The Logical Path and Enhancement Approach of Whole-Process People’s Democracy Empowering the Modernization of a Super-Large-Scale Country

The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC pointed out: “Developing whole-process people’s democracy is an essential requirement of Chinese-path modernization.” [1]1 The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC refers to the third plenary meeting of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, held in July 2024, which focused on further deepening reform and advancing Chinese-path modernization. Whole-process people’s democracy, as “the great creation of the Communist Party of China uniting and leading the people in pursuing, developing, and realizing democracy,” is a unique value norm and action guide based on Chinese national conditions and built on the logic of the people. [2]2 This phrase is a standard formulation from official CPC documents, emphasizing the Party’s role in creating democracy for the people. For the Communist Party of China to lead the people in building and advancing Chinese-path modernization, it must adhere to putting the people first, implement people’s democracy, and gradually unfold around the value concepts and practical requirements of whole-process people’s democracy. Chinese-path modernization is the modernization of a country with a huge population. Throughout human history, no country has yet completed the modernization process under the condition that its total population exceeds 1 billion. Super-large-scale countries, due to their huge population size, can easily trigger an overload of government governance capacity, bring about complex national governance challenges, and ultimately lead to the stagnation of the modernization process. And “whole-process people’s democracy contains profound democratic governance concepts, scientific governance logic, and effective governance mechanisms,” turning the scale challenge into a scale advantage with huge governance effectiveness, becoming an effective answer for the Communist Party of China to lead the people in solving the governance problems of super-large-scale countries and advancing the modernization of super-large-scale countries. [3]3 This is a quotation from a Chinese scholarly source, likely a journal article or policy document, used to support the authors’ argument. But at the same time, democracy is historical, concrete, and developmental. The actual circumstances and specific contexts faced by the modernization of super-large-scale countries are also constantly changing and evolving. Democratic methods must be compatible and matched with objective conditions. Therefore, in-depth research on the operational mechanism of whole-process people’s democracy under the governance condition of super-large scale, and exploring the underlying logic of whole-process people’s democracy in solving scale governance problems, is of great significance for enhancing the governance effectiveness of whole-process people’s democracy in super-large-scale countries, thereby further advancing the modernization of super-large-scale countries.

党的二十届三中全会指出：“发展全过程人民民主是中国式现代化的本质要求。”全过程人民民主作为“中国共产党团结带领人民追求民主、发展民主、实现民主的伟大创造”,是立足中国国情，建立在人民逻辑之上的独特价值规范与行动指南。中国共产党领导人民建设与推进中国式现代化，必须坚持人民至上，贯彻人民民主，围绕全过程人民民主的价值理念和实践要求逐步展开。中国式现代化是人口规模巨大的现代化。纵观人类历史，尚未有一个国家能在人口总量突破10亿的条件下走完现代化进程，超大规模国家因其人口数量庞大，极易引发政府治理能力的超载，带来繁杂的国家治理难题，最终导致现代化进程的阻滞。而“全过程人民民主蕴含深厚的民主治理理念、科学的治理逻辑和有效的治理机制”,以巨大的治理效能将规模难题化作规模优势，成为中国共产党领导人民破解超大规模国家治理难题、推进超大规模国家现代化的有效答案。但同时，民主是历史的、具体的、发展的，超大规模国家现代化所面对的实际境遇和具体背景也是不断变动和演化的，民主方法必须同客观条件相契合、相匹配。因此，深入研究全过程人民民主在超大规模这一治理条件下的运作机理，探寻全过程人民民主破解规模治理难题的底层逻辑，对于提升全过程人民民主在超大规模国家中的治理效能，从而进一步推进超大规模国家的现代化具有重要意义。

I. The Governance Problems of Super-Large-Scale Countries and Their Manifestations

一、超大规模国家的治理难题及其表征

Conceptually, “scale” can be deconstructed into two dimensions: first, the extension of the political entity in spatial scope; second, the size of the political entity in terms of population. However, existing empirical research has confirmed that there is a correlation between territorial area and population size, and compared to the spatial dimension, the measurement of the population dimension is more intuitive and more closely related to political practice. Therefore, population size is generally regarded as the core factor affecting political scale and the primary object of investigation for scale issues. Consequently, the modernization of a super-large-scale country means completing the modernization process in a country with a huge population, which is itself a complex systemic project. In the modernization process of a super-large-scale country, the country’s economy, politics, culture, and ecological environment will all undergo constant changes, placing higher demands on national governance.

在概念上，“规模”可以被解构为两重维度：一是政治体在空间范围上的广延，二是政治体在人口数量上的多寡。但是，现有的实证研究已确证，领土面积同人口数量之间具有相关性，而相较于空间维度，人口维度的测定更为直观，同政治实践的关联也更为紧密。因此，人口数量一般被视作影响政治规模的核心因素，是规模问题的首要考察对象。因此，超大规模国家的现代化意味着要在人口规模巨大的国家中走完现代化进程，本身就是一项复杂的系统工程。在超大规模国家的现代化进程中，国家的经济、政治、文化、生态环境等均会不断变化，这对国家治理提出了更高要求。

In a general sense, an increase in population size can bring commensurate scale effects, unleashing huge potential in economic development, industrial agglomeration, and technological inheritance. But at the level of national governance, the expansion of population size not only fails to bring considerable marginal utility but instead leads to an increase in governance content, greater governance difficulty, and governance failure. Aristotle believed that “it is difficult for everyone to obey the laws (and customs) and maintain good order. All city-states renowned for their political excellence impose limits on their population.” [4]4 This is a paraphrase of Aristotle’s views on the ideal size of a city-state, found in his work *Politics*. After meeting daily needs, population growth would shake the centripetal force and political order of the city-state, thereby undermining its political stability. In modern times, democracy has become a common value of all humanity, and democratic governance has become the essential attribute of modern national governance. But even within the framework of representative democracy, constrained by time costs, population size still directly affects the breadth of the people’s participation in political life and the effectiveness of expressing their own interests, restricting the operational efficiency and governance effectiveness of national institutions.

在一般意义上，人口数量的增长能带来与之相称的规模效应，在经济发展、产业集聚、技术传承等方面迸发出巨大潜能。但在国家治理层面，人口规模的扩大非但不能带来可观的边际效用，反而会导致治理内容增多、治理难度加大，并造成治理失灵。亚里士多德就认为，“很难使人人都能遵守法律(和礼俗)而维持良好的秩序。凡以政治修明著称于世的城邦无不对人口有所限制”。在满足日常的需求后，人口数量的增长将撼动城邦的向心力和政治秩序，进而破坏城邦的政治稳定。近代以来，民主成为了全人类的共同价值，民主治理成为了现代国家治理的本质属性，但纵使在代议制民主的框架下，受制于时间成本，人口规模仍直接影响人民群众参与政治生活的广度和表达自身利益的效度，制约国家制度的运行效能与治理实效。

In summary, due to the popularization of democratic concepts and the establishment of democratic systems, modern national governance is essentially a form of democratic governance, which determines that national governance must be situated within the context and category of democracy. In the democratic governance of modern countries, a larger population size can greatly constrain national governance capacity, bringing governance challenges and governance crises. In super-large-scale countries with a population exceeding one billion, such dilemmas of democratic governance will be further aggravated, triggering a series of complex governance problems.

综上所述，由于民主理念的普及和民主制度的确立，现代国家治理的本质是一种民主治理，这决定了国家治理必然处于民主的情境与范畴之中。在现代国家的民主治理中，较大的人口规模会极大地钳制国家治理能力，带来治理挑战和治理危机。而在人口数量超过十亿的超大规模国家中，此类民主治理的困境将进一步加剧，并引发一系列复杂的治理难题。

First, the problem of “interest differentiation.”

第一，“利益分化”难题。

The value of democracy is that the people are the masters of the country, and the people are the subjects of national political life. Therefore, when measuring democratic performance, particular attention should be paid to whether the operation of the democratic system can truly solve the people’s immediate problems and whether it can maximize the public interest. However, throughout the history of human civilization, democracy, as a long-standing political form, has been subject to much criticism for its ineffective integration of the public interest, and for a long time was depicted as a “picture of turmoil and contention.” [5]5 This phrase likely refers to historical critiques of democracy, such as those by Plato or early modern thinkers, depicting it as prone to disorder. In the governance of super-large-scale countries, the huge population size has given rise to more complex interest demands and interest relationships. Due to the interactive game-playing among interest groups, the independence of each interest subject and the antagonism between interest subjects are constantly intensifying. The inherent defects of democracy in interest integration are further highlighted, easily triggering political conflicts characterized by partisanship and mutual obstruction, fundamentally undermining the political stability of super-large-scale countries.

民主的价值是人民当家作主，人民是国家政治生活的主体。因此在衡量民主绩效时，尤其要看民主制度的运行能否真正解决人民的切身问题，是否可以实现公共利益最大化。然而，纵观人类文明演进史，民主作为一种历史悠久的政治形态，因其对公共利益的无效整合受到过诸多批判，在很长一段时间内被描绘为一种“动乱和争论的图景”。在超大规模国家的治理中，巨大的人口规模衍生出了更为复杂的利益诉求和利益关系，由于利益群体之间的互动博弈，各利益主体的独立性和利益主体间的对抗性不断加剧，民主在利益整合层面的固有缺陷进一步凸显，极易引发以党同伐异、相互掣肘为表征的政治冲突，从根本上动摇超大规模国家的政治稳定。

Second, the problem of “insufficient responsiveness.”

第二，“回应匮乏”难题。

Constrained by objective spatiotemporal conditions, for modern countries, within the overall pattern of national governance, compared to the horizontal dimension, the vertical dimension of the governance system is often more important and urgent. Under the vertical governance system of modern countries, the will and interests of the people can mostly only be transmitted through their representatives. But can these representatives fully represent the will of hundreds of millions of people, adequately express the demands of hundreds of millions of people, and scientifically formulate public policies covering the entire country? At the same time, the representative nature of this representative system is further weakened by its procedural elections, which will exacerbate the disconnect between government departments and the people, making it lack efficient problem handling and positive feedback when facing governance overload caused by population size, and making it difficult to truly, accurately, and promptly respond to the needs of the people.

受制于客观的时空条件，对现代国家而言，在国家治理的总体格局中，相较于横向维度，纵向维度的治理体系往往更为重要和紧迫。而在现代国家的纵向治理体系下，民众的意愿与利益大多只能通过其代表代为传递。但是，这些代表能否完整代表数亿人的意志，充分表达数亿人的诉求，科学制定覆盖全国的公共政策?同时，这种代议制的人民代表性又因其程序性选举被进一步弱化，会加剧政府部门同民众间的脱节，使其在面对人口规模引发的治理超载时缺乏对问题高效处理和正向反馈，难以真实、准确、及时回应民众的需要。

Third, the problem of “distorted demands.”

第三，“诉求失真”难题。

Based on a utilitarian perspective, the ultimate goal of any political system should be to enhance the happiness of all people, or to achieve some kind of “common good.” Then, in the governance of modern countries, democracy is essentially a governance tool that uses the state apparatus for preference aggregation and policy selection. It is generally believed that elections are the most efficient democratic form for completing the aggregation of citizens’ will and the formulation of government policies, specifically embodied in a simplified voting system under the principle of majority rule. But in super-large-scale countries, “Arrow’s impossibility theorem” logically proves that due to the diverse preferences brought about by a large population, purely procedural elections cannot achieve the complete integration of individual preferences, that is, they cannot achieve the collective social welfare expected by public policy, inevitably leading to narrowness and distortion in the expression of public demands, and even giving rise to a series of “bad policies” that do not conform to public opinion. [6]6 Arrow’s impossibility theorem, formulated by economist Kenneth Arrow, states that no voting system can perfectly translate individual preferences into a collective preference order while meeting certain fairness criteria.

基于功利主义的观点来看，任何政体的最终目标都应是增进全体人民的幸福，或者说实现某种“共同的善”。那么，在现代国家的治理中，民主实质上是某种借助国家机器进行偏好统合和政策选择的治理手段。一般认为，选举是完成公民意愿汇聚和政府政策制定的最具效率的民主形式，具体体现为多数原则指导下的简化的票决制。但在超大规模国家中，“阿罗不可能定理”从逻辑上证明，由于众多人口带来的多元偏好，纯粹的程序性选举不可能实现对个体偏好的完全整合，亦即不可能实现公共政策所预期的集体社会福利，必将导致公共诉求在表达过程中的偏狭与失真，甚至衍生出一系列不合民意的“不良政策”。

Fourth, the problem of “participation obstruction.”

第四，“参与梗阻”难题。

From the essence of governance, no matter what form of governance is adopted under any national system, the issue of political participation cannot be avoided. Broad political participation is a prerequisite for the legitimization and scientification of public policy, and also a basic requirement for strengthening governance effectiveness and improving governance performance. But in the democratic governance of super-large-scale countries, population size greatly limits the breadth of political participation and increases the difficulty of political participation. Dahl once made a simple calculation: in an “ideal city-state” with only 10,000 people, “allowing each citizen 10 minutes of speaking time, the meeting would require more than 200 working days. If each citizen had 30 minutes, the meeting would last nearly 2 years.” [7]7 This is a reference to Robert Dahl’s work on democracy and political participation, likely from his book *Democracy and Its Critics* or similar texts. Under the conditions of a super-large-scale country, due to the insufficient participation of the people in public affairs, political apathy in society is easily bred and spread, thereby reducing the enthusiasm of the people for political participation and weakening the democratic foundation of governance in super-large-scale countries.

从治理的本质来看，无论何种国家制度下采用的何种治理形式，都无法回避政治参与的问题。广泛的政治参与是公共政策合法化、科学化的前提，也是强化治理效能、提高治理绩效的基本要件。但在超大规模国家的民主治理中，人口规模极大地限制了政治参与的广度，增加了政治参与的难度。达尔曾做过一个简单的计算：在一个仅有一万人的“理想城邦”里，“允许每位公民10分钟的发言时间，会议就需要200多个工作日。如果每位公民是30分钟的时间，那么这个会议将持续近2年”。在超大规模国家的条件下，由于民众对公共事务的不充分参与，社会的政治冷漠极易滋生和传播，进而降低民众政治参与的积极性，削弱超大规模国家治理的民主基础。

II. The Deep Foundation of Whole-Process People’s Democracy Empowering the Modernization of Super-Large-Scale Countries

二、全过程人民民主赋能超大规模国家现代化的深厚基础

The modernization of a super-large-scale country poses enormous challenges to national governance. To advance the modernization of a super-large-scale country, one must first resolve the governance difficulties of such a country and further enhance national governance capacity. At present, whole-process people’s democracy, supported jointly by its theoretical foundation, practical foundation, and historical foundation, demonstrates significant governance advantages, making it possible to resolve the governance difficulties of a super-large-scale country and advance its modernization.

超大规模国家的现代化给国家治理带来了巨大挑战。推进超大规模国家的现代化，首先要破解超大规模国家的治理难题，进一步提高国家治理能力。当前，全过程人民民主在理论基础、实践基础与历史基础的共同支撑下，彰显出显著的治理优势，使破解超大规模国家治理难题、推进超大规模国家现代化成为可能。

(I) Theoretical Foundation: Marxist State Governance Theory Provides Scientific Guidance

(一)理论基础：马克思主义国家治理理论提供了科学指导

Resolving the governance difficulties of a super-large-scale country requires scientific governance theory for guidance and regulation. Marxism, as a powerful ideological weapon for us to grasp laws and pursue truth, contains rich governance concepts and governance values, and demonstrates strong vitality in the process of integrating with China’s concrete realities. Marxist state governance theory is an important theoretical foundation for advancing the modernization of national governance in the New Era, providing scientific theoretical guidance for whole-process people’s democracy to resolve the governance difficulties of a super-large-scale country and advance its modernization.

破解超大规模国家治理难题需要科学的治理理论予以引导和规范。马克思主义作为我们把握规律、追求真理的强大思想武器，蕴蓄着丰富的治理理念和治理价值，并在同中国具体实际相结合的过程中展示出强大生命力。马克思主义国家治理理论是新时代推进国家治理现代化的重要理论基础，为全过程人民民主破解超大规模国家治理难题、推进超大规模国家现代化提供了科学的理论指导。

In the conception of Marx and Engels, the state, as a historical category, is itself the product of irreconcilable class contradictions. Therefore, in class society, state governance is essentially the governance of the ruling class. To carry out proletarian state governance, it is first necessary to “raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.” [8]8 The enfeoffment system (分封制, fēnfēng zhì): A system of decentralized governance used in the early Zhou Dynasty (c. 1046–256 BCE), in which the king granted land and authority to relatives and allies, who ruled as semi-independent lords. Thus, democracy is the highest form of state system and also a necessary prerequisite for state governance. Specifically in socialist countries, state governance requires that “all political and economic work of the state apparatus be led by the vanguard of the working class, the Communist Party,” [9]9 The prefecture-county system (郡县制, jùnxiàn zhì): A centralized administrative system first implemented by the Qin Dynasty (221–206 BCE), replacing feudal lords with centrally appointed officials governing prefectures and counties. achieving the people’s self-management through the democratic participation of the entire people, thereby promoting the healthy operation of the state and ultimately realizing the free and comprehensive development of each individual. In other words, only by adhering to the leadership of the proletarian party and establishing a genuine democratic system can thorough state governance be achieved. On this basis, the theory of socialist state governance with Chinese characteristics, as a Sinicized and modernized Marxist state governance theory, is built upon the practice of people’s democracy and realizes the coupling of people’s democracy and state governance: on the one hand, the theory of socialist state governance with Chinese characteristics takes people’s democracy as the value pursuit of state governance; state governance must thoroughly implement democratic values, fundamentally embody the people’s will and the people’s principal position, and realize the broad political participation of the masses. On the other hand, the theory of socialist state governance with Chinese characteristics takes people’s democracy as the basic pathway of state governance; state governance must be supported by the system of people’s democracy, coordinate diverse interests, resolve social contradictions, and ensure the democratization of public policy. In summary, Marxist state governance theory takes democracy as a condition for state governance, effectively coordinates the complex relationship between whole-process people’s democracy and the governance of a super-large-scale country, provides systematic theoretical support for the governance of a super-large-scale country, and plays an important normative and guiding function in the process of whole-process people’s democracy empowering the modernization of a super-large-scale country.

在马克思、恩格斯的构想中，国家作为一个历史范畴，其本身是阶级矛盾不可调和的产物。因此，在阶级社会中，国家治理实质上是统治阶级的治理。要进行无产阶级的国家治理，首先要“使无产阶级上升为统治阶级，争得民主”。所以，民主制是国家制度的最高形式，也是国家治理的必要前提。具体到社会主义国家，国家治理要求“国家政权的一切政治经济工作都由工人阶级觉悟的先锋队共产党领导”,在全体人民的民主参与中实现人民的自我管理，从而推动国家的良性运行，最终实现每个人的自由全面发展。换言之，只有坚持无产阶级政党的领导，建立真正的民主制度，才能实现彻底的国家治理。在此基础上，中国特色社会主义国家治理理论作为中国化时代化的马克思主义国家治理理论，建立在人民民主实践之上，实现了人民民主与国家治理的耦合：一方面，中国特色社会主义国家治理理论将人民民主作为国家治理的价值追求，国家治理要深入贯彻民主价值，从根本上体现人民意志和人民主体地位，实现人民群众的广泛政治参与；另一方面，中国特色社会主义国家治理理论将人民民主作为国家治理的基本途径，国家治理要以人民民主制度体系为支撑，协调多元利益，化解社会矛盾，确保公共政策民主化。总的来说，马克思主义国家治理理论将民主作为国家治理的条件，有效地协调了全过程人民民主与治理超大规模国家之间的复杂关系，为超大规模国家治理提供了系统的理论支撑，在全过程人民民主赋能超大规模国家现代化的进程中发挥着重要的规范指引功能。

(II) Practical Foundation: The Democratic Governance Exploration by the Party and the People Provides Valuable Experience

(二)实践基础：党和人民的民主治理探索提供了宝贵经验

Since modern times, in the process of integrating democratic values with state governance, the Communist Party of China has led the people to successfully establish democratic order and build a democratic framework in a super-large-scale country like China, gradually opening up a path of democratic governance with Chinese characteristics. Through the long-term exploration of the Party and the people, socialist democratic governance with Chinese characteristics has broken free from path dependence on Western democracy, expanded and innovated the methods and means of democratic governance, and provided valuable practical experience for whole-process people’s democracy to resolve the governance difficulties of a super-large-scale country and advance its modernization.

近代以来，在民主价值同国家治理相融的过程中，中国共产党领导人民成功在中国这样的超大规模国家中确立民主秩序、搭建民主框架，逐步开辟出一条具有中国特色的民主治理道路。在党和人民的长期探索中，中国特色的社会主义民主治理突破了对西方民主的路径依赖，拓展并创新了民主治理的方法和手段，为全过程人民民主破解超大规模国家治理难题、推进超大规模国家现代化提供了宝贵的实践经验。

As early as the period of the New Democratic Revolution, the Communist Party of China, based on China’s realities, led the people in creating an independent and self-reliant practice of democratic governance. In the process of carrying out the agrarian revolution, the Communist Party of China smashed the old traditional gentry governance model and established grassroots Party organizations as the forward positions of democratic governance. On this basis, Mao Zedong clarified the organizational principle of the “Three-Thirds System” [10]10 The provincial system (行省制, xíngshěng zhì): An administrative system introduced under the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368 CE), establishing provinces as the highest level of local administration directly under the central government, a structure largely retained in later dynasties. for political power: “Communist Party members occupy only one-third of the positions in the organs of political power, attracting a large number of non-Party personnel to participate in political power.” [11]11 Xi Jinping, “Hold High the Great Banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and Strive in Unity to Build a Modern Socialist Country in All Respects – Report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China” (October 16, 2022). The masses thereby gained the opportunity and right to participate in political affairs and express their demands. In rural areas with low literacy rates, to ensure the normal operation of grassroots democratic governance, the Communist Party of China replaced the literacy-requiring “ballot voting” with “bean voting,” [12]12 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Work Related to People’s Congresses” (October 13, 2021). breaking the literacy barrier required for elections and cultivating the political participation awareness of the masses through a simple and efficient voting format. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, democratic governance shifted toward systematization and standardization and was fixed through laws in multiple institutional forms. Among them, the system of people’s congresses, as the fundamental political system of the state, is an important institutional carrier for realizing people’s democracy and provides fundamental institutional guarantees for democratic governance. After reform and opening up, under the strong guarantee of the rule of law, the practical fields of democratic governance became increasingly rich, and its scope of application grew broader. In the field of grassroots governance, relying on diversified grassroots mass self-governing organizations, the grassroots democratic system realized the self-management of the masses and expanded their orderly participation. In this process, the political institutions of democratic governance were continuously established and improved, gradually developing into an institutional system composed of fundamental institutions, basic institutions, important institutions, and specific institutions. Various democratic institutions were horizontally linked and vertically integrated, playing a unique function in national governance and significantly enhancing the effectiveness and performance of democratic governance.

早在新民主主义革命时期，中国共产党就立足中国实际，领导人民开创了独立自主的民主治理实践。在开展土地革命的过程中，中国共产党打碎了旧有的传统士绅治理模式，建立起基层党组织作为民主治理的前沿阵地。在此基础上，毛泽东明确了“三三制”的政权组织原则：“共产党员在政权机关中只占三分之一，吸引广大的非党人员参加政权。”人民群众由此得到了参政议政、表达诉求的机会和权利。而在识字率较低的乡村地区，为保证基层民主治理的正常运行，中国共产党将具有门槛的“票选”改为“豆选”,打破了选举所需的识字壁垒，以简洁高效的投票形式培育了人民群众的政治参与意识。中华人民共和国成立后，民主治理转向系统化、规范化，并通过法律以多种制度形式固定下来。其中，人民代表大会制度作为国家的根本政治制度，是实现人民民主的重要制度载体，为民主治理提供了根本性的制度保障。改革开放后，在强有力的法治保障下，民主治理的实践场域日趋丰富，适用范围愈加广泛。在基层治理领域，依托多元化的基层群众性自治组织，基层民主制度实现了人民群众的自我管理，扩大了人民群众的有序参与。在这一过程中，民主治理的政治制度不断建立和完善，逐步发展为由根本制度、基本制度、重要制度、具体制度构成的制度体系，各类民主制度横向联动、纵向贯通，在国家治理中发挥着独特功能，显著提高了民主治理效能和治理绩效。

(III) Historical Foundation: The State Governance Tradition of Ancient China Provides Useful Reference

(三)历史基础：古代中国的国家治理传统提供了有益镜鉴

Compared with the West, China’s democratic tradition is weak, yet the problem of scale has

相较于西方，中国的民主传统薄弱，而规模难题却古已有之。早在民主价值引入前，中国关于超大规模国家的治理实践已逾千年。古代中国的国家治理虽未遵循民主价值，却在治理超大规模国家的过程中构建起了较为系统的治理体系，拓展了当代中国民主治理的路径和视野，为全过程人民民主破解超大规模国家治理难题、推进超大规模国家现代化提供了有益的历史镜鉴。

Grassroots social self-governance was an important component of state governance in ancient China. Under the system of imperial autocratic unification, in order to achieve effective governance of localities by the central authority and form a stable social order, from the Han Dynasty onward, grassroots social self-governance below the county level gradually became the basic form of state governance in ancient China. The essence of this self-governance was to borrow and coordinate the power of local patriarchal organizations, that is, to mobilize social resources to serve state governance, thereby achieving the unity of central vertical management and limited social self-governance. In this process, the state's administrative power gradually devolved to the grassroots, expanding the governance authority and governance responsibilities of grassroots society, thus reducing the governance burden at the state level. However, constrained by the state capacity and management techniques of ancient times, this kind of self-governance had considerable looseness and dispersion; when the authority of the central government weakened, it easily gave rise to a series of social problems such as localism and ethnic separatism, leading to governance difficulties. Beyond grassroots self-governance, ancient China also made detailed divisions of administrative levels, achieving multi-level governance and collaborative governance. In the process of the evolution of the administrative system from the enfeoffment system [8]8 The enfeoffment system (分封制, fēnfēng zhì): A system of decentralized governance used in the early Zhou Dynasty (c. 1046–256 BCE), in which the king granted land and authority to relatives and allies, who ruled as semi-independent lords., to the prefecture-county system [9]9 The prefecture-county system (郡县制, jùnxiàn zhì): A centralized administrative system first implemented by the Qin Dynasty (221–206 BCE), replacing feudal lords with centrally appointed officials governing prefectures and counties., to the provincial system [10]10 The provincial system (行省制, xíngshěng zhì): An administrative system introduced under the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368 CE), establishing provinces as the highest level of local administration directly under the central government, a structure largely retained in later dynasties., ancient China gradually established a unitary state governance system combining centralization with local decentralization, establishing multi-level state administrative organs, thereby ensuring that local governments maintained a certain degree of autonomy on the basis of obeying the unified decisions of the central authority, and thus improving the efficiency of local governance. In essence, starting from the interrelationship between "centralization" and "local decentralization," the state governance of ancient China gradually achieved the coordination and unity of the two in concrete governance practice, preliminarily realized social stability in an ultra-large-scale state, and to a certain extent completed the effective governance of an ultra-large-scale state. Its comprehensive application of various governance forms such as grassroots self-governance and hierarchical governance also provided ideas and pathways for the democratic participation of the people.

基层社会自治是古代中国国家治理的重要内容。在皇权大一统的体系下，为实现中央对地方的有效治理，形成稳定的社会秩序，自汉代以来，县以下的基层社会自治逐渐成为古代中国国家治理的基本形式。这种自治的实质是对地方宗法组织的力量加以借用和协调，即调动社会资源服务国家治理，以此实现中央垂直管理与有限社会自治的统一。在这一过程中，国家的行政权力逐步向基层下放，拓宽了基层社会的治理职权与治理责任，从而减轻了国家层面的治理负担。但是，受制于古代的国家能力和管理技术，此种自治具有相当的松弛性与涣散性，在中央政府权威弱化时，极易产生地方主义、民族分裂等一系列社会问题，引发治理难题。在基层自治之外，古代中国还对行政层级进行了细致划分，实现了多层治理、协同治理。在行政制度由分封制、郡县制到行省制的演进过程中，古代中国逐步建立起中央集权与地方分权相结合的单一制国家治理体系，建立起多层级的国家行政机构，以此保证地方政府在服从中央统一决策的基础上维持一定的自主性，进而提高地方治理效率。质言之，古代中国的国家治理从“中央集权”与“地方分权”的相互关系出发，在具体的治理实践中逐步达成了二者的协调统一，初步实现了超大规模国家的社会稳定，在一定程度上完成了超大规模国家的有效治理，其对基层自治、层级治理等多种治理形式的综合运用，也为人民群众的民主参与提供了思路与途径。

III. The Internal Mechanism of Whole-Process People’s Democracy Empowering the Modernization of a Super-Large Country

三、全过程人民民主赋能超大规模国家现代化的内在机理

The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC points out: “The modernization of a society with a population of over 1.4 billion in China will be on a scale larger than the total population of all developed countries combined. The difficulty and complexity involved are unprecedented, and the development path and methods of advancement will inevitably have their own characteristics.” [11]11 Xi Jinping, “Hold High the Great Banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and Strive in Unity to Build a Modern Socialist Country in All Respects – Report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China” (October 16, 2022). In response to the complexity brought about by a super-large country, whole-process people’s democracy fully integrates various advantageous resources, and through its unique mechanism of action and operational mechanisms, it resolves the governance challenges of a super-large country from multiple dimensions, effectively advancing the modernization of a super-large country.

党的二十大报告指出：“我国十四亿多人口整体迈进现代化社会，规模超过现有发达国家人口的总和，艰巨性和复杂性前所未有，发展途径和推进方式也必然具有自己的特点。”针对超大规模国家带来的复杂性，全过程人民民主充分整合各类优势资源，以其独特的作用机理和运行机制，从多个维度破解了超大规模国家治理难题，有力地推进了超大规模国家现代化。

(I) Resolving the “Interest Differentiation” Problem through “the Unity of Party Leadership and People Supremacy”

(一)以“党的领导和人民至上相统一”破解“利益分化”难题

From the practical experience of democracy, due to the diversity of interest demands, the full expression of political issues by multiple subjects inevitably leads to the differentiation and confrontation of public interests. This is jointly determined by the value requirements of democracy and the procedural processes of democracy. Therefore, in the face of the “interest differentiation” brought about by a super-large country, the institutions and norms of democracy inevitably face the problem of weak interest integration in the process of balancing interest relations and achieving interest sharing. However, “the leadership of the Communist Party of China is the fundamental guarantee for China’s development of whole-process people’s democracy.” [12]12 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Work Related to People’s Congresses” (October 13, 2021). The Communist Party of China, as a political party representing the overall interests of the broad masses of the people, takes social integration as its basic function. In the process of modernizing a super-large country, whole-process people’s democracy is always closely linked to the Party’s leadership, taking the Party’s leadership as the highest political principle, thereby achieving the coordination and unity of diverse interests.

从民主的实践经验来看，由于利益诉求的差异性，多元主体对政治议题的充分表达必然引发公共利益的分化与对抗，这是由民主的价值要求与民主的程序过程共同决定的。因此，面对超大规模国家带来的“利益分化”,民主的制度与规范在平衡利益关系、实现利益共享的过程中不可避免地存在利益整合乏力的问题。但是，“中国共产党的领导，是中国发展全过程人民民主的根本保证”。中国共产党作为代表广大人民整体利益的政党，以社会整合为基本功能。在超大规模国家现代化的进程中，全过程人民民主始终同党的领导紧密相连，以党的领导为最高政治原则，由此实现了多元利益的协调与统一。

From the perspective of the laws of modernization, “the sequence of modernization is generally that democratization lags behind industrialization.” [13]13 Wang Huning, *Political Logic of the Political System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics* (Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2016), p. 153. Against the backdrop of China’s remarkable achievements in industrialization, whole-process people’s democracy not only bears the value pressure imposed by the modernization process but also implies governance needs arising from the dilemmas of modernization. Based on this, whole-process people’s democracy fully introduces democratic methods into the governance system of a super-large country, truly upholds the principal position of the people, and while fully implementing democratic values, fully expresses and realizes the interests of the masses. However, the democratic process is both a process of gathering public opinion and a process of dispersing power. Without precise direction guidance and correct political orientation, democracy will only degenerate into a game for a few politicians or become fragmented and volatile politics. Therefore, “in such a large country as China, it is not easy to truly express and realize the will of the 1.4 billion people; strong and unified leadership is essential.” [14]14 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Work Related to People’s Congresses” (October 13, 2021). In response to the differentiation and conflict of diverse interests, whole-process people’s democracy unifies Party leadership and people supremacy. On the one hand, it adheres to Party leadership, firmly upholds the authority of the Party Central Committee, stabilizes the direction of action for governing a super-large country, and through the Party’s overall leadership and the centralized, unified leadership of the Party Central Committee, represents the overall interests of the broad masses, achieving a high degree of alignment between the people’s interests and national interests. On the other hand, it adheres to people supremacy, resolutely implements democratic values, always places the people’s interests in the highest position, provides legal and effective channels for the expression of the people’s interests, and alleviates the complex demands arising from diverse interests through genuine and effective political participation. Therefore, whole-process people’s democracy achieves the unity of Party leadership and people supremacy, resolving the “interest differentiation” problem in the governance of a super-large country with correct principled guidance.

从现代化的规律来看，“现代化的顺序一般是民主化滞后于工业化”,而在我国工业化建设卓有成效的背景下，全过程人民民主既承载着由现代化进程赋予的价值压力，也隐含着由现代化困境带来的治理需求。基于此，全过程人民民主将民主方法完整引入超大规模国家治理体系之中，真正坚持了人民主体地位，在完整贯彻民主价值的同时，充分表达与实现了人民群众的利益。但是，民主过程既是一个民意汇聚的过程，也是一个权力分散的过程，没有精准的方向引领，缺乏正确的政治导向，只会使民主沦为少数政治家的游戏，抑或成为摇摆动荡的碎片化政治。所以，“在中国这样一个大国，真正把14亿多人民的意愿表达好、实现好并不容易，必须有坚强有力的统一领导”。针对多元利益的分化与冲突，全过程人民民主将党的领导和人民至上统一起来，一方面坚持党的领导，坚定维护党中央权威，把稳超大规模国家治理的行动方向，以党的全面领导和党中央集中统一领导代表了广大人民的整体利益，实现了人民利益与国家利益的高度一致；另一方面坚持人民至上，坚决贯彻民主价值，始终把人民利益放在最高位置，为人民利益的表达提供合法、有效的实现途径，以真实管用的政治参与纾解了多元利益带来的复杂诉求。因此，全过程人民民主实现了党的领导和人民至上相统一，以正确的原则导向破解了超大规模国家治理中的“利益分化”难题。

(II) Resolving the “Insufficient Responsiveness” Problem through “the Combination of Vertical Democracy and Horizontal Democracy”

(二)以“纵向民主和横向民主相结合”破解“回应匮乏”难题

It is generally believed that a political system is a complex system of crisscrossing relationships, possessing both top-down vertical hierarchical relationships and horizontal internal relationships at the same level. Specifically within the category of democracy, democracy can be divided into vertical democracy and horizontal democracy. Among them, horizontal democracy is a flat democratic process of elections, participation, etc., conducted at the same level, while vertical democracy is equivalent to representative democracy. In this sense, the root cause of the “insufficient responsiveness” problem is the disharmony and asymmetry between the responsiveness capacity of government departments and the scale of the population. That is, within a single vertical democratic structure, a small number of representatives cannot fully capture the interest needs of the entire population, thereby weakening the responsiveness capacity of government departments, leading to lagging and insufficient political responsiveness, and consequently constraining the governance effectiveness of a super-large country.

一般认为，政治体系是一个纵横交错的复杂系统，既具有自上而下的纵向等级关系，也具有同一层级的横向内部关系。具体到民主范畴中，可将民主划分为纵向民主和横向民主。其中，横向民主是在同一层级中进行的扁平化选举、参与等民主过程，纵向民主则等同于代议制民主。在此意义上，“回应匮乏”难题的发生根源是政府部门的回应能力同人口规模等级间的不协调、不对称，即在单一的纵向民主结构中，少数代表无法完整捕捉全体人民的利益需要，从而削弱了政府部门的回应能力，导致政治回应的滞后与匮乏，进而制约了超大规模国家的治理实效。

Guaranteed by a complete institutional system, whole-process people’s democracy accommodates both direct democracy and indirect democracy, forming a “governance-oriented democratic system that is vertical and horizontal,” [15]15 Tang Huangfeng, *Whole-Process People’s Democracy: A New Form of Democracy* (Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 2021), p. 107. significantly enhancing the responsiveness capacity of government departments. Historical practice of democracy proves that, given the constraints of time and space, direct democracy with high governance performance is not feasible in modern state governance. However, if democratic units are divided hierarchically into “state—province—city—county—grassroots townships,” breaking down the huge political entity into numerous small democratic units, direct democracy becomes possible again in the grassroots field. Whole-process people’s democracy emphasizes the “whole process.” Direct democracy in the grassroots field not only has a complete electoral procedure but also covers diverse democratic practices such as consultation, decision-making, management, and supervision beyond elections, forming a comprehensive horizontal democratic system and realizing the people’s direct participation in grassroots affairs. Through horizontal grassroots democracy, the governance overload brought by population size is transformed into the driving force for political participation, and the vitality of democratic governance is released through grassroots self-governance practice. In summary, in response to the “insufficient responsiveness” problem caused by governance overload, on the one hand, whole-process people’s democracy relies on the system of grassroots self-governance. Within the structure of horizontal democracy, it encourages the masses to self-digest and self-manage the trivial matters of daily life, thereby reducing the input pressure on government departments. On the other hand, whole-process people’s democracy is rooted in the system of people’s congresses, placing the major and important matters that the masses urgently need to be addressed within the structure of vertical democracy for centralized advancement, thereby improving the output efficiency of government departments. Therefore, whole-process people’s democracy achieves the combination of vertical democracy and horizontal democracy, resolving the “insufficient responsiveness” problem in the governance of a super-large country with strong government capacity.

以完备的制度体系为保障，全过程人民民主兼容了直接民主与间接民主，形成了“上下纵向、左右横向的治理式民主体系”,显著提升了政府部门的回应能力。民主的历史实践证明，鉴于时空条件所限，具有较高治理绩效的直接民主在现代国家治理中不具备可行性。然而，若将民主单位予以层级分割，划分为“国家—省—市—县—基层乡镇”,将庞大的政治体细化为若干微小的民主单位，直接民主便在基层场域中再次具备了实现可能。全过程人民民主重在“全过程”,基层场域下的直接民主既具有完整的选举程序，也涵盖了选举之外的协商、决策、管理、监督等多样态民主实践，形成了一套全面的横向民主体系，实现了人民对基层事务的直接参与。借由横向的基层民主，人口规模带来的治理超载反而化作政治参与的动能，并通过基层自治实践释放了民主治理的活力。综上，针对治理超载带来的“回应匮乏”难题，一方面，全过程人民民主以基层群众自治制度为依托，在横向民主的结构中，鼓励人民群众对日常生活的小事琐事进行自我消化和自我管理，以此降低政府部门的输入压力；另一方面，全过程人民民主以人民代表大会制度为根基，将人民群众急难愁盼的大事要事置于纵向民主的结构中予以集中推进，以此提高政府部门的输出效能。因此，全过程人民民主实现了纵向民主和横向民主的结合，以强大的政府能力破解了超大规模国家治理的“回应匮乏”难题。

(III) Resolving the “Distorted Demands” Problem through “the Coordination of Electoral Democracy and Consultative Democracy”

(三)以“选举民主和协商民主相协调”破解“诉求失真”难题

In modern political science research, a relatively profound and the most common and widely accepted classification is the binary division of democratic forms into electoral (aggregative) democracy and deliberative democracy. These two forms of democracy follow opposite underlying logics: one is the confirmation and expression of the general will, and the other is the creation and reconciliation of the general will. In the governance of modern states, electoral democracy is an important form for the people to realize their democratic rights. Its essence is the emphasis on procedural democracy, but it gives rise to the “distorted demands” problem in the expression of public opinion due to the complexity of individual preferences. Deliberative democracy overcomes this defect. In specific practical operation, the masses rely on systematic communication platforms to extensively conduct dialogue and discussion around their own demands. Its essence is the emphasis on substantive democracy. However, the complex content of deliberative democracy is inevitably constrained by political scale. Applying deliberative democracy indiscriminately to all issues is clearly inappropriate and unrealistic.

在现代政治学研究中，相对深刻且最常见和最被广为接受的分类是将民主在形式上二分为选举(聚合)民主和协商民主。两类民主形式遵从相反的底层逻辑：一类是公意的确证和表达，一类是公意的制造和调和。在现代国家的治理中，选举民主是人民实现民主权利的重要形式，其本质是对程序民主的强调，但却因个体偏好的复杂性引发民意表达的“诉求失真”难题。协商民主克服了这一缺陷，在具体的实践运行中，人民群众依托体系化的沟通平台，围绕自身诉求广泛开展对话和讨论，其本质是对实质民主的强调。然而，协商民主的繁杂内容必然受到政治规模的钳制，将协商民主不加区别地用于全部议题显然是不合适和不现实的。

Objectively speaking, the key to governing a super-large-scale country lies in anchoring the needs, urgent concerns, and expectations of the masses, and achieving good governance through public policy. In this process, how to use whole-process people’s democracy to ensure the authenticity and effectiveness of the people’s interests in information transmission, to avoid distortion in the expression of public demands, and to truly “broadly build consensus, seek the greatest common divisor, and draw the largest concentric circle” [16]16 Xi, thereby formulating public policies that align with the people’s interests, has become the most difficult technical problem in governance. To this end, whole-process people’s democracy, based on China’s national conditions and realities, integrates two forms—electoral democracy and consultative democracy—achieving the unity of procedural democracy and substantive democracy, and the unity of democratic form and democratic content. It creates diverse democratic channels, initiates rich democratic practices, and genuinely expresses the people’s demands. At the level of public opinion aggregation and policy formulation, whole-process people’s democracy affirms the procedural necessity of electoral democracy, completing the screening and integration of the people’s will through the tiered election of people’s congress deputies. Through the platform of the People’s Congress, it adheres to democratic centralism in the process of expression and decision-making, efficiently formulating public policies aggregated from public opinion through a voting system. In response to the information loss and aggregation failure caused by electoral procedures, whole-process people’s democracy also affirms the value legitimacy of consultative democracy, relying on multi-level democratic consultation platforms to resolve social conflicts and build social consensus through dialogue and communication, enhancing the systematic understanding of issues among various social actors in close interaction. Therefore, whole-process people’s democracy achieves the coordination of electoral democracy and consultative democracy, solving the “demand distortion” problem in the governance of a super-large-scale country through complete expression of will.

客观而言，超大规模国家治理的关键是锚定人民群众的所需所急所盼，借助公共政策实现善治。在这一过程中，如何以全过程人民民主确保人民利益在信息传递中的真实性、有效性，避免公共诉求的表达失真，真正做到“广泛凝聚共识，寻求最大公约数、画出最大同心圆”,从而制定符合人民利益的公共政策，成为了治理环节中最为困难的技术问题。为此，全过程人民民主基于中国国情和中国实际，综合了选举民主和协商民主两类形式，实现了程序民主与实质民主相统一、民主形式与民主内容相统一，创制出多样的民主渠道，开创出丰富的民主实践，真实地表达了人民诉求。在民意汇聚和政策制定层面，全过程人民民主肯定了选举民主的程序必要性，通过人大代表的逐级选举完成人民意愿的筛选和整合，并借由人民代表大会这一平台，在表达、决定的过程中坚持民主集中制，以票决制形式高效制定由民意汇聚而成的公共政策。而针对选举程序导致的信息损耗和聚合失灵，全过程人民民主又肯定了协商民主的价值正当性，依靠多层次的民主协商平台，以对话、沟通等方式化解社会矛盾、凝聚社会共识，在紧密互动中增进各社会主体关于议题的系统认识。因此，全过程人民民主实现了选举民主和协商民主的协调，以完整的意愿表达破解了超大规模国家治理中的“诉求失真”难题。

(4) Solving the “Participation Obstruction” Problem through “the Integration of Digital Democracy and Traditional Democracy”

(四)以“数字民主和传统民主相融汇”破解“参与梗阻”难题

From the fundamental logic of institutional operation, “democracy is determined by participation.” However, in a super-large-scale country, the forms, channels, and content of political participation are greatly restricted. Clearly, relying solely on traditional substantive media such as dialogue and voting makes broad political participation in a super-large-scale country nearly impossible. To truly implement the relevant requirements of “expanding the people’s orderly political participation,” it is necessary to transform participation tools and improve participation efficiency. Currently, technological progress has given rise to new forms of democratic realization and updated traditional models of national governance. The combination of digital technology and democratic politics has opened up cyberspace—a practical field that is both virtual and real—building an important platform for gathering public opinion and strengthening government-society interaction. The integration of digital democracy and traditional democracy has become an important feature and development trend of whole-process people’s democracy.

从制度运行的本源逻辑上讲，“民主决定于参与”。但在超大规模国家中，政治参与的形式、渠道、内容受到极大限制。显然，借以传统的对话、投票等此类实体性媒介，在超大规模国家实现广泛的政治参与几无可能，要真正落实“扩大人民有序政治参与”的相关要求，就必须变革参与工具、提高参与效率。当前，技术进步催生了全新的民主实现形式，也更新了传统的国家治理模式。数字技术同民主政治的结合开辟了网络空间这一兼具虚拟性和真实性的实践场域，搭建起汇聚民意民情、强化政社互动的重要平台，数字民主同传统民主的融汇已然成为全过程人民民主的重要特征和发展趋向。

Based on digital technology, whole-process people’s democracy has achieved openness in demand processing, information management, and government governance, constructing a new form of political participation. In terms of the possibility of political participation, digital technology breaks down the spatial and temporal barriers caused by political scale. Through online democratic platforms such as government websites and government affairs apps, it realizes the full-process informatization of citizens’ demand processing, overcoming the information blockage and delay caused by political scale. In terms of the initiative for political participation, based on public choice theory, individual citizens inevitably consider various participation costs to maximize the utility of political participation. Digital technology builds more authentic and convenient participation channels, enhancing participation utility while reducing participation costs and increasing participation benefits. In terms of the effectiveness of political participation, digital technology increases the speed of information transmission, breaking the asymmetry between political scale and political information. In the process of promoting the metabolism of democratic technology and the widespread dissemination of democratic knowledge, it drives the transformation and upgrading of democratic governance models, fundamentally changing inefficient and cumbersome political participation models. While expanding new participation pathways, digital technology also closely integrates with traditional democratic media, promoting digital practices of traditional democracy such as electronic elections and digital consultation, building more authentic and convenient participation channels. Additionally, offline traditional democratic forms, due to their deliberative and rigorous nature of physical presence, are retained and play an important role in many occasions. In summary, whole-process people’s democracy achieves the unity of online democracy and offline democracy, and digital democracy and traditional democracy. The communication distance between the people and government departments is greatly shortened, and the time, space, and psychological costs of political participation are significantly reduced. Therefore, whole-process people’s democracy achieves the integration of digital democracy and traditional democracy, solving the “participation obstruction” problem in the governance of a super-large-scale country through efficient participation media.

基于数字技术，全过程人民民主实现了诉求处理、信息管理、政府治理的公开化，构筑了一种全新的政治参与形态。在政治参与的可能性方面，数字技术打破了政治规模带来的时空壁垒，借助政府网站、政务APP等网络民主阵地，实现了公民诉求处理的全流程信息化，克服了政治规模导致的信息阻塞与信息迟滞。在政治参与的积极性方面，基于公共选择理论，公民个体必然会将各类参与成本纳入考量，实现政治参与的效用最大化，数字技术搭建起了更为真实便捷的参与渠道，在提升参与效用的同时降低了参与成本，扩大了参与收益。在政治参与的有效性方面，数字技术提高了信息传递速率，打破了政治规模与政治信息间的不对称，在实现民主技术新陈代谢、民主知识广泛普及的过程中，促使民主治理模式转型升级，从根本上改变了低效、繁复的政治参与模式。在拓展新型参与途径的同时，数字技术还与传统民主媒介紧密融合，推动了电子选举、数字协商等传统民主的数字实践，搭建起更为真实便捷的参与渠道。此外，线下的传统民主形式因其主体在场的审慎性、严谨性，仍在诸多场合得以保留并发挥重要作用。概言之，全过程人民民主实现了线上民主与线下民主、数字民主与传统民主的统一，人民群众同政府部门的沟通距离得以大幅缩短，政治参与的时间、空间，以及心理成本得到显著降低。因此，全过程人民民主实现了数字民主和传统民主的融汇，以高效的参与媒介破解了超大规模国家治理的“参与梗阻”难题。

IV. The Enhancement Path for Whole-Process People’s Democracy Empowering the Modernization of a Super-Large-Scale Country

四、全过程人民民主赋能超大规模国家现代化的提升路径

Whole-process people’s democracy has solved the governance problems of a super-large-scale country, effectively promoted the modernization of a super-large-scale country, and achieved remarkable accomplishments. However, “compared with the new requirements of modernization and the people’s new expectations for democracy, China’s democracy still needs continuous development and improvement.” [17] How to make good use of democracy, promote democracy, continuously enhance the governance effectiveness of whole-process people’s democracy, and thereby further empower the grand cause of Chinese-path modernization still requires coordinated efforts based on multiple levels and comprehensive factors.

全过程人民民主破解了超大规模国家的治理难题，有力地推进了超大规模国家的现代化，取得了举世瞩目的成就。但是，“与现代化建设的新要求、与人民对民主的新期待相比，中国的民主还需要不断发展完善”。如何善用民主、发扬民主，不断提升全过程人民民主的治理效能，从而进一步赋能中国式现代化宏伟事业，仍需立足多个层面、综合多种因素协同发力。

(1) Value Guidance: Adhere to the People’s Standpoint, Empower the Modernization of a Super-Large-Scale Country with the Progressiveness of Ideas

(一)价值引领：坚守人民立场，以理念的先进性赋能超大规模国家现代化

To empower the modernization of a super-large-scale country with whole-process people’s democracy, it is necessary to grasp the conceptual factor of value and strengthen the value guidance of whole-process people’s democracy. At the normative level, the value of democracy is that the people are the masters of the country, which itself is a profound interpretation of the people’s standpoint. Whole-process people’s democracy is always for the people and relies on the people, achieving substantive democracy beyond elections through complete participation practices, creating a new form of political civilization. Therefore, it is necessary to further adhere to the people’s standpoint, promote correct democratic values, thereby safeguarding the people’s interests, stimulating the people’s wisdom, and mobilizing rich social resources for advancing the modernization of a super-large-scale country.

以全过程人民民主赋能超大规模国家现代化，必须把握好价值这一观念性因素，强化全过程人民民主的价值引领。在规范层面，民主的价值是人民当家作主，这本身就是对人民立场的深刻诠释。而全过程人民民主始终为了人民、依靠人民，通过完整的参与实践实现了选举之外的实质民主，创造了新型政治文明形态。因此，必须进一步坚守人民立场，弘扬正确的民主价值理念，从而维护人民利益，激发人民智慧，为推进超大规模国家现代化调动丰富的社会资源。

At the value level, it is necessary to adhere to the people-centered value orientation, do everything for the people, rely on the people, and mobilize broad forces to advance the modernization of a super-large-scale country. On the one hand, the people should be regarded as the main body of political participation, accelerating the cultivation of the people’s democratic consciousness, and mobilizing the people’s initiative and proactiveness in political participation. Historically, democracy in China started relatively late, with a weak democratic tradition

在价值层面，必须坚持以人民为中心的价值取向，一切为了人民，一切依靠人民，动员起推进超大规模国家现代化的广泛力量。一方面，要把人民群众作为政治参与的主体，加快培育人民群众的民主意识，调动人民群众政治参与的积极性、主动性。历史上，中国的民主起步较晚，民主传统较为薄弱，公众的民主观念受西方的影响颇深，对全过程人民民主的认知尚浅。为此，教育部门应加强相关教育、普及民主知识、提升政治能力，增强人民群众对全过程人民民主的情感认同，激发人民群众的主人翁精神。另一方面，要坚决维护人民群众利益，尊重人民意愿，顺应人民需求，提升人民群众的民主感知和民主体验。在全过程人民民主赋能超大规模国家现代化的过程中，应坚持民生导向、人民导向，以增进民生福祉、保护人民权益为政策目标，疏通人民群众的表达渠道、优化政治议程设置，集中力量攻克人民群众的急难愁盼问题。价值问题具有思想性、方向性、指导性，要始终坚守人民立场，推动人民群众以更加自主自觉的方式参与到超大规模国家的治理之中，为超大规模国家现代化打牢群众基础。

(II) Institutional Improvement: Perfecting the Democratic System, Empowering the Modernization of a Super-Large-Scale Country through the Systematization of Institutions

(二)制度完善：健全民主体系，以制度的系统性赋能超大规模国家现代化

To empower the modernization of a super-large-scale country with whole-process people's democracy, it is necessary to grasp the structural factor of institutions and promote the institutional improvement of whole-process people's democracy. In the process of modernizing a super-large-scale country, the system of whole-process people's democracy has played important functions of discourse representation, practical shaping, and value guidance, and has played a key role in regulation, orientation, support, and guarantee. Therefore, it is necessary to further perfect the institutional system of whole-process people's democracy, to concretely and realistically embody the people being the masters of the country in all aspects of national political life and social life, and to achieve the enhancement and optimization of democratic governance.

以全过程人民民主赋能超大规模国家现代化，必须把握好制度这一结构性因素，推动全过程人民民主的制度完善。在超大规模国家现代化的进程中，全过程人民民主制度发挥了重要的话语表征、实践形塑、价值规引功能，起到了关键的规范、导向、支撑、保障作用。因此，必须进一步健全全过程人民民主制度体系，把人民当家作主具体、现实地体现到国家政治生活和社会生活的各个方面，实现民主治理的提质与优化。

At the institutional level, in response to the governance challenges of a super-large-scale country, the institutional improvement of whole-process people’s democracy should focus on two dimensions: enhancing the responsiveness of government departments and increasing the transformative capacity of democratic participation. In terms of government responsiveness, the grassroots democratic system must be improved. The grassroots democratic system, with the system of grassroots self-governance as its main content, relies on the self-management of the people and can effectively refine, filter, and screen the suggestions and demands of the people. It is necessary to base this on grassroots democratic forms such as grassroots consultation, improve the operational procedures of the grassroots democratic system, and carry out micro-level design of the implementation rules for the grassroots democratic system. At the same time, the exemplary and leading role of Party organizations must be fully leveraged, using intra-Party democracy to drive grassroots democratic construction, ensuring that the development of grassroots democracy is consistent with the Party’s line, principles, and policies, and perfecting the top-level design of grassroots democracy. In terms of democratic participation, the mechanism for consultative democracy must be improved. Consultative democracy itself is an important link in realizing large-scale democratic governance; the process of extensive deliberation among the people is precisely the process of transforming the fruits of democratic participation into the effectiveness of national governance. Improving the consultative democracy mechanism requires both perfecting the consultation aggregation mechanism before decision-making, setting consultation agendas with the goals of in-depth consultative interaction, full expression of opinions, and broad consensus-building; and perfecting the consultation participation mechanism during decision-making, using multiple consultation platforms to achieve multi-channel coordination and cooperation, encouraging the people to widely offer suggestions and proposals under the consultative mechanism; and, moreover, perfecting the consultation feedback mechanism after decision-making, tracking, supervising, and responding to the implementation of consultation outcomes, thereby improving the people’s consultative experience.

在制度层面，针对超大规模国家的治理难题，全过程人民民主的制度完善应聚焦提高政府部门的回应能力和增强民主参与的转化能力两个维度。在政府回应方面，必须健全基层民主制度。基层民主制度以基层群众自治制度为主体内容，依托人民群众的自我管理，能够有效细化、过滤和筛选人民群众的建议诉求。应立足基层协商等基层民主形式，健全基层民主制度的运行程序，并对基层民主制度的实施细则进行微观设计。同时，要充分发挥党组织的示范引领作用，以党内民主带动基层民主建设，保证基层民主发展同党的路线、方针、政策相一致，完善基层民主的顶层设计。在民主参与方面，必须健全协商民主机制。协商民主本身是实现大规模民主治理的重要环节，在人民内部广泛商量的过程，就是将民主参与成果转化为国家治理效能的过程。健全协商民主机制，既要健全决策之前的协商汇集机制，以深度协商互动、意见充分表达、广泛凝聚共识为目标制定协商议程；也要健全决策之中的协商参与机制，以多种协商平台实现多渠道的协同配合，鼓励人民群众在协商机制下广泛建言献策；更要健全决策之后协商反馈机制，对协商成果的落实情况予以追踪、监督、回应，改善人民群众的协商体验。

(III) Deepening Content: Innovating Methods and Approaches, Empowering the Modernization of a Super-Large-Scale Country through the Comprehensiveness of Participation

(三)内容深化：创新方式方法，以参与的全面性赋能超大规模国家现代化

To empower the modernization of a super-large-scale country with whole-process people’s democracy, it is necessary to grasp the foundational factor of content and achieve the deepening of the content of whole-process people’s democracy. Democratic content reveals the methods of realizing democracy and is the most basic constituent element of the democratic system. The content of whole-process people’s democracy is reflected in various Chinese and contemporary democratic forms such as electoral democracy and consultative democracy, possessing a distinct practical character. In the modernization process of a super-large-scale country, democratic content directly relates to the functioning of whole-process people’s democracy, profoundly influencing its governance effectiveness in the dimensions of the people’s democratic participation and democratic perception.

以全过程人民民主赋能超大规模国家现代化，必须把握好内容这一基础性因素，实现全过程人民民主的内容深化。民主内容揭示了民主的实现方法，是民主体系中最为基本的构成要素。全过程人民民主的内容反映于选举民主、协商民主等各类中国化、时代化的民主形式之中，具有显著的实践色彩。在超大规模国家的现代化进程中，民主内容直接关系到全过程人民民主的作用发挥，在人民的民主参与和民主感知维度深刻影响着全过程人民民主的治理效能。

At the content level, it is necessary to continuously innovate and improve the methods and approaches of whole-process people’s democracy, enrich and expand its content system, and encourage the innovation of its specific forms. First, the goal must be to enhance governance effectiveness. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Developing socialist democratic politics is an inherent requirement of advancing the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity.” [16]16 Xi Whole-process people’s democracy has a governance orientation; its content deepening must be carried out around the enhancement of governance effectiveness, actively integrating democratic methods into governance practice and advancing the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity. Second, the focus must be on grassroots democratic forms. Grassroots are the “nerve endings” of national governance and the foundational project that best demonstrates the actual effects of democracy and expands democratic perception. Currently, some regions in China have explored various new grassroots democratic forms such as democratic councils and “new village sages.” [17] Based on this, innovation in grassroots democratic forms should drive the development of whole-process people’s democracy, continuously enhancing the people’s sense of participation and gain. Finally, the means must be to expand participation channels. Political participation is the foundation of national governance; the breadth of participation directly affects the width of information acquisition and ultimately influences the precision of governance in a super-large-scale country. New methods and new ideas must be used to broaden the pathways and methods of political participation, lower the thresholds and restrictions of political participation, and through diverse and unimpeded participation channels, make democratic practice more “down-to-earth.”

在内容层面，必须不断创新和改进全过程人民民主的方式方法，丰富和扩充全过程人民民主的内容体系，鼓励全过程人民民主的具体形式推陈出新。首先，要以提升治理效能为目标。习近平总书记指出：“发展社会主义民主政治，是推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化的题中应有之义。”全过程人民民主具有治理指向，其内容深化必须围绕治理效能的提升予以展开，应主动将民主方法融入治理实践，推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化。其次，要以基层民主形式为重点。基层是国家治理的“神经末梢”,也是最能彰显民主实效、扩大民主感知的基础工程。当前，我国部分地区已探索出民主议事会、“新乡贤”等多种新型基层民主形式，应以此为基础，以基层民主形式创新推动全过程人民民主发展，不断增强人民群众的参与感、获得感。最后，要以扩充参与渠道为手段。政治参与是国家治理的基础，参与的广度直接影响信息获取的宽度，并最终影响超大规模国家治理的精度。必须运用新方法、新思路，拓新政治参与的途径和方式，降低政治参与的门槛和限制，通过多元畅通的参与渠道，让民主实践更具“烟火气”。

(IV) Technological Support: Expanding Democratic Conditions, Empowering the Modernization of a Super-Large-Scale Country through Technological Innovation

(四)科技支撑：拓展民主条件，以技术的创新性赋能超大规模国家现代化

To empower the modernization of a super-large-scale country with whole-process people’s democracy, it is necessary to grasp the developmental factor of technology and consolidate the technological support for whole-process people’s democracy. Currently, science and technology are accelerating their penetration and integration with economic and social development, and the connection between democracy and technology is becoming increasingly close. The forms of realization, operational fields, and specific modalities of whole-process people’s democracy are undergoing profound changes. It is necessary to develop digital whole-process people’s democracy as a new democratic form, expand the practical conditions of democratic politics, thereby broadening the breadth and depth of political participation, and enhancing the practical effectiveness of whole-process people’s democracy in governance.

以全过程人民民主赋能超大规模国家现代化，必须把握好科技这一发展性因素，夯实全过程人民民主的科技支撑。目前，科学技术和经济社会发展加速渗透融合，民主同科技的联系愈加紧密，全过程人民民主的实现形式、运作场域、具体形态发生着深刻变革。必须发展好数字全过程人民民主这一新型民主形态，拓展民主政治的实践条件，从而扩大政治参与的广度和深度，增强全过程人民民主的治理实效。

At the technological level, it is necessary to promote the application of emerging technologies such as big data and artificial intelligence in the democratic field, accelerate the informatization and networking transformation of whole-process people’s democracy, and by reducing the cost of political participation, further empower the modernization of a super-large-scale country. First, the digital linkage platform for whole-process people’s democracy must be improved. Currently, governments at all levels have provided rich channels for political discussion, proposal submission, and information disclosure through platforms such as WeChat public accounts and mayor’s mailboxes. However, at the same time, these platforms suffer from issues such as complex operation and hidden publicity, leading to difficulties in inputting demands and outputting responses. To this end, technologies such as big data should be effectively utilized to centrally integrate massive amounts of public opinion information, optimize platform layout, and absorb suggestions and provide feedback based on users’ actual circumstances and personal needs. Second, the intelligent decision-making mechanism for whole-process people’s democracy must be improved. At the current stage, “with the assistance of decision-making intelligence, both government agencies and enterprises and institutions can conduct decision-making and management within a more rigid framework.” [18] AI technology should be fully leveraged to analyze the people’s demands and efficiently complete information processing, thereby reducing the government’s decision-making and response costs. Third, an information management system for whole-process people’s democracy must be established. To ensure the procedural legitimacy of political participation, information review and information management are paramount in the operation of democracy. Currently, some localities in China have established information service platforms for the performance of duties by people’s congress deputies, digitally recording their履职 activities. Drawing on such experience, information management models such as process tracking and digital assessment should be integrated into every link of whole-process people’s democracy, forming an organized and systematic democratic chain to supervise the effective operation of democratic governance.

在科技层面，必须推进大数据、人工智能等新兴技术在民主领域的应用，加快全过程人民民主的信息化、网络化转型，通过降低政治参与的成本，进一步赋能超大规模国家现代化。其一，要完善全过程人民民主的数字联动平台。当前，各级政府已依托微信公众号、市长信箱等平台，提供了丰富的议政建言和信息公开渠道。但同时，此类平台存在操作复杂化、宣传隐蔽化等问题，导致需求输入困难、回应输出困难。为此，应有效利用大数据等技术，集中整合海量民意信息，优化平台布局，结合用户个人实际和个人需求吸收建议、作出反馈。其二，要完善全过程人民民主的智能决策机制。现阶段，“在决策智能的辅助之下，无论是政府机关还是企事业单位，都可以在更加刚性的框架内展开决策和管理”。应充分借助AI技术分析人民诉求，高效完成信息处理，从而降低政府的决策、回应成本。其三，要搭建全过程人民民主的信息管理系统。为保证政治参与的程序正当性，信息审查和信息管理是民主运转的重中之重。目前，我国已有地方建立起人大代表履职服务信息平台，对人大代表的履职活动进行数字化记录，应借鉴此类经验，将过程追踪、数字考核等信息管理模式贯穿全过程人民民主的各个环节，形成有组织、有体系的民主链条，监督民主治理的有效运作。

Author Biographies: Cai Wencheng, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the School of Marxism, Lanzhou University; Liu Bojian, Doctoral Candidate at the School of Marxism, Lanzhou University.

作者简介：蔡文成，兰州大学马克思主义学院教授，博士生导师;刘博謇，兰州大学马克思主义学院博士研究生。