Toward Daily Life: Exploring the Origins of the Characteristics of Socialist Consultative Democracy

“Consultative democracy is an important form of practicing whole-process people’s democracy.” Socialist consultative democracy follows Chinese cultural traditions, takes root in the Chinese context, and possesses a special value implication. The vigorous development of consultative democracy in China reflects the particularity of the Chinese-style path of democracy, and one of these particularities lies in pushing consultative democracy into society: “Practice at all times and in all countries shows that it is very important to ensure and support the people as masters of the country, to let the people’s representatives participate in the management of state and social life through elections according to law, and it is also very important to let the people participate in the management of state and social life through systems and methods other than elections.” [1]1 This quotation is from Xi Jinping’s speech at the celebration of the 65th anniversary of the founding of the National People’s Congress, delivered on September 5, 2014. Allowing democracy to function in people’s daily lives breaks the limitation of democratic practice to the political scene and fashions democracy into a way of life for people.

“协商民主是实践全过程人民民主的重要形式”。社会主义协商民主沿袭了中国文化传统，扎根中国场景，具有特殊的价值意蕴。协商民主在中国的蓬勃发展，折射出中国式民主道路的特殊性，其中一个特殊性就在于将协商民主推向社会，“古今中外的实践都表明，保证和支持人民当家作主，通过依法选举、让人民的代表来参与国家生活和社会生活的管理是十分重要的，通过选举以外的制度和方式让人民参与国家生活和社会生活的管理也是十分重要的”。让民主在人的日常生活中发挥功用，打破了民主实践于政治场景的局限，将民主打造为人的一种生活方式。

Compared with electoral democracy, consultative democracy is more likely to enter people’s daily lives and influence all aspects of life through different forms and mechanisms. Daily life is the real living space of human beings, the direct living environment and actual field of existence for each person, reflecting and displaying the concrete state and mode of human existence. From the perspective of the relationship between consultative democracy and daily life, the realization of consultative democracy cannot be separated from the intersubjective dimension of the world of daily life. The world of daily life is the common-sense world, which holds the highest status among the various domains of reality; it is only in the world of daily life that we can communicate with our fellows. Many problems concerning intersubjectivity arise from it and are determined by it, and we can find solutions to these problems from it. One criterion for evaluating the development of consultative democracy is to examine whether it has become a part of daily life, a habit and a way of life. From a deeper perspective, the authentic value of democracy is “rule by the people.” Democracy takes “human beings” as its starting point and returns to “human beings”; it is a “problem of human beings.” Daily life directly concerns human beings themselves; analyzing democracy in daily life means analyzing democracy starting from “human beings” themselves. Viewing democracy through institutions provides the “technique” of democracy, while analyzing democracy from the perspective of “human beings” can better reflect the value implication of democracy. “Judging by good results, under democracy more people will find a more satisfactory life than under non-democratic systems.” [2]2 This is a paraphrase or quotation from a Western democratic theorist, likely Robert Dahl or a similar figure, though the exact source is not specified in the original text. Viewing democracy through “human beings” can uncover the moral foundation of democracy, that is, understanding how democracy recognizes human value, endows people with freedom, and provides opportunities for people to pursue a better life.

协商民主相较于选举民主更易于走进人的日常生活，并以不同的形式和机制影响生活的方方面面。日常生活是人真正的生存空间，是每一个人直接的生存环境与现实的生存领域，反映和展现着人的具体生存状态和方式。从协商民主和日常生活的关系中看，协商民主的实现离不开日常生活世界的主体间性维度，日常生活的世界是常识世界，在实在的各种各样领域中具有最高的地位，我们只有在日常生活的世界中才有可能与同伴进行沟通。关于主体间性的许多问题，都是从中产生并被它决定的，我们可以从它那里找到解决这些问题的办法。评价协商民主发展的尺度之一，就是审视其是否成为了日常生活的一部分，成为生活习惯与生活方式。从深层次角度看，民主的原真性价值是“人民的统治”，民主以“人”为原点又回归到“人”，是“人的问题”。日常生活直接关涉人本身，分析日常生活的民主就是从“人”本身出发分析民主。以制度看待民主提供了民主的“技术”，从“人”的视角分析民主则更能够反映民主的价值意蕴。“根据良好的结果看，在民主制下比起在非民主制度下更多的人将会发现更满意的生活”，以“人”来看待民主，能够发掘民主的道德基础，即理解民主如何承认人的价值、赋予人以自由，为人追求美好生活提供机会。

People can choose to stay away from political life, but they cannot detach themselves from daily life. Although people are very familiar with daily life and all kinds of things about daily life seem not to require discussion, a sound society, besides striving for ideal value goals, should also strive to activate ordinary people’s pursuit of the meaning of daily life. Democracy is precisely about imprinting value on daily life, liberating people’s lives from the mundane and trivial, while at the same time endowing people with value. Therefore, understanding democracy with daily life as the scene is undoubtedly conducive to grasping the important value of democracy for people from outside the political perspective. Based on this, this article aims to explain where the practice of consultative democracy that moves toward daily life comes from, what characteristics it possesses, how these characteristics come about, and where the value implication of consultative democracy in daily life points. Answering these questions can not only provide a life perspective for analyzing and interpreting socialist consultative democracy but also open an important window for understanding the path of development of Chinese-style democracy.

人可以选择远离政治生活，但不能脱离日常生活。虽然人对日常生活非常熟悉，关于日常生活的种种似乎不需要讨论，但一个健全的社会除了致力于追求理想价值目标之外，还应该致力于激活普通人追求日常生活的意义。民主就是为日常生活烙上价值印记，将人的生活从庸常和琐碎中解放出来，同时赋予人以价值。因此，以日常生活为场景理解民主，无疑有利于从政治的视野之外把握民主之于人的重要价值。基于此，本文致力于阐释走向日常生活的协商民主实践因何而来，具备何种特质，这些特质如何而来以及日常生活中协商民主的价值意蕴指向何处？回答这些问题，不仅能够提供分析与阐释社会主义协商民主的生活视角，也能打开理解中国式民主发展道路的重要窗口。

I. Constructing Democracy in Daily Life: Retrieving the Participatory Value of Democracy and Shaping the Social Foundation of Participation

一、在日常生活中建构民主：找回民主的参与价值与塑造参与的社会基础

Participatory democratic theorists have sharply pointed out the severe challenges facing Western democracy, namely, that “participation” occupies the lowest position in the generally accepted theory of democracy. Although the dominance of liberal democracy in theory and practice highlights the protective value of democracy, the developmental value of democracy, or its educational function, is clearly weakened. The indifference of citizens’ public spirit, the neglect of the common good, and so on have become typical problems caused by liberal democracy, and these problems in turn erode individual rights. For this reason, retrieving the value of “participation” in democracy is a profound critique of the inherent antinomy of liberal democracy and a return to the authentic value of democracy. “Participation” in democracy not only means the “presence” of people in democratic procedures but also emphasizes people’s ability to control their own lives and the world around them. Rousseau’s democratic thought, as one of the theoretical sources of participatory democracy, emphasizes the importance of the public participating in affairs together under the guidance of the general will; otherwise, “once the deputies are elected, they are slaves, they are nothing.” [3]3 This is a paraphrase of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s argument in *The Social Contract* (Book III, Chapter 15), where he criticizes representative government. In other words, democracy should be “rule by the people,” but the people have become the objects of rule in democracy; emphasizing participation is to regard people as ends rather than means again. Of course, it must be acknowledged that Rousseau’s democratic thought is only an ideal. Participatory democratic theorists, including Rousseau, admit that this participatory model is only suitable for small states with few people, and the governance of large states still must follow the democratic model of Locke and Mill. Therefore, to reconstruct the participatory value of democracy in the reality of modern society, a certain balance must be sought between Rousseau and Locke.

参与式民主理论家尖锐地指出了西方民主面对的严峻挑战，即“参与”在普遍接受的民主理论中占据着最为低微的地位。自由民主在理论和实践中的统治地位虽然彰显了民主的保护型价值，但是民主的发展型价值抑或民主的教育功能则被明显弱化。公民公共精神的淡漠、对共同善的忽视等成为自由民主造成的典型问题，这些问题反过来也侵蚀了个人权利。正因如此，找回民主中的“参与”价值是对自由民主内在二律背反的深刻批判，也是对民主原真性价值的回归。民主中的“参与”不仅意味着民主程序中人的“在场”，更强调了人对其生活和周遭世界的控制能力。卢梭的民主思想作为参与式民主的理论渊源之一，强调了公众按照公意指引共同参与事务的重要性，否则“议员一旦选出之后，他们就是奴隶，他们就等于零了”。换言之，民主本应是“人民的统治”，但人民却在民主中成为了被统治的对象，强调参与是重新把人视为目的而不是手段。当然，需要承认的是，卢梭的民主思想只是一种理想，包括卢梭在内的参与式民主理论家承认这种参与模式仅仅适合小国寡民的情境，大国治理仍然要走洛克和密尔的民主模式道路。因此，在现代社会事实中重构民主的参与价值，要在卢梭和洛克之间寻求某种平衡。

To this end, democracy needs to retrieve the value of participation in daily life. With the continuous evolution of modernity, the trend of separation between politics and society has become more pronounced, and society has gradually differentiated into different spheres. The lives of individuals placed in society in different settings such as family, community, school, and workplace constitute the entirety of daily life. Participatory democratic theory advocates creating channels for participation in the workplace or community to provide opportunities for direct participation. However, these views all place democracy within a “space” or “organization.” Although daily life rarely involves politics, it is also filled with various decisions related to people, and any change in daily life can have a substantive impact on people. Therefore, participation in daily life is more conducive to “making each person himself part of the authority process and the social domination process.” [4]4 This quotation is from the American political scientist Harold Lasswell, likely from his work *Politics: Who Gets What, When, How* (1936) or a related text on democratic participation. The holistic scene of democratic practice provided by daily life connects the different specific spaces of people’s daily lives, further links these spaces with the entire society, and thus constitutes a complete democratic practice system covering the whole society. If democracy is limited to a certain scope and disconnected from the whole society, it is essentially still some form of undemocracy. Therefore, building a “participatory society” is an important foundation for the effective practice of participatory democracy.

为此，民主需要在日常生活中找回参与的价值。随着现代性的不断演进，政治和社会之间的分离趋势更加明显，社会也逐渐演化出不同的领域。置于社会中的个人在家庭、社区、学校、工作场所等不同场景中的生活构成了日常生活的全部。参与式民主理论倡导在工作场所或者社区中打造参与的渠道，为直接参与提供机会。然而，这些观点都是将民主置于一种“空间”或者“组织”当中。日常生活虽然很少涉于政治，但也充满了与人相关的各类决策，日常生活中的任何变化都能够对人产生实质性影响。因此，日常生活中的参与更利于“使每个人本身成为权威过程和社会支配过程的一部分”。日常生活提供的民主实践的整体性场景，是将人日常生活的不同的特定空间联系起来，并且进一步将这些空间和整个社会联系起来，进而构成一个完整的、涵盖整个社会的民主实践系统。如果民主仅仅局限于某一范围而与整个社会相脱节，其本质上仍然是某种形式的不民主，所以构建一个“参与社会”是实现参与式民主有效实践的重要基础。

Constructing democracy in everyday life also stems from the need to shape a social foundation for “participation.” First, democracy in everyday life builds a democratic mobilization that takes individual interests as its element, transforming people from passivity to initiative and effectively expanding their participation. Interest is an important foundation for democratic mobilization; “everything people strive for is related to their interests.” [5]5 Karl Marx, “Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood,” *Rheinische Zeitung*, 1842. Driven by concrete everyday interests, people’s willingness and interest in participation are aroused, a social psychology that has been confirmed by empirical research. When people “see tangible benefits, they are truly willing to participate, and only then can they believe that their participation is useful.” Participation in everyday affairs lacks the professional threshold of political participation; it is merely the practice of personal life knowledge, and individual participation is a struggle for or defense of one’s own interests. Therefore, on topics related to their own daily lives, individuals tend to believe that they not only have a responsibility to change things but also the ability to do so. Second, democracy in everyday life provides a harmonious and stable social environment for the construction of democracy in political life, and also offers techniques and methods for democracy in political life; its essence is to adjust the relationship between the state and society. Constructing democracy in everyday life is not about finding a new “pure land” where democracy can operate effectively and demonstrate its utility, but rather about seeking mutual complementarity and coordination between democracy in the two scenarios. Marxist democratic theory emphasizes a democratic construction approach that combines political-level democracy with local social autonomy. Democratic participation in everyday life, on the one hand, reshapes overall social relations through the repair of social and interpersonal problems, forming a situation where everyday public life drives the transformation and adjustment of political public life, enabling the state and society to achieve mutual adaptation through “mutual active construction.” On the other hand, democracy in everyday life enhances people’s trust in the democratic system and transmits the democratic innovations accumulated in daily life to the political arena, promoting high-quality development of the democratic system through a logic of innovation-driven, holistic transformation. Generally speaking, people first understand and generate trust from the perspective of “utility.” In the most direct sphere of people’s lives, democratic participation in everyday life can, through people’s genuine experience, make them feel the practicality of democracy, thereby enhancing trust in the democratic system. From a practical perspective, various forms of democratic innovation derived from everyday life can also provide technical and methodological references for democratic participation in political life.

在日常生活中建构民主，同样缘自于为“参与”塑造社会基础。第一，日常生活中的民主构建了以个人利益为要素的民主动员，将人的被动转变为主动，有效扩大了人的参与。利益是民主动员的重要基础，“人们为之奋斗的一切，都同他们的利益有关”。在日常实际利益的牵引之下，人的参与意愿和兴趣就会被激发出来，这种社会心理已然被实证研究证明。当人“见到实实在在的利益才能够真正愿意参与，也才能相信自己的参与有用”。日常生活中的事务参与缺少政治参与的专业门槛，只是个人生活知识的实践，并且个人的参与是对自身利益的争取或维护。所以对于日常中与其自身生活相关的话题，个人会倾向于认为自己不仅有责任去改变，也有能力去改变。第二，日常生活中的民主为政治生活中的民主建设提供了和谐稳定的社会环境，同时也为政治生活中的民主提供了技术与方法，本质上是调整国家与社会的关系。在日常生活中建构民主并非为民主重新寻找一片能够让其有效操作、彰显功用的“净土”，而是寻求两种场景中民主的相互补充与配合。马克思主义民主理论强调政治层面的民主和地方社会自治相结合的民主建构思路。日常生活中的民主参与，一方面通过对社会问题、人际问题的修复来重塑整体性的社会关系，形成日常性公共生活驱动政治性公共生活的变革与调适，使国家与社会在“互相主动构建”中实现相互适应；另一方面，日常生活中的民主提升了人对民主制度的信任，并且将日常中积累的民主创新传导到政治场景，在创新推动、整体变革的思路中推动民主制度体系高质量发展。一般而言，人们首先从“功用”的角度理解并生产信任。在人最直接的生活领域，日常中的民主参与能够在人真切的体验感中使人感受到民主的实用性，进而提升对民主制度的信任。从现实角度看，日常生活中衍生出不同的民主创新形式也能为政治生活中的民主参与提供技术和方法上的借鉴。

II. Consultative Democracy Moving Toward Everyday Life: Shaping Its Characteristics Through Historical Inheritance and Modern Reconstruction

二、走向日常生活的协商民主：在历史继承与现代重构中塑造其特质

Socialist consultative democracy has “roots” and “sources.” Embedding consultative democracy in everyday life has its traditional cultural foundation and social foundation, thus reflecting a distinct historical inheritance. In the transition from tradition to modernity, consultative democracy in everyday life must, on the one hand, follow traditional values and models of social relations, and on the other hand, integrate the basic values of modern civilization into it. While highlighting the characteristics of “people,” it should design, perfect, and develop the institutional system based on modern political values, endowing the system with virtue and unleashing its effectiveness through the organic unity of people, values, and institutions.

社会主义协商民主有“根”有“源”，将协商民主嵌入日常生活有其传统文化基础与社会基础，因此体现出鲜明的历史继承性。在传统向现代的转化中，日常生活中的协商民主一方面要遵循传统价值观念和社会关系模式，另一方面要将现代文明的基本价值融入其中，在凸显“人”的特征的同时以现代政治价值为理念基础设计、完善、发展制度体系，在人、价值与制度的有机统一中赋予制度美德，发挥制度效能。

(I) The Historical Inheritance of Consultative Democracy in Everyday Life

（一）日常生活中协商民主的历史继承

Embedding consultative democracy in everyday life is a practical confirmation of “allowing the people to participate in the management of state and social life through means and methods other than elections.” Socialist consultative democracy is endogenous to Chinese culture and historical traditions. Although it contains elements that draw on the experience and techniques of Western consultative democracy, it is not a critique of electoral democracy nor a simple transplantation of Western consultative democracy.

将协商民主嵌入日常生活是“通过选举以外的制度和方式让人民参与国家生活和社会生活的管理”的现实佐证。社会主义协商民主内生于中国文化与历史传统，虽然存在着借鉴西方协商民主相关经验和技术的成分，但并非是对选举民主的批判与对西方协商民主的简单移植。

From a conceptual perspective, “consultative democracy is a unique, distinctive, and original form of democracy in China’s socialist democratic politics. It originates from the excellent political culture of the Chinese nation, long formed through concepts such as ‘the world is for all,’ ‘inclusiveness and mutual accommodation,’ and ‘seeking common ground while reserving differences.’” [6]6 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Conference Celebrating the 65th Anniversary of the Founding of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference,” September 21, 2014. The concepts of “unity” (合) and “harmony” (和) in fine traditional Chinese culture have shaped the unique value of socialist consultative democracy, constructing a development path within China’s philosophical tradition that aligns with Chinese people’s ways of thinking and interacting. The basic attitude of traditional Chinese philosophy holds that all things in the world coexist and co-exist, with the foundation being pluralistic unity and harmony. “Unity” means “cooperation,” and “harmony” means “harmony.” This philosophy of life has always influenced the everyday life of the Chinese people. Especially regarding “harmony,” the “harmony” that consultative democracy emphasizes is “seeking common ground while reserving differences” and “harmony in diversity.” The ideological implication here is that communication and interaction between people never deny differences, nor do they attempt to eliminate them; rather, they seek the intersection of interests, demands, and wishes within differences, finding the “greatest common divisor” or “building consensus.” Therefore, the intrinsic value of socialist consultative democracy is to seek “consensus” within the overlap of preferences, rather than reaching “agreement” through compromise and concession; it is active consultation between subjects aimed at solving problems, rather than shelving disputes for temporary peace. In other words, compromise often means that a particular subject must give up specific interests; such concessions are essentially not conducive to shaping harmonious relations, but rather carry the potential risk of creating new contradictions. Thus, “unity and harmony” is precisely for achieving the coexistence and co-existence of people, a Pareto-optimal logic that transcends unilateral gains and emphasizes win-win outcomes. “Seeking solutions through discussion” (有事好商量), as the true essence of people’s democracy, precisely inherits this philosophical tradition. “Seeking solutions through discussion” is a common phrase in Chinese people’s daily lives, a principle of interaction for handling conflicts and disputes and coordinating differences in interests. The Chinese people have always valued benevolence and righteousness and opposed “benefiting oneself at the expense of others.” In consultation, people can put themselves in others’ shoes, empathize, and communicate to solve problems and achieve harmony. This concept provides a solid socio-psychological foundation for building consensus.

从观念角度看，“协商民主是中国社会主义民主政治中独特的、独有的、独到的民主形式，它源自中华民族长期形成的天下为公、兼容并蓄、求同存异等优秀政治文化”。中华优秀传统文化中的“合”与“和”塑造了社会主义协商民主的独特价值，在中国的哲学传统中构建出了契合中国人思想观念与交往方式的发展路径。中国传统哲学的基本态度认为世界上一切事物都是共生、共在的，基础是多元和合。“合”即“合作”，“和”为“和谐”，这种处世哲学始终影响着中国人的日常生活。尤其对于“和”来说，协商民主讲求的“和”是“求同存异”与“和而不同”。这里的思想意蕴是，人与人之间的沟通与交往从来不否认差异，也不试图消弭差异，而是在差异当中寻求利益、诉求、意愿的交汇，找到“最大公约数”或者“凝聚共识”。因此，社会主义协商民主的内在价值是在偏好的重叠中寻求“共识”，而不是在妥协让步中达成“同意”；是主体之间以解决问题为目的的积极协商，而不是为了暂时和平而搁置争议。换言之，妥协往往表示某一主体需要放弃特定的利益，这种让步本质上并不利于塑造和谐关系，反而有产生新矛盾的潜在风险。所以“和合”就是为了实现人的共生共在，是超越了单边收益且强调共赢的帕累托最优逻辑。“有事好商量”作为人民民主的真谛，正是继承了这种哲学传统。“有事好商量”是中国人日常生活中的常用话语，是处理矛盾纠纷、协调利益差别的交往原则。中国人向来讲求仁义而反对“损人利己”，在协商当中人能够换位思考、将心比心，为了解决问题进行沟通、达致和谐，这种观念为凝聚共识提供了坚实的社会心理基础。

Beyond the conceptual dimension, in ancient Chinese society, consultation was already embedded in both political and everyday life, becoming a mode of political communication and a principle of social interaction. Socialist consultative democracy also inherits behavioral traditions from Chinese social life. In traditional Chinese political life, consultative deliberation was a common means of seeking advice and offering suggestions in successive dynasties, such as the court council system, the remonstrance official system, and the classics-mat lectures system, among others. [7]7 The court council system (廷臣会议制度) involved emperors consulting high officials on major state affairs; the remonstrance official system (言官制度) designated officials to offer criticism and advice to the emperor; the classics-mat lectures system (经筵制度) involved scholarly lectures on Confucian classics for the emperor, often including policy discussion. However, traditional historians and historical researchers have tended to focus on political history in their writings on consultation, relatively neglecting the consultative practices in ancient everyday life. In Chinese social history, consultation was equally a basic form of social interaction among the people, playing an important role in daily life. In her research on ancient Chinese folk contracts, Valerie Hansen points out that contracts made among the common people were products of mutual consultation, and the content of these contracts was closely related to daily life. Unlike Western societies, the common people in ancient Chinese society often resolved contractual issues through private reconciliation rather than resorting to the judicial system. All of these processes required the intervention of consultation. However, consultation in traditional Chinese society was mostly in a simple form. Especially for ordinary people, constrained by the level of social education, it was difficult for them to display the consultative style of scholar-officials in political life. Therefore, consultation in traditional everyday life was limited to things like “bargaining” in the process of ancient market transactions. Yet these consultative modes of interaction reflected a distinctive life practice in ancient Chinese social life. “Bargaining, as the most straightforward form of consultation, reflects the contradictions and compromises between individual choice, family needs, community relations, and traditional concepts. It is the poetics of transaction and the aesthetics of everyday life.” People’s daily lives are lives that follow shared experience. Consultation in ancient society created a shared experience of everyday interaction. In the transition from tradition to modernity, this shared experience remains a basic norm of daily life.

除了观念维度外，在中国古代社会，协商就已嵌入政治生活和日常生活当中，成为政治沟通模式与社会交往原则。社会主义协商民主也继承于中国社会生活中的行为传统。在中国传统政治生活中，协商议事普遍成为历朝历代咨政建言的重要手段，例如廷臣会议制度、言官制度和经筵制度，等等。不过，传统史家和历史研究者对于协商的著述偏重于政治史，相对忽视了古代日常生活中的协商实践。在中国社会史中，协商同样是民间社会交往的基本形式，在日常生活中扮演重要角色。韩森（ValerieHansen）在研究中国古代民间契约的问题上指出，民间订立的契约是老百姓之间相互协商的产物，这些契约的内容与日常生活息息相关。不同于西方社会，中国古代社会的老百姓往往通过私下和解的方式解决契约问题，而不是诉诸司法体系。这一切过程都需要协商的介入。不过，传统中国社会中的协商多是朴素形态，尤其对于普通百姓而言，受制于社会教育水平，难以展现出文人士大夫在政治生活中的协商风范。因此，传统日常生活中的协商局限于类似古代集市交易过程中的“讨价还价”，但是这些协商的交往模式体现出了中国古代社会生活中别具一格的生活实践。“讨价还价作为最直白的协商方式反映出主体选择、家庭需求、社区关系和传统观念之间的矛盾与妥协，是交易的诗学，也是日常生活的美学。”人们的日常生活是遵循共同经验的生活。古代社会的协商创设了日常生活交往的共同经验，在从传统到现代的转化中，这种共同经验仍然是日常生活的基本规范。

(II) The Modern Reconstruction of Consultative Democracy in Everyday Life

（二）日常生活中协商民主的现代重构

Since democracy is, to a certain extent, a matter of “people,” it is necessary to anchor the concepts and structures of the system according to people’s characteristics. In the real world, people exist as individual beings, social beings, and ethical beings. The construction of consultative democracy in everyday life must necessarily align with this.

民主既然在一定程度上是“人”的问题，那么就需要根据人的特性锚定制度中的观念和结构。现实世界中，人是个体性的存在、社会性的存在以及伦理性的存在，日常生活中的协商民主构建也必然要与之契合。

Consultative democracy in everyday life requires full respect for human individuality, planning an equal space for people to exercise their rights within specific procedures and mechanisms. In democratic procedures, people can prove themselves to be independent, free, capable, valuable, and dignified individuals. Individuals in traditional society were submerged in hierarchy, losing the value of individuality, while individuals in modern society are equal and can choose the life they cherish according to their own will. “A truly meaningful democracy is one that serves the exploited, who are in an unequal position.” [8]8 This quotation is from Lenin, “The State and Revolution” (1917), where he discusses the democratic character of the Paris Commune. Appealing to the logic of everyday life, everyone wishes to be treated equally by others and to receive the respect they deserve. As a basic method for solving problems, the everyday practice of consultative democracy must also take equality as its conceptual foundation, ensuring everyone’s equal participation by constructing diversified channels for participation. At the same time, participation means that people are actors in democracy, who must articulate their own interests in discursive expression, consider the preferences of others in rational communication, and reach a consensus satisfactory to all parties. If consultation is embedded in an unjust structure, individual subjectivity will be suppressed by the powerful, and consultation will become a catalyst for social conflict and fragmentation. In summary, the advantages of consultative democracy in everyday life are: first, everyone has a real opportunity to participate in democratic procedures, directly exercise their rights, and obtain tangible benefits, all of which must be premised on respect for people’s equal rights—that is, every problem encountered by every person receives equal attention; second, supported by diversified institutional mechanisms, consultation in everyday life requires the construction of flexible and diverse platforms as vehicles for consultation, using different mechanisms and models to adapt to consultations of varying scale and content, making people’s participation real and effective.

日常生活中的协商民主需要充分尊重人的个体性，在特定程序和机制中规划人彰显权利的平等空间。在民主程序中，人能够证明自己是独立的、自由的和有能力、有价值、有尊严的个体。传统社会的个人被湮没在等级之中，失去了个体性的价值，而现代社会中的个人是平等的，可以按照自身意愿选择自己所珍视的生活。“真正有意义的民主，是那种为处于不平等地位的被剥削者服务的民主。”诉诸日常生活的逻辑，每个人都希望被他人平等地对待，获得他者应有的尊重。协商民主作为解决问题的基本方式，其日常生活实践也必然要以平等为理念基础，通过构建多元化的参与渠道保证每个人的平等参与。与此同时，参与意味着人在民主中是行动者，要在话语表达中阐释自己的利益，在理性沟通中考虑他者的偏好，达成彼此满意的共识。如果协商嵌入不正义的结构之中，个人的主体性就会被强势者压制，协商就会成为社会冲突与撕裂的催化剂。总的来说，日常生活中协商民主的优势在于：第一，每个人都有真实的机会参与到民主的程序当中，直接地践行自己的权利，获得实在的利益，而这一切都要以尊重人的平等权利为前提，即每个人所遇到的问题都能够得到平等的关注；第二，以多元化的制度机制为支撑，日常生活中的协商需要构建灵活多样的平台作为协商的载体，以不同的机制和模式来适应不同规模和内容的协商，让人的参与真实有效。

Consultative democracy in everyday life needs to focus on people’s sociality, using consultative procedures to regulate and repair interpersonal relationships, cultivate social capital, consolidate a harmonious social foundation in everyday life, and build a stable social order. “The essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its actuality it is the ensemble of social relations.” [9]9 This is a translation of Marx’s “Theses on Feuerbach” (1845), Thesis VI. Understanding democracy from the perspective of people’s sociality means making democracy a mechanism of integration in society. The reason the “minority submits to the majority” procedure is criticized lies in the fact that majority suppression may create irreconcilable social divisions in the opposition of votes, and one of the important values of consultative democracy is to eliminate this possibility of opposition through consultation. Consultative democracy in everyday life often focuses on specific groups and communities, so the practice of consultative democracy is more conducive to cultivating social capital in a specific social environment. The basic prerequisite for building consensus is the formation of a reciprocal relationship between the subjects of consultation. “The initial investment in social capital requires a basic degree of trust—or the expectation that another person (or institution) will perform actions beneficial to, or at least not harmful to, oneself.” [10]10 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text; it appears to be a paraphrase of a statement on social capital theory, likely from Robert D. Putnam or a related scholar. People participate in consultative procedures because they believe that consultation can bring them predictable results; the initiation of a consultative procedure implies initial trust between the subjects of consultation and initial trust in the consultative procedure itself. The reciprocity and mutual benefit brought by consensus-based results can further strengthen the relationship between the subjects of consultation. Conversely, social capital is also a basic condition for the effective operation of consultative democracy: “The operation of consultative democracy cannot be separated from mutual trust, cooperation, participation, and tolerance among the subjects of consultation.” [11]11 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text; it appears to be a summary of a common argument in the literature on deliberative democracy and social capital.

日常生活中的协商民主需要着重关注人的社会性，通过协商的程序调节与修复人际关系，培植社会资本，在日常生活中夯实和谐的社会基础，构筑稳定的社会秩序。“人的本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物，在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和”。从人的社会性中理解民主，就是使民主在社会中成为整合的机制。“少数服从多数”程序受到诟病的现实在于多数压制可能会在票数的对立中造成难以弥合的社会分歧，而协商民主的重要价值之一就在于通过协商消弭这种对立的可能性。日常生活中的协商民主往往关注特定的人群和社区，因此协商民主实践更有利于在特定的社会环境中培植社会资本。凝聚共识的基本前提在于协商主体之间能够形成互惠的关系。“对社会资本的初始投资需要一种基本程度的信任——或者期望另一个人（或机构）会执行对其有益的或至少不是有害的行动。”人之所以参与协商程序，是因为他们相信协商能够为其带来可预的结果，协商程序的发起就蕴含着协商主体之间的初始信任和协商主体对于协商程序的初始信任。共识性的结果所带来的互惠与共赢能够进一步强化协商主体之间的关系。反过来，社会资本也是协商民主有效运转的基本条件，“协商民主的运作离不开协商主体之间的互信、合作、参与、宽容”。

Consultative democracy in everyday life needs to organically integrate people’s ethical nature, using the ethical principles of interpersonal interaction to shape civilized mutual treatment in consultation, and enhancing the quality of consultation with the support of morality. People’s ethical nature enables them to comply with common value norms, constituting the human foundation for maintaining the basic order of public life. Ethical life is an important component of Chinese public life, especially in traditional Chinese society, where “human existence is actually situated in various relationships. These various relationships are precisely various forms of ethics.” [12]12 This quotation is from Liang Shuming, *The Essence of Chinese Culture* (1949), where he argues that Chinese society is fundamentally ethical rather than individualistic. Through thousands of years of transmission, ethical principles remain the relational principle of the Chinese people. As a common experience of everyday life, ethical principles regulate the mode of social interaction, and people also weave everyday life according to these norms, constituting the experiential life-world. Therefore, consultation in everyday life needs to integrate the ethical norms of interpersonal interaction, improving the quality of consultation through communicative ethics. Consultation itself contains specific ethical requirements. For example, in Jürgen Habermas’s discourse ethics, “persuading others with reasons” includes validity claims constituted by truth, rightness, sincerity, and meaning. The word “well” (好) in the socialist consultative democracy phrase “discussing matters well” (有事好商量) [13]13 “有事好商量” (yǒu shì hǎo shāng liàng) is a Chinese idiom meaning “when there is a matter, discuss it well.” It is frequently used by the CPC to describe the spirit of consultative democracy, emphasizing amicable deliberation. also conveys a message of ethical interaction. Under the goal of building consensus, achieving “good” outcomes of consultation through “good” processes of consultation lies in embedding the ideological origins of consultative democracy into the goals of consultation and integrating the ethical principles of fine traditional culture into the consultative process. In other words, ethical relationships are relationships of affection; in people’s primordial emotions, consultation is not only the art of language but also a mutual treatment of putting oneself in another’s place. Therefore, consultation based on ethical nature injects an inter-psychological relationship between people into consultative democracy, shaping the content and mode of interpersonal communication through the moral norms of interaction. Thus, consultation is guaranteed by standardized procedures and supported by interpersonal emotions, demonstrating real effectiveness under the joint support of institutions and morality.

日常生活中的协商民主需要有机整合人的伦理性，以人际交往的伦理原则塑造协商中文明的相互对待，在道德的加持中提升协商质量。人的伦理性使得人能够遵从共同的价值规范，构成了维系公共生活基本秩序的人性基础。伦理生活是中国人公共生活的重要组成，尤其在中国传统社会中，“人生实存于各种关系之上。此种种关系，即是种种伦理”。在数千年的传承中，伦理原则依然是中国人的关系原理。作为日常生活的共同经验，伦理原则规范着社会交往方式，人们也根据这些规范来编织日常生活，构成经验的生活世界。那么，日常生活中的协商需要整合人与人交往的伦理规范，通过交往伦理提升协商的质量。协商本身蕴含特定的伦理要求。例如在哈贝马斯（JürgenHabermas）的商谈伦理中，“用理由来说服人”包含着真实性、正当性、真诚性和意义所构成的有效性主张。社会主义协商民主的“有事好商量”之中的“好”，同样传达了一种伦理交往的信息。在凝聚共识的目标之下，以协商过程的“好”实现协商结果的“好”，在于将协商民主的思想渊源嵌入协商目标之中，将优秀传统文化中的伦理原则整合到协商过程中。换言之，伦理关系就是情谊关系，在人的原始情感中，协商不仅是语言的艺术，更是将心比心的相互对待。因此，基于伦理性的协商为协商民主注入了人与人的心际关系，以交往的道德准则塑造了人际沟通的内容和方式。由此，协商既有规范化的程序加以保证，也有人际情感的加持，在制度和道德的共同支持下展现出了真实效能。

III. From “Recovering Meaning” to “Human Liberation”: The Unique Value of Consultative Democracy in Everyday Life

三、从“找回意义”到“人类解放”：日常生活中协商民主的独特价值

The entry of consultative democracy into people’s everyday life is not an expansion of the political sphere into the private sphere, but rather a provision of an ideal way of life, helping people achieve a good life through democracy. From a value perspective, consultative democracy in everyday life not only helps people recover the meaning of everyday life but also enables people to move continuously toward liberation through democratic participation at the social level, embodying the value transcendence of Chinese-path democracy.

协商民主走进人的日常生活并非政治领域向私人领域的扩张，而是给予人一种理想的生活方式，帮助人在民主中实现美好生活。从价值角度看，日常生活中的协商民主不仅帮助人找回了日常生活的意义，还使人在社会层面的民主参与中不断走向解放，体现出了中国式民主的价值超越性。

(I) Recovering the Meaning of Everyday Life through Participation in Consultation

（一）在协商的参与中找回日常生活的意义

People’s life-world is a world of meaning; seeking and obtaining meaning is an affirmation of human life; the loss of meaning in life is a negation of human life. Modernity has endowed everyday life with unprecedented resources: the immense enrichment of material, technology, and spirit has freed people from the various inconveniences of everyday life in traditional society, provided them with more developmental opportunities, and offered humanity diverse modes of living. However, alienation in modern everyday life is also an important feature of modernity. Henri Lefebvre’s critical theory of everyday life holds that alienation deprives everyday life of its power, ignores its productive and creative potential, and stifles it under the false charm of ideology. Social alienation transforms creative consciousness into a passive consciousness of disaster and melancholy. In fact, Lefebvre’s critique of everyday life is based on the alienated relations of capitalist society, emphasizing how the economic exploitation and political oppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie are concealed by everyday life. However, stepping outside the perspective of capitalism, the increasingly McDonaldized and Disneyfied overall landscape of society makes people’s lives repetitive and平庸 (mediocre), [14]14 The Chinese term 平庸 (píngyōng) means “mediocre” or “banal.” The author uses it here to describe the homogenizing and flattening effects of modern consumer society on everyday life. and urban life, cloaked in the guise of dreamlike scenes, becomes a spiritual opium in people’s mundane lives, plunging them into an “unconscious” alienation. Based on this, Lefebvre emphasizes changing the existential condition of people’s everyday lives and advocates for the restoration of human subjectivity; this is the contemporary value that Lefebvre’s critical theory of everyday life offers us.

人的生活世界是意义的世界，寻求和获得意义是对人类生活的肯定；生活失去意义则是对人类生活的否定。现代性给予了日常生活前所未有的资源，物质、精神、技术的极大丰富使人摆脱了传统社会日常生活中的种种不便，拥有了更多的发展机遇，为人类提供了多元的生活模式。然而，现代日常生活中的异化也是现代性的重要特征。列斐伏尔（HenriLefebvre）的日常生活批判理论认为，异化剥夺了日常生活的力量，无视它的生产和创造潜力，并在意识形态的虚假魅力下扼杀它。社会异化将创造性的意识转化为灾难和忧郁的被动意识。事实上，列斐伏尔对日常生活的批判基于资本主义社会的异化关系，强调了资产阶级对工人阶级的经济剥削和政治压迫被日常生活所掩盖等内容。不过，跳出资本主义的视域看，社会日益呈现的麦当劳化以及迪士尼化的整体景观，使人的生活变得重复、平庸，披着梦幻场景外衣的都市生活成为人在庸常生活中的精神鸦片，让人陷入一种“无意识的”异化之中。基于此，列斐伏尔强调改变人的日常生活的生存现状，提倡对人的主体性进行恢复，这是列斐伏尔日常生活批判理论给予我们的当代价值。

The significance of daily life lies in the possibility that people discover a good life through forward-looking planning and creative practice, while shedding alienation and transcending the self. “If we can build our world into one that ‘exists for us,’ so that both this world and we ourselves can be continuously renewed, we are living a meaningful life.” A truly good life is one that belongs to human beings, manifesting human value, meaning, and essential powers, and “all social life is essentially practical.” [15]15 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 4. In light of this, consultative democracy provides an opportunity for people to recover meaning in daily life. Consultative democracy in daily life is precisely practice in daily life; consultation enables people to create their own “meaning” and also shapes the “meaning” of daily life. First, social life is defined by the actions through which it produces and transforms itself; actors need to replan life within their own consciousness and cognition, which reflects the “projecting” character of action and is also where the meaning of action lies. Consultation, as an individual’s active construction and transformation of life, enables life to align with the actor’s action project. From the perspective of practice, practice is the basic mode of human existence and the core that manifests human subjectivity: “It is precisely in the transformation of the objective world that man truly proves himself to be a species-being. This production is his active species-life. Through this production, nature appears as his work and his reality.” [16]16 Karl Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 277. In daily life, consultative practice is the expression of individual rights and the defense of individual interests. Achieving this requires individuals to continuously identify problems in life and seek solutions within their own knowledge structures and life experiences, so that individual agency is manifested through communication. Therefore, consultation is a method for individuals to display their self-worth, dignity, and talents, helping people turn ideals into reality through individual action, fully embodying the individual’s “subjectivity.” Second, the meaning of consultative action is also embodied in the “intersubjectivity” of actors, which provides the possibility of recovering the publicness of daily life. Consultation enables different actors to share a common consciousness in their orientation toward others, moving people from estrangement to solidarity in action. “Familiar strangers” is one characteristic of interpersonal relations in modern society: the relationship between the individual and others grows increasingly distant, and individual public responsibility is constantly eroded by private life. The outcome of this relationship is precisely human loneliness and social indifference. The estrangement of interpersonal relations weakens trust between people and increases social insecurity. Consultative democracy in daily life allows people to re-enter the public sphere from seclusion, to think about others and the group through consultation, to integrate the individual into the group, thereby enhancing interpersonal trust, cultivating individual public spirit, transforming insecurity into security and unreliability into reliability in society, and revitalizing daily life through people’s democratic participation.

日常生活的意义在于人在对未来深思熟虑地规划和创造性地实践中发现美好生活的可能性，在摆脱异化的同时超越自我。“如果我们能把我们的世界建成‘为我们存在’，以便这一世界和我们自身都能持续地得到更新，我们是在过着有意义的生活。”真正的美好生活是属人的，彰显人的价值、意义、本质力量，而“全部社会生活在本质上是实践的”。鉴于此，协商民主为人在日常生活中找回意义提供了机会。日常生活中的协商民主正是日常生活中的实践，协商使人创造了自身的“意义”，也塑造了日常生活的“意义”。第一，社会生活是依其对自身实施的自我生产和自我转化的行动来界定的，行动者需要在自我的意识和认知中重新规划生活，这体现出行动的“筹划性”，也是行动意义所在。协商作为个体对生活的主动建构与改变，使得生活能够契合于行动者的行动筹划。从实践的角度看，实践是人存在的基本方式，也是彰显人主体性的核心，“正是在改造对象世界中，人才真正地证明自己是类存在物。这种生产是人的能动的类生活。通过这种生产，自然界才表现为他的作品和他的现实”。日常生活中，协商实践是对个人权利的表达与个人利益的维护，实现这一切需要依靠个人在生活中不断地发现问题，并在自身的知识结构和生活体验中寻求问题解决方案，使个体的能动性通过沟通的方式显现出来。因此，协商是个人展现自我价值、尊严与才能的方法，帮助人在个体的行动中将理想转变为现实，充分体现出个体的“主体性”。第二，协商行动的意义也体现为行动者的“主体间性”之中，这为找回日常生活的公共性提供了可能。协商使不同的行动者在面向他者的过程中分享着共同的意识，让人在行动中从疏离走向团结。“熟悉的陌生人”是现代社会人际关系的特征之一，个人与他者的关系日益疏远，个体的公共责任不断被私人生活侵蚀，这种关系的结局正是人的孤独与社会的冷漠。人际关系疏远使得人际之间的信任关系走向淡薄，增加了社会的不安全感。而日常生活中的协商民主让人从封闭重新走进公共领域，让人在协商中思考他人、思考群体，将个人融入到群体之中，进而增进了人际间的信任，培养了个人的公共精神，将社会中的不安全转变为安全，不可靠转变为可靠，使日常生活在人和人的民主参与中重新焕发生机。

(II) Moving from “Social Emancipation” toward “Human Emancipation”

（二）在“社会解放”中走向“人类解放”

Human emancipation is an important proposition of Marxism. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “Marxism is broad and profound, but in the final analysis it comes down to one sentence: seeking emancipation for humanity.” [17]17 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Commemoration of the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Karl Marx,” May 4, 2018. Marxism expresses the inherent connection between democracy and human emancipation. “When examining and grasping the actual social and political life content expressed by the concept of ‘democracy,’ Marxism not only links the question of democracy with the state and class rule, revealing the essence of democracy, but also connects democracy with human emancipation, grasping the relationship between democracy and human development and human emancipation from the perspective of historical materialism.” [18]18 The author cites a Chinese scholarly work here; the original source is not identified in the text. In contrast, the profound contradiction into which liberal democracy has fallen is manifested in the fact that while it exerts an ever-greater practical influence on social affairs, the theoretical evaluation of the democratic system itself grows increasingly lower. The reason is that liberal democracy has, to a certain extent, become a chain suppressing human subjectivity, sealing off the path to human emancipation. Therefore, realizing human emancipation necessarily requires taking a path different from liberal democracy.

人类解放是马克思主义的重要命题。习近平总书记指出：“马克思主义博大精深，归根到底就是一句话，为人类求解放。”马克思主义表达了民主和人类解放的契合性关联，“马克思主义在考察和把握‘民主’概念所表达的实际社会和政治生活内容时，不仅将民主问题同国家和阶级统治结合起来，揭示民主的本质，而且将民主与人类解放结合起来，从历史唯物主义的角度，把握民主与人类发展与人类解放之间的关系”。对比之下，自由民主陷入的深刻矛盾则表现为在社会事务中发挥越来越大实际影响的同时，民主制度所获得的理论评价却越来越低。究其原因，自由民主在一定程度上成为了压抑人类主体性的锁链，封死了人类通向解放之路，所以实现人的解放必然要走一条区别于自由民主的路径。

Human emancipation means that humanity gradually casts off external relations of bondage, enhances its ability to control the conditions of its own life, so as ultimately to become individuals with free individuality. Thus, democracy provides various opportunities for human emancipation, making democracy the cornerstone of freedom. In Marxist democratic theory, Marx offers two perspectives for examining democracy: first, political democracy; second, social democracy. Among these, consultative democracy oriented toward daily life is more aligned with the social democratic line of thought in Marxism. In *The Civil War in France*, Marx provides a relatively clear exposition of social emancipation: “…society re-absorbs the state power, turning it from a force dominating and suppressing society into a vital force of society itself; this is the people taking back state power into their own hands, forming their own force to replace the organized force that oppresses them; this is the political form of the people’s social emancipation.” [19]19 Karl Marx, “The Civil War in France,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 22 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986), p. 333. The logic of social emancipation lies in endowing society with vitality and dynamism, allowing the people to achieve free development within society. Simply put, it means letting the people truly “be the masters.” [20]20 “The people being the masters of the country” (人民当家作主) is a standard formulation in Chinese political discourse for the principle of popular sovereignty under socialism with Chinese characteristics. Further, consultative democracy in daily life provides the foundation for social emancipation in the following dimensions: First, consultative democracy in daily life vividly embodies the “people-centeredness” and “universality” of democracy. Daily life is closely related to everyone, and democracy in daily life is certainly something that all people can access and experience. If there are objective barriers to people’s participation in political life, then there are no obstacles to people’s participation in democracy in daily life. The democratic mechanism in daily life is equally open to all, eliminating the alienation brought about by unequal relations. In short, consultative democracy in daily life embodies the “people-centeredness” of democracy through direct participation and shapes the “universality” of democracy through everyone’s participation. Second, consultative democracy in daily life takes a problem-oriented value, tearing off the formalist veil of democracy. Democracy sinks into the daily life of society in the process of solving problems, returning power that originally belongs to society back to society through self-governance, making the social organism full of vitality through people’s participation. As long as every cell in society is democratic, people can actively plan their own life prospects, creatively change the surrounding world based on individual cognition, and solve social problems and promote social integration by building consensus. Third, consultative democracy in daily life manifests the function of “democracy as education,” enabling people to cultivate a rational attitude and public responsibility through daily participation. When an individual participates in consultation over a certain interest, they must refer to the actions of others to give their own actions focus and direction. This process indirectly shapes a mode of joint survival, a mode of shared communicative experience. Based on this, people can cultivate a rational and prudent attitude toward participation through consultation, reasonably plan the relationship between individual interests and group interests, and enhance their sense of public responsibility. This attitude and ability are also an important foundation for participation in democratic mechanisms in other fields.

人类的解放就是人类逐步摆脱外在束缚关系，提高控制自身生活条件的能力，以便最终成为具有自由个性的人。因此，民主就是为人类解放提供各式各样的机会，让民主成为自由的基石。在马克思主义民主理论中，马克思提供了两种审视民主的视角，第一是政治民主，第二是社会民主。其中，走向日常生活的协商民主更加契合于马克思主义中社会民主的思路。在《法兰西内战》中，马克思对社会解放有着较为清晰的论述，“……社会把国家政权重新收回，把它从统治社会、压制社会的力量变成社会本身的充满生气的力量；这是人民群众把国家政权重新收回，他们组成自己的力量去代替压迫他们的有组织的力量；这是人民群众获得社会解放的政治形式”。社会解放的思路在于赋予社会以生机和活力，让人民在社会中实现自由发展。简单来说，就是让人民真正地“作主”。进一步看，日常生活中的协商民主在以下几个维度提供了社会解放的基础：第一，日常生活中的协商民主鲜明体现了民主的“人民性”与“广泛性”。日常生活与每个人息息相关，日常生活中的民主也定然是所有人可以接触与体验的东西。如果人参与政治生活的民主存在着客观的屏障，那么人参与日常生活中的民主则没有任何障碍。日常生活中的民主机制平等地向所有人开放，消弭了由不平等关系带来的异化。简言之，日常生活中的协商民主在直接参与中体现了民主的“人民性”，在每个人的参与中塑造了民主的“广泛性”。第二，日常生活中的协商民主以问题为导向的价值，撕掉了民主的形式主义面纱。民主在解决问题的过程中下沉到社会日常当中，通过自治的方式让本属于社会的权力回归社会，让社会有机体在人的参与中充满生机活力。只要社会中的每一个细胞都是民主的，那么人就可以主动筹谋自己的生活前景，可以基于个体认知创造性地改变周边世界，在凝聚共识中解决社会问题、促进社会整合。第三，日常生活中的协商民主彰显了“民主即教育”的功用，使人通过日常的参与培养理性态度与公共责任。个体在参与某种利益的协商时不得不参考其他人的行动而使自身的行动有重点、有方向。这个过程间接塑造了一种联合生存模式，一种共同沟通经验的模式。基于此，人能够在协商中培养理性审慎的参与态度，能够合理地规划个人利益和群体利益之间的关系，提升自己的公共责任感。这种态度和能力，也是参与其他领域民主机制的重要基础。

IV. Conclusion and Discussion

四、结语与讨论

“There are many ways to realize democracy, and they cannot be uniform. Using a single yardstick to measure the world’s rich and varied political systems, or using a monotonous perspective to examine humanity’s colorful political civilization, is itself undemocratic.” [21]21 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Work Related to People’s Congresses,” October 13, 2021. The uniqueness of the Chinese-path democracy lies precisely in the coordinated construction of democracy in different scenarios, realizing and ensuring the people being the masters of the country through flexible forms.

“实现民主有多种方式，不可能千篇一律。用单一的标尺衡量世界丰富多彩的政治制度，用单调的眼光审视人类五彩缤纷的政治文明，本身就是不民主的”。中国式民主道路的独特性，就体现在不同场景之中民主的协同建设，以灵活的形式实现和保障人民当家作主。

Daily life can be regarded as a new perspective for the study of democracy, constituting the most fundamental and genuine life of human beings. Conducting sufficient scholarly research on daily life enables people to enter into a sound daily life to the greatest extent possible. Exploring democracy within daily life not only provides practical methods for a meaningful daily existence but also offers new ideas for the healthy development of democracy. As far as consultative democracy is concerned, whether in theoretical elaboration or practical analysis, current research still focuses more on the political sphere. Yet the key to democracy lies in “people.” Given the fact that there are specific gaps in electoral democracy, we must seek paths and methods to repair democracy, and daily life brings new vitality to democratic development. For human society, a quality “democracy” is not merely a formal “existence” but must also take root in people’s hearts. “Only those things that have penetrated culture, entered daily life, and become habits can be counted as achievements already attained.” [22]22 This quotation is from Vladimir Lenin, “Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder” (1920), where Lenin argues that the achievements of the Soviet system must become habitual and embedded in everyday culture to be truly consolidated. Therefore, we should break through the limitations of the horizon of democratic research, “liberate” democracy from the political arena, and elaborate in detail how democracy is embedded in daily life and what values it embodies within daily life. This is not only an inheritance of Marxist democratic theory but also a creative transformation of Marxism based on national conditions. In China, consultative democracy in daily life has its roots in Chinese cultural traditions and its sources in Chinese social traditions. The construction of consultative democracy in daily life must also be based on human nature and characteristics, anchoring the value goal of people’s genuine participation to design institutions, build mechanisms, and choose methods.

日常生活可以被视为民主研究的新视角，是人最基本的真切生活。从学理层面对日常生活给予足够研究，能使人们最大限度地进入健全的日常生活。在日常生活中探讨民主，既是为有意义的日常生活提供实践的方法，也是为民主的健康发展提供新思路。就协商民主来说，无论是理论阐释还是实践分析，当下的研究仍更多聚焦于政治领域。而民主关键在“人”，在选举民主存在特定罅隙的事实中，我们必须要寻找修补民主的路径和方法，而日常生活则为民主发展带来了新的生机。对于人类社会而言，有质量的“民主”不仅是形式上的“有”，而且要深入人心。“只有那些已经深入文化、深入日常生活和成为习惯的东西，才能算做已达到的成就。”因此，我们应打破民主研究的视域局限，将民主从政治的场景中“解放”出来，去详尽阐释民主如何嵌入日常生活，又在日常生活中体现出何种价值。这不仅是对马克思主义民主理论的传承，也是基于国情对马克思主义的创造性转化。在中国，日常生活中的协商民主有中国文化传统之根，有中国社会传统之源，日常生活中协商民主的构建也要基于人的本质和特征，锚定人真实参与的价值目标来设计制度、构建机制、选择方法。

Consultative democracy in daily life is both quotidian and political. Consultative democracy gives meaning to daily life, enabling people, within the cyclical repetition of daily existence, to recreate a vibrant and dynamic life-world through their own subjectivity, and to provide conditions for human liberation. From a broader perspective, democracy in daily life cannot be separated from democracy in political life. The democracy in these two spheres essentially reflects the relationship between the state and society. Democracy in daily life is an organic supplement to democracy in political life, the social foundation of the democratic system, while democracy in political life further creates conditions and provides space for the construction of democracy in daily life, offering guarantees for the high-quality development of democracy in daily life. In other words, the two, through mutual supplementation and mutual adaptation, construct a harmonious relationship between the state and society, create a new form of human political civilization under the common development of people and society, and continuously advance Chinese-path modernization.

日常生活中的协商民主既是日常的，也是政治的。协商民主给予了日常生活以意义，让人能够在日常生活的循环往复中以自身的主体性重新创造一个富有生机与活力的生活世界，并为人的解放提供条件。更为宏观地看，日常生活中的民主无法和政治生活中的民主相割裂。两种场景的民主实质上反映出国家与社会之间的关系，日常生活中的民主是政治生活中的民主的有机补充，是民主制度的社会基础，而政治生活中的民主则进一步为日常生活中的民主构建创造条件、提供空间，为日常生活中的民主高质量发展提供保障。换言之，二者在相互补充与相互适应中构建了和谐的国家与社会关系，在人和社会的共同发展下创造了人类政治文明的新形态，不断推动中国式现代化向前发展。

(Author’s bio: Zhang Liwei, Associate Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the School of Public Administration, Jilin University, and Research Fellow at the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Theory Research Center of Jilin University.)

（作者简介：张力伟，吉林大学行政学院副教授，博士生导师，吉林大学人民政协理论研究中心研究员）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心