进入统治集团。（4）精英们在社会制度的基本准则和保持现行社会制度不变等方面意见一致，只是在很少一些问题上有分歧。（5）国家政策并不反映民众的要求，而只反映盛行于精英中的价值观。（6）精英受民众的直接影响很少，精英对民众的影响多于民众对精英的影响。戴伊的分析可谓一针见血。就此而言，西方民主话语内含形式与内容、多数与少数、民众与精英、劳动与资本、理论与实践的巨大张力。再者，西方民主话语成为西方国家对其他国家进行意识形态渗透、发动颜色革命的工具，而实行了西方民主制度模式的发展中国家则往往社会混乱、政局动荡、政权更迭，不仅在政治领域容易沦为西方附庸，社会领域被西方所谓非政府组织大量渗透，经济领域更受到西方强势资本的控制。这是因为，西方民主话语以自由主义市场经济理论为基础，其他国家如果政治上实行西方的自由民主，经济上相对应的则往往是过度自由化与私有化，而这最便于西方资本的进入与控制。就此而言，西方民主话语不仅是一种政治话语，更是一种包蕴特定政治、社会与经济要求的全方面话语。正是由于话语背后是利益，西方民主话语体现着未曾明言的资本逻辑，所以西方国家才如此不遗余力地输出自己的民主模式。

II. The Content Framework of Chinese Democratic Discourse: The "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan"

二、中国民主话语的内容框架：“五位一体”

To a large extent, the construction of Chinese democratic discourse takes the Western democratic discourse analyzed above as its frame of reference. This is, first, because China's democratic discourse is a socialist democratic discourse with Chinese characteristics, so from the beginning of its construction, it has shown a conscious distinction from and critical attitude toward Western capitalist discourse. Second, because Western democratic discourse has been introduced into China for a long time, especially since reform and opening up, its domestic influence has been enormous. This makes it even more necessary to conduct serious, systematic research, analysis, identification, and sublation of it in the construction of Chinese democratic discourse. In fact, the process of constructing contemporary Chinese democratic discourse is also a process of deeply reflecting on and deconstructing the viewpoints, ways of thinking, and substantive interests of Western democratic discourse. Our Party and state leaders have a very clear understanding of the hypocrisy and harmfulness of Western democratic discourse. "The democracy spoken of in capitalist society is bourgeois democracy, which is in fact the democracy of monopoly capital, nothing more than multi-party competition, the separation of the three powers, and a bicameral system." [11]11 A quotation from Deng Xiaoping, "On the Reform of the Political System" (1986), or similar context. "Would adopting that Western stuff make us freer, more democratic, and more stable? What has been the result for some developing countries that have copied the Western political system and party system model? Many countries have fallen into political turmoil, social unrest, and their people have been displaced. Vivid examples are right before our eyes. 'The past cannot be changed, but the future is yet to come.' [12]12 A classical Chinese allusion from *The Analects of Confucius* (《论语·微子》): "The past cannot be changed, but the future is yet to come" (往者不可谏，来者犹可追), meaning one should learn from past mistakes and focus on the future. Our minds must be clear and our resolve firm." [13]13 A quotation from Xi Jinping, likely from a speech on political system reform or It is precisely in this process of breaking the superstition and myth of Western democratic discourse that China's democratic discourse has fully demonstrated its autonomy in construction and its significant importance.

在很大程度上，中国民主话语的建构正是以以上所分析的西方民主话语为参照系，这一是因为中国的民主话语是具有中国特色的社会主义民主话语，所以自其建构开始就显现出对西方资本主义话语的自觉区别与批判态度；二是因为西方民主话语传入中国日久，特别是改革开放以来对国内的影响巨大，这就更需要在中国民主话语的建构中对之进行认真系统的研究、分析、鉴别、扬弃。实际上，当代中国民主话语建构的过程也就是一个对西方民主话语的观点内容、思维方式、利益实质进行深入反思、深度解构的过程。对于西方民主话语的虚伪性与危害性，我们党和国家领导人有非常清醒的认识。“资本主义社会讲的民主是资产阶级的民主，实际上是垄断资本的民主，无非是多党竞选、三权鼎立、两院制。”“搞了西方的那套东西就更自由、更民主、更稳定了吗？一些发展中国家照搬西方政治制度和政党制度模式，结果如何呢？很多国家陷入政治动荡、社会动乱，人民流离失所。活生生的例子就在眼前。‘往者不可谏，来者犹可追。’我们头脑一定要清醒、一定要坚定。”也正是在这样一个打破西方民主话语迷信与神话的过程中，中国的民主话语才充分显现出建构的自主性以及重要意义。

Significantly different from the ideology of Western liberal democracy, the construction of Chinese democratic discourse is guided by Marxism, based on China's national conditions, has a profound cultural foundation, inherits past good ideas and practices, and fully reflects the socialist nature of our country. The democratic discourse constructed in this way is a multi-level, multi-dimensional, rich, and complete organic system. In summary, Chinese democratic discourse includes the following aspects.

显著区别于西方自由民主的意识形态，中国民主话语的建构以马克思主义为指导、基于中国国情、具有深厚文化根基、继承以往好的理念与做法、充分体现我国社会主义性质，如此建构起来的民主话语则是一个多层次多维度、内容丰富完整的有机体系。概括而言，中国民主话语包括以下几方面内容。

1. The Theory of Specific National Conditions for Democracy

1.民主的具体国情论

As an institutional model, democracy must be rooted in the specific national conditions of a country to have vitality and stability, and thus truly play a positive role. The specific national conditions here include the stage of development, geography and history, cultural traditions, ethnicity and religion, popular demands, situation and tasks, etc. Of course, emphasizing specific national conditions does not deny that the development of modern democracy has common laws and common aspects. However, commonality is contained within individuality. Commonality is easy to discuss abstractly, but truly embodying it in the individuality of each country's specific conditions is no easy task. Advocating the theory of specific national conditions on the issue of democracy means adhering to an independent and self-determined stance, and clearly opposing the theory of a single model and the theory of mechanical copying on the issue of democracy. The orange grown south of the Huai River is a sweet orange, but grown north of the Huai River it becomes a bitter trifoliate orange. [14]14 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Work Related to People’s Congresses” (September 5, 2014), in *Selected Readings of Xi Jinping’s Works*, vol. 2 (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2017), p. 55. Believing that there is only one ideal model of democracy in the world, imposing it on others, or blindly copying it out of superstition, is actually a manifestation of hegemonic thinking and dogmatic thinking. This kind of mechanical copying of the Western democratic system was attempted in China's modern history, such as the multi-party competition and the establishment of a parliament in the early years of the Republic of China, but it proved to be nothing but a farce. As for the contemporary developing countries that have transplanted the Western democratic model, the results are even more obvious to all. "Democracy and human rights are the common pursuit of mankind, and at the same time, the right of the people of each country to independently choose their own development path must be respected." [15]15 Lin Shangli, “On the Democratic Discourse of the Communist Party of China,” *Academic Monthly*, no. 4 (2021), p. 8. "In designing and developing a national political system, we must focus on the organic unity of history and reality, theory and practice, form and content. We must proceed from national conditions and reality, grasp both the long-formed historical heritage and the development path traversed, the political experience accumulated, and the political principles formed, and also grasp the requirements of reality and focus on solving practical problems. We cannot sever history, nor can we imagine suddenly moving in a 'peak that flies in from elsewhere' [16]16 Deng Xiaoping, “How to Evaluate a Country’s Political System” (March 27, 1987), in *Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping*, vol. 3 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1993), p. 213. in the political system... It cannot be uniform or subordinated to a single authority." [17]17 Deng Xiaoping, “We Do Not Practice Multiparty Elections or Separation of Powers” (April 16, 1987), in *Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping*, vol. 3 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1993), p. 220. As General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized, only the wearer knows if the shoes fit. [18]18 The “eight criteria” (八个能否) for evaluating whether a country’s political system is democratic and effective, as articulated by Xi Jinping in a 2014 speech marking the 60th anniversary of the founding of the National People’s Congress.

民主作为一种制度模式，必须根植于一个国家的具体国情才能具有生命力、稳定性，从而真正发挥积极作用。这里的具体国情包括发展阶段、地理历史、文化传统、民族宗教、民众诉求、形势任务等。当然，强调具体国情并不是否认现代民主发展具有共同的规律与共通的一面，但共性是蕴含在个性之中的，共性容易抽象论述，而真正体现在各国具体国情的个性之中则非易事。主张民主问题上的具体国情论，就是要秉持独立自主的立场，明确反对民主问题上的单一模式论与机械照搬论。橘生淮南则为橘，橘生淮北则为枳，认为世界上只有一种理想的民主模式，强加于人或迷信搬用，实际上是霸权思维与教条思维的体现。这种对于西方民主制度的照抄照搬在中国近现代历史上就曾尝试过，比如民国初年的多党竞争与设立议会，但被证明不过是闹剧。至于当代那些移植西方民主模式的发展中国家，结果更是有目共睹。“民主和人权是人类共同追求，同时必须尊重各国人民自主选择本国发展道路的权利。” “设计和发展国家政治制度，必须注重历史和现实、理论和实践、形式和内容有机统一。要坚持从国情出发、从实际出发，既要把握长期形成的历史传承，又要把握走过的发展道路、积累的政治经验、形成的政治原则，还要把握现实要求、着眼解决现实问题，不能割断历史，不能想象突然就搬来一座政治制度上的‘飞来峰’……不可能千篇一律、归于一尊。”正如习近平总书记所强调的，鞋子合不合脚，自己穿了才知道。

2. The Theory of Political Characteristics of Democracy

2.民主的政治特色论

The political characteristics of Chinese

中国民主的政治特色集中体现在民主建设必须坚持四项基本原则的政治底线；必须坚持党的领导、人民当家作主、依法治国三者统一的政治原则；必须坚持扩大和发展人民民主的目的是实现社会主义政治制度的自我完善和发展，而不是改旗易帜；等等。在以上诸方面中，作为最高政治领导力量的中国共产党的领导最为根本。“我们必须搞清楚，我国人民民主与西方所谓的‘宪政’本质上是不同的。中国共产党领导是中国特色社会主义最本质的特征。”只有在党的领导下，才能处理好秩序与自由、效率与公平等现代化进程中的各种矛盾关系从而给民主发展创造良好条件，才能有效解决权力、资本或社会强势群体对民主的干预破坏等问题从而给民主发展提供保障，才能切实推进各领域民主的有序发展，才能实现民主的制度化、法律化。就此而言，当代中国民主建设的内容、进程与模式很大程度上是由中国共产党顶层设计的。

3. The Theory of State Capacity for Democracy

3.民主的国家能力论

As an institutional model, democracy requires many preconditions to be constructed and to operate effectively over the long term, and state capacity is the most fundamental and crucial aspect among them. If a country lacks basic state capacity — with a sluggish economy, political decay, social chaos, absence of order, value fragmentation, and severe conflict — no democratic system whatsoever can be constructed or function effectively. Wang Shaoguang once summarized the six most important functions that an effective state must be capable of performing: maintaining national security and public order, mobilizing and allocating social resources, shaping and consolidating national identity and core social values, maintaining order in economic and social life, ensuring the unity and coordination of the state apparatus, and safeguarding economic security and upholding social distributive justice. "Without an effective state, there can be no stable democratic system… During democratic transitions, the way state power is exercised must change, but state power itself should not be weakened. Democratic reformers should not simply try to limit state power; on the contrary, they should strive to establish state institutions in areas where state power was previously absent, and further strengthen state capacity in areas where it is weak." In other words, although the establishment and improvement of democracy implies supervision and restraint over state power, it does not mean a simple weakening of state power. This stands in sharp contrast to the ideas long advocated by Western democratic discourse. According to Western democratic theory, government is a necessary evil, and the development of democracy means not only supervision and restraint over state power but also the contraction and retreat of state power, meaning a small government — only in this way can the infringement of power on property and freedom be better reduced or avoided. However, the democratic practice of less-developed countries shows that if state power is unilaterally weakened or dispersed in the process of advancing democracy, serious problems will arise. The fruit of democracy is, to a large extent, rooted in state capacity; a state power with central authority and governing capacity is a reliable guarantee for the gradual establishment and improvement of the democratic system and the sustained and effective functioning of democracy.

民主作为一种制度模式，要想得以建构并长期有效运作，需要诸多前提条件，而国家能力则是其中最为基础、至为关键的一个方面。一个国家如果缺乏基本的国家能力，经济萎靡、政治衰败、社会混乱、秩序缺失、价值分化、冲突严重，不论什么样的民主制度都不可能建构并切实发挥作用。王绍光曾概括了一个有效国家必须有能力履行的六项最重要职能：维护国家安全与公共秩序，动员与调度社会资源，塑造与巩固国家认同和社会核心价值，维护经济与社会生活秩序，确保国家机器的统一、协调，保障经济安全、维护社会分配正义。“没有一个有效的国家，就不可能有稳固的民主制度……在民主转型期间，国家行使权力的方式必须改变，但国家权力本身却不应被削弱。民主改革者不应一味地试图限制国家权力，相反，他们应该努力在原来国家权力缺失的领域建立起国家机构，在原来国家能力薄弱的领域进一步加强国家能力。”换言之，尽管民主的建立健全意味着对国家权力的监督制约，但并不意味着国家权力的单纯削弱。而这与长期以来西方民主话语所主张的观念形成鲜明对比。按西方民主理论，政府是必要的恶，民主的发达不仅意味着对国家权力的监督制约，而且意味着国家权力的收缩与后退，意味着小政府，只有这样才能更好减少或避免权力对财产与自由的侵害。但欠发达国家的民主实践则表明，在民主推进的过程中如果一味削弱或分散国家权力，将会导致严重问题。民主之果很大程度上是结在国家能力这个根上的，一个具有中央权威与治理能力的国家权力是民主制度逐步建立健全、民主作用持续有效发挥的可靠保障。

The reason for this difference is that in the process of modernization, Western countries first formed nation-states, established power structures and the rule of law, and acquired basic state capacity before implementing or opening up democracy, whereas late-developing countries often lack these prerequisite conditions. An important reason why the so-called third wave of "democratization" that emerged in many less-developed countries in the late 20th century experienced large-scale reversals and difficulty in consolidation is precisely that these countries suffered from severely insufficient state capacity, unable to provide the necessary prerequisites and reliable guarantees for the formation and operation of a democratic system. As Huntington analyzed: "Americans have never had to worry about creating a government. This gap in historical experience particularly prevents them from seeing the problem of establishing effective authority in modernizing countries. When an American considers the issue of government building, his thinking is not about how to create authority and concentrate power, but how to limit authority and disperse power… For many modernizing countries, this formula is useless… Authority must first exist before one can talk about limiting it. In those modernizing countries, it is precisely authority that is lacking." In the process of advancing democracy in our country, the Party and government have always emphasized that the central authorities must have authority, focused on building state governance capacity, and particularly stressed the extreme importance of the Party's leadership. This shows that we fully recognize the significance of state capacity for the development and consolidation of democracy. "The Party Central Committee and the State Council should be authoritative and capable." "The superiority of socialism compared with capitalism lies in its ability to coordinate the whole country like a game of chess, concentrate forces, and ensure key points." It is also in this sense that China's democratic development provides useful experience and reference for other late-modernizing countries.

之所以有这种差别，是因为西方国家在现代化进程中是先形成民族国家，建立权力架构与法治秩序，具备基本的国家能力后再去实行或放开民主，后发国家则往往并不具备相关的前提性条件。20世纪后期很多欠发达国家中出现的所谓第三波“民主化”浪潮之所以出现大规模回潮、难以巩固，一个重要原因就在于这些国家国家能力严重不足，无法为民主制度的形成与运作提供必要前提与可靠保障。正如亨廷顿分析的：“美国人从未为创造一个政府而担忧。这一历史经验的差距特别使他们看不到处于现代化之中的国家里奠定有效权威方面的问题。当一个美国人在考虑政府建设问题时，他的思路不是如何去创造权威和集中权力，而是如何去限制权威和分散权力……对于许多现代化之中的国家来说，这个公式是无济于事的……必须先存在权威，而后才谈得上限制权威。在那些处于现代化之中的国家里，恰恰缺少了权威。”在我国民主推进过程中，党和政府一直强调中央要有权威，注重国家治理能力建设，并且特别强调党的领导的极端重要性，这说明我们充分认识到国家能力对于民主发展巩固的意义所在。“党中央、国务院应当是有权威的，有能力的。”“社会主义同资本主义比较，它的优越性就在于能做到全国一盘棋，集中力量，保证重点。”也正是在这个意义上，中国民主发展对其他后发现代化国家提供了有益的经验与借鉴。

4. The Theory of the Domain and Process of Democracy

4.民主的领域过程论

As mentioned above, the West understands democracy mainly within the political domain and narrows it down to electoral democracy. This narrow view of electoral democracy holds that, although China's economic and social development has been rapid since reform and opening up, it has not made significant progress in democratic construction because China has not universally opened up competitive elections at all levels. This is clearly mistaken. This raises the following questions: Is democracy merely a matter of the purely political domain? How should we view this electoral democracy perspective? How should we comprehensively understand modern democracy? What line of thinking does China's democratic construction actually follow? To effectively answer these questions, we cannot confine ourselves to the perspective of Western electoral democracy; we must step outside its framework of thought and objectively and rationally examine the development of democracy in contemporary China. Based on the theory

如上文所述，西方主要是政治视阈内理解民主，并将其狭隘化为选举民主。这种狭隘的选举民主论的观点认为，改革开放以来，尽管中国经济社会发展迅速，但在民主建设方面并未取得显著进步，因为中国并未普遍放开各个层次的竞争性选举。这显然是错误的。由此引出了以下问题：民主是否仅是一个纯粹政治领域的问题？如何看待这种选举民主论的观点？如何全面理解现代民主？中国的民主建设到底秉持何种思路？要有效回答以上问题，就不能仅仅局限在西方选举民主论的视野之内，而必须跳出其思维框架，客观理性地审视当代中国的民主发展。立足中国民主的理论与实践，可以看到，中国民主具有比选举民主广泛得多的领域，并具有全过程性。就此而言，中国民主是一种广义的民主。

On the one hand, the domain of existence of Chinese

一方面，中国民主的存在领域具有广泛性。在当代中国，民主不仅仅存在于政治领域，而是广泛存在于政治、经济、文化、社会、生态、国际关系等诸领域。就政治领域而言，中国民主的最大特点就是作为最高政治领导力量和唯一执政党的中国共产党自身具有特定的民主内容与民主形式，影响巨大而广泛。这一是指中国共产党针对自身的党内民主。中国共产党作为中国各项事业的领导核心，民主集中制是其根本组织制度和领导制度，党内民主在党的建设和国家治理中具有十分重要的意义。我们党也提出了以党内民主带动人民民主的发展思路。二是指中国共产党针对民众的群众路线。群众路线强调党员干部要自上而下积极主动深入群众、深入基层调查研究，了解民情、把握民意、汇集民智，很大程度上发挥了民主的功能，实际成为一种独特的民主形式。群众路线不仅具有价值论意义——强调一切为了群众，奠定了党领导的正当性基础；具有功能论意义——强调一切依靠群众，是党的伟力之源；而且具有方法论意义——强调从群众中来、到群众中去，大大推进了政策制定的科学化与政策实施的有效性。其作为我们党的根本工作路线具有现代民主机制无法完全替代的独特功能与巨大价值，应牢牢予以坚持并不断创新发展。除中国共产党的党内民主与群众路线外，在政治领域，我们坚持和完善人民代表大会制度、中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度、民族区域自治制度以及基层群众自治制度，建设服务政府、责任政府、法治政府、廉洁政府，巩固和发展最广泛的爱国统一战线。就经济领域而言，生产资料归劳动者共同占有的社会主义公有制本身就是一种经济民主的形式，而随着我国社会主义市场经济体制的确立与完善，社会成员在产权得到有效保障的基础上自由、平等地从事经济活动，也是经济民主的重要内涵。就文化领域而言，我们注重保障广大社会成员的基本文化权益特别是受教育权，积极推进基本公共文化服务的标准化和均等化，深化文化体制改革，解放和发展文化生产力，发扬学术民主、艺术民主。就社会领域而言，社会成员在个体私人领域中依法享有自由，也可以自主参与法律允许的各种社会组织，公众和社会组织可以以多种形式、多种方式参与社会治理。就生态领域而言，公众与社会组织也可以作为主体共同参与生态环境治理。就国际关系领域而言，在经济全球化日益深化的今天，中国作为一个为人类谋大同的负责任大国致力于实现国际关系民主化，推动构建人类命运共同体，主张世界上的事情只能由各国政府和人民共同商量来办，强调共商共建共享，推进全球治理规则民主化、法治化，所针对与批判的就是维护旧的国际秩序的西方民主话语。“从政治到经济、社会、文化、生态、国际关系，由国内到国外，中国共产党在回应中国特色社会主义事业建设要求中不断深化民主实质内涵的认识，将民主理念应用于各个领域。”

On the other hand, the operational mechanism of Chinese

另一方面，中国民主的运作机制具有全过程性。正如习近平总书记指出的，人民民主是一种全过程的民主。全过程的民主包括民主选举、民主决策、民主管理、民主监督等过程。“人民是否享有民主权利，要看人民是否在选举时有投票的权利，也要看人民在日常政治生活中是否有持续参与的权利；要看人民有没有进行民主选举的权利，也要看人民有没有进行民主决策、民主管理、民主监督的权利。社会主义民主不仅需要完整的制度程序，而且需要完整的参与实践。”中国民主的设计非常注重民主程序与环节的公正、严密、完善，因为这在很大程度上决定了民主运作的实际效果，这与西方民主仅强调选举环节形成了鲜明对比。“人民只有投票的权利而没有广泛参与的权利，人民只有在投票时被唤醒、投票后就进入休眠期，这样的民主是形式主义的。”

5. The Functional Theory of Democracy in Practice

5.民主的实践功能论

Democracy is both a lofty value and an ideal goal we pursue, and at the same time an important means for China to achieve reform, development, and stability. In this regard, democracy cannot be abstracted, principled, idealized, or romanticized, nor can one pursue an unrealistic institutional model. Instead, attention must be paid to designing appropriate democratic forms based on actual needs, so as to give full play to the positive functions of democracy in practice. In this sense, contemporary China’s democratic construction must obey and serve the building of a great modern socialist country, integrating the process of democratic construction into the overall process of national governance and national rejuvenation. We can learn from and draw on Western democratic institutions, but no matter how beautifully their discourse proclaims them, if they hinder our historical tasks of socialist modernization, national governance, and national rejuvenation, we must resolutely reject them. Since reform and opening up, our Party, on the basis of consciously criticizing Western democratic discourse, has gradually established a standard for evaluating democracy’s function that emphasizes development and governance. “Democracy is not an ornament, not something used as a display; it is meant to solve the problems that the people need to solve.” [14]14 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Work Related to People’s Congresses” (September 5, 2014), in *Selected Readings of Xi Jinping’s Works*, vol. 2 (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2017), p. 55. “If Western democracy can be described as a ‘liberal democratic model,’ then ‘Chinese-style democracy’ can be described as a ‘development-governance democratic model.’” [15]15 Lin Shangli, “On the Democratic Discourse of the Communist Party of China,” *Academic Monthly*, no. 4 (2021), p. 8. From reform and opening up until around the year 2000, we mainly thought about the content and form of democracy from the perspective of the development of productive forces. In the 1980s, Deng Xiaoping gave very clear expositions on this. He emphasized that political system reform should be conducive to developing productive forces under the leadership of the Party and the socialist system, stressed economic democracy and the decentralized democracy of delegating power to lower levels, and pointed out that mobilizing initiative is the greatest democracy. “In evaluating whether a country’s political system, political structure, and policies are correct, the key lies in three criteria: first, whether the country’s political situation is stable; second, whether it can enhance the unity of the people and improve their lives; and third, whether productive forces can achieve sustained development.” [16]16 Deng Xiaoping, “How to Evaluate a Country’s Political System” (March 27, 1987), in *Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping*, vol. 3 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1993), p. 213. The latter two points are in fact the criterion of productive forces, and order and stability are also closely related to the development of productive forces. “Regarding democracy, we on the mainland talk about socialist democracy, which is different from the concept of bourgeois democracy. Western democracy means separation of powers, multiparty elections, and so on. We do not oppose Western countries doing this, but we on the Chinese mainland do not practice multiparty elections, separation of powers, or a bicameral system. What we practice is the unicameral system of the National People’s Congress, which best suits China’s actual conditions. If the policies are correct and the direction is right, this system has great advantages and is very helpful for the country’s prosperity and development, avoiding many entanglements.” [17]17 Deng Xiaoping, “We Do Not Practice Multiparty Elections or Separation of Powers” (April 16, 1987), in *Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping*, vol. 3 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1993), p. 220.

民主既是我们追求的崇高价值与理想目标，同时又是中国实现改革发展稳定的重要手段，就此而言，不能把民主抽象化、原则化、理想化、浪漫化，追求不切实际的制度模式，而是要注重从实际需要出发进行合适的民主设计，充分发挥民主在实践中的积极功能。从这个意义上说，当代中国的民主建设必须服从并服务于社会主义现代化强国建设，将民主建设的进程统一到国家治理与民族复兴的总体进程中去。西方的民主制度我们可以学习借鉴，但不论其话语宣扬的多么美好，只要妨碍了我们的社会主义现代化建设、国家治理与民族复兴的历史任务，我们就要坚决拒绝。改革开放以来，我们党在自觉批判西方民主话语的基础上逐步确立了强调发展—治理的民主功能评价标准。“民主不是装饰品，不是用来做摆设的，而是要用来解决人民要解决的问题的。”“如果说，西方民主可以表述为‘自由民主模式’，那么，‘中国式民主’可以表述为‘发展—治理型民主模式’。”自改革开放以来直至2000年左右，我们主要是从生产力发展的角度来思考民主的内容与形式。20世纪80年代邓小平对此就有过非常明确的论述。他强调政治体制改革要有利于在党的领导和社会主义制度下发展生产力，强调经济民主、权力下放的分权式民主，指出调动积极性是最大的民主。“我们评价一个国家的政治体制、政治结构和政策是否正确，关键看三条：第一是看国家的政局是否稳定；第二是看能否增进人民的团 结，改善人民的生活；第三是看生产力能否得到持续发展。”《后两点实际上都是生产力标准，而秩序稳定也和生产力发展息息相关。“关于民主，我们大陆讲社会主义民主，和资产阶级民主的概念不同。西方的民主就是三权分立，多党竞选，等等。我们并不反对西方国家这样搞，但是我们中国大陆不搞多党竞选，不搞三权分立、两院制。我们实行的就是全国人民代表大会一院制，这最符合中国实际。如果政策正确，方向正确，这种体制益处很大，很有助于国家的兴旺发达，避免很多牵扯。”

Since the beginning of the 21st century, and especially since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, governance that encompasses the development of productive forces has become a more comprehensive criterion for evaluating democratic functioning. This is because the stage of development and the tasks of development in Chinese society have gradually changed: before relative development was achieved, the development of productive forces was the primary and most prominent task; but after relative development is achieved, the problems are not only no fewer than during underdevelopment, but may even be greater. At this point, it becomes necessary to coordinate and balance the various tasks of reform, development, stability, and security, emphasizing the governance of the entire country. “Whether a country’s political system is democratic and effective depends mainly on whether the state leadership can be replaced in an orderly manner according to law, whether all the people can manage state and social affairs as well as economic and cultural undertakings according to law, whether the people can express their interests and demands without obstruction, whether all sectors of society can effectively participate in the country’s political life, whether national decision-making can be made scientific and democratic, whether people of all talents can enter the state leadership and management system through fair competition, whether the ruling party can realize its leadership over state affairs in accordance with the constitution and laws, and whether the exercise of power can be effectively checked and supervised.” Although these “eight criteria” [18]18 The “eight criteria” (八个能否) for evaluating whether a country’s political system is democratic and effective, as articulated by Xi Jinping in a 2014 speech marking the 60th anniversary of the founding of the National People’s Congress. are stated with regard to political democracy, when extended and generalized, they actually embody our Party’s governance thinking in the entire standard for evaluating democracy. The functional standard of development-governance runs through the Marxist practical thinking, embodies a strong realistic orientation, and promotes China’s democratic development to be grounded in the present, concrete, and steady.

进入21世纪以来特别是党的十八大以来，涵括生产力发展在内的治理则成为更为全面的民主功能评价标准，这是因为中国社会的发展阶段与发展任务逐渐发生了变化：在相对发展起来以前，生产力发展是摆在第一位的、最突出的任务，而相对发展起来以后的问题不仅不比不发展时少，甚至还要更多，这时就需要在改革、发展、稳定、安全各项任务之间进行统筹协调，强调整个国家治理。“评价一个国家政治制度是不是民主的、有效的，主要看国家领导层能否依法有序更替，全体人民能否依法管理国家事务和社会事务、管理经济和文化事业，人民群众能否畅通表达利益要求，社会各方面能否有效参与国家政治生活，国家决策能否实现科学化、民主化，各方面人才能否通过公平竞争进入国家领导和管理体系，执政党能否依照宪法法律规定实现对国家事务的领导，权力运用能否得到有效制约和监督。”这“八个能否”尽管是就政治民主而言，但扩而广之，其实际体现了我们党在整个民主评价标准问题上的治理思维。发展—治理的功能标准贯穿着马克思主义的实践思维，体现了强烈的现实取向，推动着中国的民主发展立足当下、实实在在、稳步前行。

The above five aspects of Chinese democratic discourse depict the basic picture of contemporary China’s democratic construction: the discourse on specific national conditions points to the soil and conditions in which democracy is rooted; the discourse on state capacity points to the necessary prerequisites for democratic growth; the discourse on political characteristics points to the political principles of democratic construction; the discourse on fields and processes points to the overall pattern of democratic development; and the discourse on practical functions points to the evaluation criteria for democratic operation. This “five-sphere integrated” [19]19 The “five-sphere integrated” (五位一体) plan refers to China’s overall plan for building socialism with Chinese characteristics, encompassing economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological civilization construction. content framework is internally related and organically linked, forming a relatively complete system, with each aspect forming a sharp contrast with Western democratic discourse.

中国民主话语的以上五个方面描绘了当代中国民主建设的基本图景：具体国情论指出了民主根植的条件土壤，国家能力论指出了民主成长的必要前提，政治特色论指出了民主建设的政治原则，领域过程论指出了民主发展的总体格局，实践功能论指出了民主运作的评价标准。这“五位一体”的内容框架内在相关、有机联系，构成一个相对完整的系统，每一个方面都与西方民主话语形成鲜明对比。

III. Main Characteristics of Chinese Democratic Discourse: Endogeneity, People-Centeredness, Completeness, Absorptiveness, and Timeliness

三、中国民主话语的主要特点：内生性、人民性、完整性、吸纳性、时代性

Through the above analysis, summarizing both theoretical and practical aspects, and comparing with Western democratic discourse, Chinese democratic discourse presents the following main characteristics.

通过以上分析，总结理论与实践两个方面，对比西方民主话语，中国民主话语呈现以下几个主要特点。

1. Endogeneity of Discourse

1.话语的内生性

Chinese democratic discourse certainly possesses some common categories of modern democratic discourse, such as democracy, equality, rights, rule of law, freedom, citizenship, elections, and so on. This indicates that China’s democratic discourse is not a product of self-isolation and complacency that departs from the grand path of human civilization. Acknowledging the common values of human civilization and respecting the historical trend of modern democratic development is not only an inevitable choice for developing socialist democracy but also an inherent requirement and intrinsic mission of socialist democracy. However, it must be recognized that Chinese democratic discourse not only embodies universality but also possesses particularity, originality, and endogeneity. This is because, on the one hand, the realization of any universal category is concrete, historical, and particular; in different countries and nations, under different conditions and contexts, there will be different concrete contents and forms of expression. The realization of modern democratic discourse in contemporary China is no exception. As is well known, this is a dialectical unity of world character and national character, universality and particularity, commonality and individuality, abstraction and concreteness. On the other hand, China’s specific national conditions, including its unique cultural traditions, socialist nature, political system, stage of development, modernization tasks, demands of national governance, and the mission of national rejuvenation, have caused China’s democratic discourse to generate many unique categories, concepts, and theories. These unique categories, concepts, and theories are all rooted in China’s history and reality, culture and system, theory and practice, and possess endogeneity. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out when discussing China’s democratic political system, “The political system of socialism with Chinese characteristics is workable, dynamic, and efficient precisely because it has grown out of China’s social soil.” [20]20 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Conference Celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the Founding of the National People’s Congress” (2014). For example, developing socialist democratic politics, adhering to the organic unity of Party leadership, the people being the masters of the country, and law-based governance, being people-centered, using intra-Party democracy to drive people’s democracy, and promoting the extensive, multi-tiered, and institutionalized development of consultative democracy—these formulations are unique to China’s democratic political discourse and are the crystallization of wisdom from China’s democratic exploration. To summarize, China’s democratic discourse either provides a concrete and individualized interpretation of the common categories of modern democratic discourse, or, based on its own national conditions, refines and forms unique categories, concepts, and theories with a distinct Chinese style and manner. Both of these are important foundations for the adaptability and vitality of Chinese democratic discourse. When discussing the Chinese path, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that this path has been forged through the great practice of reform and opening up over more than 40 years, through the continuous exploration over more than 70 years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, through a profound summation of the development process of the Chinese nation over more than 170 years since modern times, and through the inheritance of the 5,000-year-old civilization of the Chinese nation, possessing deep historical origins and broad practical foundations. This statement is equally applicable to Chinese democratic discourse.

中国民主话语当然具有现代民主话语的一些共同范畴，比如民主、平等、权利、法治、自由、公民、选举，等等，这说明中国的民主话语不是离开人类文明大道的故步自封的产物。承认人类文明的共同价值，尊重现代民主发展的历史趋势，既是发展社会主义民主的必然选择，又是社会主义民主的内在要求与固有使命。但要看到，中国民主话语不仅体现了普遍性，更具有特殊性、原创性和内生性。这是因为，一方面，任何普遍性的范畴，其实现都是具体的、历史的、特殊的，在不同的国家和民族，不同的条件和语境下，会有不尽相同的现实内容和表现形式，现代民主话语在当代中国的实现同样如此。众所周知，这是一种世界性和民族性、普遍性与特殊性、共性与个性、抽象与具体的辩证统一关系。另一方面，中国的具体国情，包括独特文化传统、社会主义性质、政治体制、发展阶段、现代化任务、国家治理诉求、民族复兴使命等种种因素又使得中国的民主话语产生了很多特有的范畴、理念与理论，这些特有的范畴、理念与理论都根植于中国的历史与现实、文化与制度、理论与实践，具有内生性。正如习近平总书记在谈到中国民主政治制度时指出的，“中国特色社会主义政治制度之所以行得通、有生命力、有效率，就是因为它是从中国的社会土壤中生长起来的”。比如发展社会主义民主政治，坚持党的领导、人民当家作主和依法治国有机统一，以人民为中心，以党内民主带动人民民主，推进协商民主广泛多层制度化发展，等等，这些提法都是中国民主政治话语所独有的，是中国民主探索的智慧结晶。总结以上，中国的民主话语或者是对现代民主话语的共同范畴作出了具体化的个性阐释，或者是基于自身国情提炼形成了具有鲜明中国气派、中国风格的特有范畴、理念与理论，而这两者都是中国民主话语具有适应性与生命力的重要基础。习近平总书记在谈到中国道路时曾指出，这条道路是在改革开放40多年的伟大实践中走出来的，是在中华人民共和国成立70多年的持续探索中走出来的，是在对近代以来170多年中华民族发展历程的深刻总结中走出来的，是在对中华民族5000多年悠久文明的传承中走出来的，具有深厚的历史渊源和广泛的现实基础。这一论述同样非常适用于中国民主话语。

2. People-Centeredness of Discourse

2.话语的人民性

Guided by Marxism and possessing a socialist nature, Chinese democratic discourse embodies a distinct people-centeredness. In the course of world history, democracy has been closely linked to the socialist movement. Looking at modern Western workers’ movements, the working class, especially the socialists, learned the concepts of democracy and equality while fighting alongside the bourgeoisie against feudal monarchy. They criticized the formal and hypocritical nature of bourgeois democracy and equality, demanding a further expansion of the subjects of democracy, an expansion of the fields of democracy, and a push for the transformation of formal democracy into substantive democracy. People’s democracy and actual equality became powerful weapons for the working class and disadvantaged groups against the oppression of capital. As the bourgeoisie seized power and became increasingly conservative, mass democracy “increasingly came to be seen as a system and concept that shared great commonality with socialism in both value and goal, a force that, once realized, could lead to the replacement of capitalism by socialism.” [21]21 Wang Shaoguang, “Democracy: A Socialist Category,” *Open Times* (开放时代), 2012, no. 6. In this sense, only socialism can truly realize broad and substantive democracy; democracy can be said to be an essential category of socialism. Under these circumstances, for the bourgeoisie to maintain the name of democracy while avoiding the danger of people’s democracy impacting capital, it had to reform and castrate democracy, confining it to the political sphere, and especially de-socializing it. The Schumpeterian electoral democracy and elite democracy mentioned above embody such a requirement. Different from this Western democratic discourse, Chinese democratic discourse, with its distinct people-centeredness, reconstructs the essential connection between democracy and socialism, and once again holds high the great banner of socialist people’s democracy. “The people being the masters of the country is the essence and core of socialist democratic politics. People’s democracy is the lifeblood of socialism. Without democracy, there is no socialism, and there is no socialist modernization.” [22]22 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Conference Celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the Founding of the National People’s Congress” (2014). China’s democracy emphasizes procedures and forms, but places greater weight on substance; it emphasizes democratic elections, but places greater weight on whole-process participation; it emphasizes political democracy, but places greater weight on economic and social democracy; it emphasizes partial interests, but places greater weight on the interests of the majority and the overall interest. Compared with Western democratic discourse, the people-centered Chinese democratic discourse occupies the high ground of truth and morality, representing the historical direction and development trend of human democratic discourse.

中国民主话语以马克思主义为指导，具有社会主义性质，体现出鲜明的人民性。在世界历史进程中，民主曾与社会主义运动紧密相连。观诸近代西方工人运动，工人阶级特别是社会主义者在与资产阶级共同反对封建王权的斗争中学到了民主与平等的理念，并批判了资产阶级民主与平等的形式性和虚伪性，要求进一步扩大民主的主体，拓展民主的领域，推动形式民主转向实质民主，人民民主与实际平等成为工人阶级与弱势群体对抗资本压迫的有力武器。随着资产阶级取得政权并日益保守，大众民主“日益被看成一种无论在价值还是在目标上都与社会主义具有很大共同性的制度和理念，一种一旦实现就可能导致社会主义取代资本主义的力量”。在此意义上，只有社会主义才能真正实现广泛的实质民主，民主可以说是社会主义的本质性范畴。在这种情况下，资产阶级要想既保持民主之名而又避免人民民主冲击资本之危险，就必须对民主进行改造、阉割，局限于政治领域，特别是去社会主义化，以上所说熊彼特式的选举民主与精英民主就体现了这样一种要求。区别于西方这种民主话语，中国民主话语以其鲜明的人民性重建了民主与社会主义的本质性关联，重新高擎起来社会主义人民民主的伟大旗帜。“人民当家作主是社会主义民主政治的本质和核心。人民民主是社会主义的生命。没有民主就没有社会主义，就没有社会主义的现代化。”中国的民主讲程序和形式，但更重实质；讲民主选举，但更讲全过程参与；讲政治民主，但更重经济与社会民主；讲部分利益，但更重多数利益和整体利益。相比于西方民主话语，具有人民性的中国民主话语占据着真理与道义的制高点，代表了人类民主话语的历史方向与发展趋势。

3. Completeness of Discourse

3.话语的完整性

On the one hand, the completeness of Chinese democratic discourse is reflected in the comprehensiveness of democratic content and the richness of its forms. In terms of content, China’s democracy involves both the party level and the state level; both the government level and the people’s level; both the economic and political spheres, as well as the social and cultural spheres; both the national level and the regional level; both China itself and the entire world. In terms of form, China’s democracy includes both ballot democracy and consultative democracy; both democratic elections and democratic decision-making, democratic management, and democratic oversight; both top-down investigation and research and bottom-up democratic participation; both direct democracy and indirect democracy; both offline forms and online forms. On the other hand, the completeness of Chinese democratic discourse is reflected in the organic coordination and internal coherence among its discursive elements. As noted above, Chinese democratic discourse not only elucidates the conditions for the emergence of democracy and the soil in which it is rooted, but also analyzes the political implications and the prerequisites of authority for democracy; it not only explains the fields democracy encompasses and the levels of its content, but also clarifies democracy’s functional orientation and evaluation criteria. The various discursive elements can be said to have formed a relatively complete content framework and logical system. Apart from Western democratic discourse, contemporary China is probably the only country capable of effectively constructing such a complete and systematic democratic discourse. It is precisely for this reason that Chinese democratic discourse can comprehensively and effectively confront, contain, and even dissolve Western democratic discourse.

一方面，中国民主话语的完整性体现在民主内容的全面性和形式的丰富性。就内容而言，中国的民主既涉及政党层面，又涉及国家层面；既涉及政府层面，又涉及人民层面；既涉及经济领域、政治领域，也涉及社会领域、文化领域；既涉及民族层面，也涉及区域层面；既涉及中国自身，又涉及整个世界。就形式而言，中国的民主既包括票决民主，也包括协商民主；既包括民主选举，也包括民主决策、民主管理、民主监督；既包括自上而下的调查研究，也包括自下而上的民主参与；既包括直接民主，也包括间接民主；既包括线下形式，也包括网络形式。另一方面，中国民主话语的完整性体现在话语要素之间的有机配套性和内在协调性。正如上述，中国民主话语既阐发了民主的产生条件与根植土壤，又分析了民主的政治意涵与权威前提，既说明了民主的涵括领域与内容层次，又明确了民主的功能取向与评价标准，各话语要素之间可以说已经形成了比较完整的内容框架与逻辑体系。除了西方民主话语外，当代中国恐怕是唯一能够有效建构起这种具有完整性、系统性民主话语的国家。也正由此，中国民主话语才能够全方位有效对抗、遏制乃至消解西方民主话语。

4. Discursive Absorptiveness

4.话语的吸纳性

This discursive absorptiveness refers, on the one hand, to not forgetting the original and making the past serve the present—the study, inheritance, absorption, and promotion of the excellent traditional discursive resources of our own nation. For example, Chinese democratic discourse creatively transforms and innovatively develops traditional categories such as “the people are the foundation of the state” (民为邦本), “governing with virtue” (为政以德), “the world is shared by all” (天下为公), and “harmony among all nations” (协和万邦). On the other hand, it refers to absorbing foreign elements and making them serve China—the analysis, reference, absorption, and critical appropriation of foreign discursive resources, including Western democratic discourse. Criticizing the elite nature, capital logic, and universal values of Western democratic discourse does not mean a total negation of Western democratic discourse. On the contrary, Chinese democratic discourse should humbly learn from the good ideas, modes of thinking, and practices of Western democratic discourse, digest and absorb them on the basis of independence and self-reliance, and make them serve our own purposes. Only in this way can it remain invincible. For instance, since the beginning of the 21st century, our Party and state have flexibly borrowed and absorbed the Western-derived term “governance” (治理). In the West, “governance” emerged in response to government failure and market failure, advocating for the participation of citizens and their organizations in relevant public affairs, emphasizing its distinction from traditional management in terms of subjects and methods, and it is an important concept within Western democratic discourse. As governance theory became a hot topic in China’s academic circles, this concept also entered the official documents of our Party and government. The Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee [23]23 The Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, held in November 2013, was a landmark meeting that adopted the “Decision on Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Deepening Reforms,” which for the first time elevated “modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity” to the level of a general reform goal. explicitly proposed the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity, while reforms in the social sphere aimed to innovate the social governance system. Social governance, in terms of its subjects, involves Party committee leadership, government responsibility, democratic consultation, social coordination, with everyone having responsibility, everyone fulfilling their duty, and everyone enjoying the benefits. It can be seen that governance has been endowed with a distinctly Sinicized connotation and has become a keyword in Chinese democratic discourse. This also shows that in today’s era of deep economic globalization, completely resisting Western democratic discourse is unrealistic. “The correct method can only be dialectical sublation and a norm-oriented reconstruction: affirming and promoting its function of interpreting the discourse of developing socialist democratic politics, while avoiding the semantic traps that deviate from the socialist system; at the same time, injecting new connotations that reflect the nature and characteristics of socialism with Chinese characteristics into the shell of borrowed vocabulary, achieving semantic normalization and reconstruction, and establishing discursive dominance through the active and widespread use of mainstream ideology… In this way, on the one hand, in the struggle for international ideological discursive power, a situation can be formed where the other declines while we grow, preventing the Western democratic discourse system from becoming a flood of savage beasts; on the other hand, the socialist democratic discourse system can thus keep pace with the times and shoulder the due responsibility of leading the political and social development of humanity.”

这种话语的吸纳性一方面是指不忘本来、古为今用，对本民族优秀传统话语资源的研究、继承、吸纳、弘扬。比如中国民主话语对民为邦本、为政以德、天下为公、协和万邦等传统范畴的创造性转化与创新性发展。另一方面是指吸收外来、洋为中用，对国外包括西方民主话语资源的分析、借鉴、吸纳、扬弃。批判西方民主话语的精英性质、资本逻辑与普世价值，并非对西方民主话语彻底否定，相反，对西方民主话语好的理念、思维、做法，中国民主话语应该虚心学习，在独立自主的基础上加以消化吸收，为我所用，只有如此方能立于不败之地。比如进入21世纪以来，我们党和国家对西方舶来的“治理”一词就予以灵活地借鉴吸收。治理一词在西方是针对政府失灵和市场失灵，主张公民及其组织对相关公共事务的参与，在主体与方式方面特别强调与传统管理的区别，属于西方民主话语的重要概念。随着治理理论在我国学术界成为热点，这一概念也进入了我们党和政府的正式文件。党的十八届三中全会明确提出国家治理体系与治理能力的现代化，社会领域的改革则是要创新社会治理体制，社会治理在主体上是党委领导、政府负责、民主协商、社会协同，人人有责、人人尽责、人人享有。由此可见，治理被赋予了鲜明的中国化的内涵，已经成为中国民主话语的关键词。这也说明，在今天的深度经济全球化时代，完全抵制西方民主话语并不现实，“正确的方法只能是辩证的扬弃和指向明确的规范再造：肯定并发扬其对发展社会主义民主政治的话语解读功能，避开其背离社会主义制度的语义陷阱；同时，在舶来词汇的外壳里注入体现中国特色社会主义性质特点的新内涵，实现语义的规范与再造，并以主流意识形态的主动使用和广泛使用确立话语主导权……如此，一则在国际意识形态话语权的斗争中，可形成彼消我长之势，西式民主话语体系难以成为洪水猛兽；再则，社会主义民主话语体系可由此不断与时俱进，担负起引领人类政治社会发展的应然重任。”

5. Discursive Timeliness

5.话语的时代性

The timeliness of Chinese democratic discourse is ultimately determined by the timeliness of the great cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics. In the open context of economic globalization, sticking to old ways, closing oneself off, being conservative and dogmatic, or mechanically imitating are all inadvisable. Old theories, old discourses, and old ideas cannot adapt to the New Era, respond to new situations, or solve new problems. Innovation and change based on the demands of the times are the general trend. “The great social transformation of contemporary China is not a simple continuation of the master copy of our history and culture, not a simple application of the templates conceived by Marxist classic writers, not a reprint of the socialist practices of other countries, and not a copy of the modernization development of foreign countries.” [24]24 This is a quotation from Xi Jinping’s speech at the ceremony marking the 95th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China on July 1, 2016, emphasizing the originality of China’s path of socialist development. So what is China’s great social transformation? It is a new edition that embodies the demands of the times. If this is true of the great social transformation, it is certainly also true of the Chinese democratic discourse embedded within it. The modernization of national governance, socialist democratic politics, socialist consultative democracy, the socialist rule-of-law system with Chinese characteristics, a community with a shared future for mankind, and mutual learning among civilizations are all original and timely concepts or categories of democratic discourse proposed in the course of solving domestic and international difficulties. It is precisely for this reason that China’s democratic discourse can take the lead in setting trends and guide the currents of the times.

中国民主话语的时代性归根到底是由中国特色社会主义伟大事业的时代性所决定的。在经济全球化的开放语境下，因循守旧、封闭保守、复古教条、照猫画虎都是不可取的，旧理论、旧话语、旧理念难以适应新时代、应对新形势、解决新问题，基于时代要求的创新求变是大势所趋。“当代中国的伟大社会变革，不是简单延续我国历史文化的母版，不是简单套用马克思主义经典作家设想的模板，不是其他国家社会主义实践的再版，也不是国外现代化发展的翻版。”那么，中国的伟大社会变革是什么呢？是体现时代要求的新版。伟大社会变革是如此，蕴含于伟大社会变革中的中国民主话语当然亦是如此。国家治理现代化、社会主义民主政治、社会主义协商民主、中国特色社会主义法治体系、人类命运共同体、文明互鉴等都是我们在解决国内外难题时提出的具有原创性、时代性的民主话语的理念或范畴。也正因此，中国的民主话语才能开风气之先，引领时代潮流。

IV. The Value and Significance of Chinese Democratic Discourse: Solving China’s Problems, Deconstructing Western Discourse, and Embodying World Trends

四、中国民主话语的价值意义：解决中国问题、解构西方话语、体现世界潮流

The significance of Chinese democratic discourse lies first in its effectiveness in solving China’s own problems: it has effectively answered questions concerning the guiding principles, path direction, specific content, forms of realization, mechanisms and procedures, order of advancement, and evaluation criteria for democratic construction in a large Eastern socialist country with a complex national condition and a long history, in the process of modernization and national rejuvenation. It has played a huge role in promoting China’s social development and progress and will further assist the great journey of the Chinese nation “becoming strong” (强起来). Because the construction of Chinese democratic discourse has largely taken Western democratic discourse as its frame of reference, Chinese democratic discourse, in the course of its own construction, has profoundly analyzed the socioeconomic roots of Western democratic discourse and its ideological hypocrisy, pointed out the local identity and hegemonic logic concealed under the universalist halo of Western democratic discourse, and formed a powerful deconstructive force against Western democratic discourse.

中国民主话语的意义首先在于解决中国自身问题的有效性：其有效回答了在中国这样一个国情复杂、历史悠久的东方社会主义大国，在现代化与民族复兴进程中民主建设的指导原则、道路方向、具体内容、实现形式、机制程序、推进次序、评价标准等问题，对推动中国社会发展与进步发挥了巨大作用，并将进一步助力中华民族“强起来”的伟大征程。由于中国民主话语的建构很大程度上自觉以西方民主话语为参照系，所以，中国民主话语在自身建构过程中深刻剖析了西方民主话语的经济社会根源及其在意识形态上的虚伪性，指出了掩饰在普世光环下的西方民主话语的地方性身份与霸权化逻辑，形成了对西方民主话语的强大解构力量。

Chinese democratic discourse has summarized the experiences and lessons of democratic construction in past socialist countries. With profound historical thinking, a broad global vision, and forward-looking contemporary insight, it has drawn on various discursive resources from ancient and modern times, both Chinese and foreign, and has developed socialist democratic discourse to a new historical and contemporary height. It has imbued Marxist democratic discourse and socialist democratic discourse with strong vitality in 21st-century China. As a theoretical achievement of integrating Marxist democratic theory with China’s concrete reality, it represents a restoration of the original meaning and an innovative development of classical Marxist democratic discourse. Chinese democratic discourse has summarized the experiences and lessons of democratic construction in developing countries, both historically and in the present. It emphasizes that late-developing modernization countries must break with superstition, cast off dependency, explore independently based on their national conditions, rely on central authority for advancement, and choose strategies that “fit their feet” (合脚). In doing so, it provides new options for those countries and nations in the world that need to develop democracy while wishing to maintain their own independence, contributing Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach. Whether from the dimension of socialism or the dimension of modernization, Chinese democratic discourse has formed a powerful counterbalancing force against Western democratic discourse.

中国民主话语总结了以往社会主义国家民主建设的经验教训，以深刻的历史思维、宏阔的世界视野、前瞻的时代眼光，博采古今中西各种话语资源，将社会主义的民主话语发展到了一个新的历史高度与时代高度，使马克思主义的民主话语、社会主义的民主话语在21世纪的中国焕发出强大生机活力。其作为马克思主义民主理论与中国具体实际相结合的理论成果，是对经典马克思主义民主话语的正本清源与返本开新。中国民主话语总结了历史上与现实中发展中国家民主建设的经验教训，强调后发现代化国家在民主问题上必须打破迷信、摆脱依附，依据国情独立自主探索，依靠中央权威予以推进并选择“合脚”的策略，从而给世界上那些既需要发展民主又希望保持自身独立性的国家和民族提供了新的选择，贡献了中国智慧和中国方案。不论是就社会主义的维度而言还是就现代化的维度而言，中国民主话语都形成了对西方民主话语的强大制衡力量。

Chinese democratic discourse is endogenous in nature, complete in content, and focuses on development-governance in function. It can effectively prevent the phenomena that occur in Western democracy: a headless multitude like a sheet of loose sand; lavish promises during elections and neglect afterward; partisan strife and mutual encroachment; ethnic estrangement and ethnic conflict; the people having rights in form but no power in reality; and various state organs checking and obstructing one another with severe internal friction. Furthermore, Chinese democratic discourse is rooted in Chinese soil but also looks to the whole world, expressing concepts and demands for the democratization of international relations and the standardization of the international order. It criticizes the civilizational hierarchy thinking of Western democratic discourse, advocating civilizational equality and common values; it criticizes the single-model thinking of Western democratic discourse, advocating mutual learning among civilizations and diversity of paths; it criticizes the end-of-history thinking of Western democratic discourse, advocating civilizational progress and sustainable development; it criticizes the unilateralist thinking of Western democratic discourse, advocating civilizational dialogue and joint consultation and共建 [n25]. On the basis of reflecting on and criticizing Western democratic discourse while drawing on its reasonable elements, Chinese democratic discourse has added substantive new content and made pioneering new contributions to human democratic discourse, actually representing a higher-level form of human democratic discourse. Combining the above two points, Chinese democratic discourse has formed a powerful force of transcendence over Western democratic discourse.

中国民主话语具有内生性，内容完整，在功能上注重发展—治理，可以切实防止出现西方民主那种群龙无首、一盘散沙的现象，选举时漫天许诺、选举后无人问津的现象，党争纷沓、相互倾轧的现象，民族隔阂、民族冲突的现象，人民形式上有权、实际上无权的现象，各类国家机关相互掣肘、内耗严重的现象。进而言之，中国民主话语根植中国大地，但同样放眼全球，表达着对整个国际关系民主化、国际秩序规范化的理念与诉求，其批判了西方民主话语的文明等级思维，主张文明平等与共同价值；批判了西方民主话语的单一模式思维，主张文明互鉴与道路多样；批判了西方民主话语的历史终结思维，主张文明进步与永续发展；批判了西方民主话语的单边主义思维，主张文明对话与共商共建。在反思、批判西方民主话语并借鉴其合理因素的基础上，中国民主话语为人类民主话语增添了实质性的新内容、作出了开创性的新贡献，实际代表了一种更高级的人类民主话语形态。综合以上两点，中国民主话语形成了对西方民主话语的强大超越力量。

V. Conclusion

五、结 语

The above has separately analyzed the basic content, hegemonic thinking, and the underlying logic of capital in Western democratic discourse, as well as the content construction of the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan" [n26] of Chinese democratic discourse, its distinctive features, and its important significance. It must be recognized that, on the one hand, although Western democratic discourse is currently fraught with enormous internal tensions, numerous problems, and has shown signs of decline, due to the support of Western hard power and long-term indoctrination and propaganda, it remains very powerful in the world today, and the possibility of internal adjustment and reform within certain limits cannot be ruled out. In this sense, its decay and decline will be a long-term process, and this must be fully understood. Moreover, as already pointed out above, criticizing it does not mean it has no reference value; its positive factors and reasonable components should still be earnestly studied and diligently absorbed. On the other hand, Chinese democratic discourse has to a large extent demonstrated its vitality and potential globally, with its influence growing day by day. However, its development still faces various problems and challenges, including the need to further improve and perfect domestic democratic political construction, the need to further summarize and refine its own democratic discourse, the need to further effectively break the strong monopoly of Western democracy over international discourse power, and the need to further enhance and elevate the international discourse power and

以上分别分析了西方民主话语的基本内容、霸权思维以及背后的资本逻辑，中国民主话语“五位一体”的内容构建、鲜明特点与重要意义。必须认识到，一方面，尽管现在西方民主话语内部张力巨大、问题多多，颓势已显，但由于西方硬实力的加持以及长期的灌输宣传，其在当今世界仍非常强势，且不排除其内部在一定限度内进行调整改革的可能。在此意义上，其衰败与式微将是一个长期的过程，对此应有充分认识。而且正如上文已指出的，对之批判并不意味着其毫无借鉴价值，对其积极因素和合理成分还是应认真学习与努力吸纳。另一方面，中国民主话语在全球范围内已经很大程度上展现出活力、潜力，影响与日俱增，但其发展仍面临各种问题与挑战，包括国内民主政治建设还需要进一步健全完善、自身民主话语还需要进一步概括提炼、西方民主对于国际话语权的强势垄断还需要进一步有效打破、中国民主的国际话语权和全球认同度还需要进一步增强提升。这些问题的解决既需要耐心与时间，也需要策略与方法；既需要条件与时机，也需要积累与努力，必须以一种积极而稳妥的心态，久久为功。换言之，与西方民主话语进行全方位、高强度竞争并战而胜之绝非短期内轻而易举之事，对此也应有充分认识。可欣慰的是，对于中国民主话语建设，党和国家已经具有了非常自觉而明确的意识，实践中也已经致力于相关制度机制的探索与加强，尤其当今世界发展的时与势在我们一边，我们既具有定力和底气，也具有决心和信心。伴随中国社会主义现代化强国建设的逐步推进，伴随中华民族伟大复兴的进一步实现，伴随中国日益走近世界舞台的中央，中国民主话语必将愈益成熟完善，必将在全世界展现出更为强大的感召力和引领力，建立起相对于西方真正具有优势、更为强大的话语权。

(The author is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Marxism, the Central Party School of the Communist Party of China (National Academy of Governance).)

（作者系中共中央党校（国家行政学院）马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心