The Theoretical Connotations and Global Significance of the Unique View of Democracy Embodied in Chinese-Path Modernization

The unique view of democracy embodied in Chinese-path modernization is an important ideological driving force behind the success of Chinese-path modernization. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that the unique view of democracy embodied in Chinese-path modernization and its great practice “represent a major innovation in the theory and practice of global modernization.” Because the logic of capital is the dominant logic of Western modernization, the liberal democratic view formed by Western modernization is necessarily an ideology that serves the expansion of Western capital. This view of democracy has already pushed the political development of some countries into the predicament of democratic recession, governance deficits, and political polarization.

中国式现代化蕴含的独特民主观是中国式现代化成功的重要思想动力。习近平总书记指出，中国式现代化蕴含的独特民主观及其伟大实践，“是对世界现代化理论和实践的重大创新”。由于资本逻辑是西方现代化的主导逻辑，西方现代化形成的自由民主观必然是维护西方资本增殖的意识形态。这种民主观已将部分国家的政治发展推向民主衰退、治理赤字和政治极化的困境。

Within the intellectual-historical context of global theories of democratic modernization, scholars of democratic transition theory in the 20th century criticized the “linear development view” and “regime dualism” of Western democratization theory for being unable to explain the diverse political development of late-developing countries; postmodern theorists used postmodern values and global democracy to deconstruct the theoretical foundations of Western liberal democracy; Western left-wing scholars used deliberative democracy and consultative democracy to remedy the problem of insufficient representation in liberal democracy. However, because these theories lack the practical support of democratic practice and also lack a profound understanding of the capital logic of Western democracy, they can neither achieve a theoretical transcendence of the Western liberal democratic view nor provide theoretical guidance for the increasingly prominent crisis of political modernization. As Marx and Engels pointed out in their critique of German ideology: “The driving force of history, and of religion, philosophy and any other theory as well, is revolution, not criticism.” The great transformation of democratic practice provides powerful real-world material for the development of ideas; changes in the concept of democracy can only be truly realized in actual democratic practice. This article, in critiquing the essence of the Western liberal democratic view of modernization, unfolds the theoretical connotations of the unique view of democracy embodied in Chinese-path modernization, and points out that this unique view of democracy transcends the Western liberal democratic view both theoretically and practically. This is of great significance for promoting the evolution of the global view of democracy and the development of the cause of human democracy, and also provides a useful perspective for deeply understanding the innovation that Chinese-path modernization brings to global modernization theory.

在世界现代化民主理论的观念史脉络中，20世纪的民主转型论学者批判西方民主化理论的“线性发展观”和“政体二元论”无法解释后发国家多样性的政治发展；后现代理论学者以后现代价值观、全球民主解构西方自由民主的理论根基；西方左翼学者以商谈民主、协商民主弥补自由民主代表不足的问题。然而，由于这些理论缺乏民主实践的现实支撑，也缺乏对西方民主资本逻辑的深刻认识，他们既无法实现对西方自由民主观的理论超越，也无法对愈发凸显的政治现代化危机提供理论指引。正如马克思和恩格斯批判德意志意识形态时指出：“历史的动力以及宗教、哲学和任何其他理论的动力是革命，而不是批判。”民主实践的巨大变革为观念发展提供强大的现实素材，民主观念变革只能在现实的民主实践中才能真正实现。本文在批判西方现代化自由民主观的本质中展呈中国式现代化蕴含的独特民主观之理论内涵，指明中国式现代化蕴含的独特民主观在理论上和实践上都超越了西方自由民主观，这对推动世界民主观演进和人类民主事业发展具有重要意义，也为深刻理解中国式现代化对世界现代化理论的创新提供有益视角。

I. The Essence of the Western Liberal Democratic View of Modernization

一、西方现代化自由民主观的本质

Western modernization began with the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, in which political democracy was the marker of the start of Western modernization. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Western thinkers represented by Montesquieu, Locke, Rousseau, and Mill propagated and argued for concepts such as “natural rights,” “separation of powers,” and “liberal democracy,” forming the basic core of the Western liberal democratic view. In the 20th century, because developed capitalist countries suffered severe blows from economic crises, while the Soviet Union achieved great successes in socialist construction, socialist democracy became a new model of political modernization, with “Soviet power plus nationwide electrification” becoming the new benchmark. After World War II, in order to prevent socialist democracy from threatening their bourgeois rule, Western capitalist countries launched actions to seize the right to define the concept of democracy. Through the interpretations of scholars such as Sartori, Schumpeter, Dahl, and Almond, the popular subject of democracy was stripped away, and electoral democracy and procedural democracy became the authoritative definitions of democracy.

西方现代化从文艺复兴和启蒙运动开端，其中政治民主是西方开启现代化的标志。17、18世纪，以孟德斯鸠、洛克、卢梭、密尔等为代表的西方思想家宣扬和论证“天赋人权”“三权分立”“自由民主”等观念，形成了西方自由民主观的基本内核。20世纪由于各发达资本主义国家遭受了经济危机的严重打击，而苏联取得了社会主义建设的巨大成就，社会主义民主成为新的现代化政治模式，“苏维埃政权加全国电气化”成为当时新的标杆。二战以后，西方资本主义国家为了防止社会主义民主威胁其资产阶级统治，掀起了争夺民主概念命名权的行动，经过萨托利、熊彼特、达尔、阿尔蒙德等学者的阐释，民主的人民主体被剥离，选举民主、程序民主成为民主的权威定义。

At the same time, the wave of modernization led by Western countries laid the factual foundation for the establishment of the Western liberal democratic view. The leadership position of Western countries in the historical evolution of modernization also gave birth to classical modernization theory. Classical modernization theory, based on modern industrial civilization to explain modernity, takes rational man as its logical starting point, upholds capital supremacy, promotes instrumental rationality and secular rationality, and advocates liberalism. After World War II, the Western world used Western modernization theory to examine the global wave of democratization, concluding that modernization equals Westernization, and that economic modernization inevitably brings political democratization.

同时，西方国家引领的现代化浪潮为西方自由民主观的确立奠定了事实基础。西方国家在现代化历史演进中的领导地位也促使西方经典现代化理论的诞生。经典现代化理论立足现代工业文明阐释现代性，以理性人为逻辑起点坚持资本至上、张扬工具理性和世俗理性、主张自由主义。二战以后，西方世界以西方现代化理论检视世界民主化浪潮，他们得出现代化就是西方化、经济现代化必然带来政治民主化等结论。

Thus, the generation and evolution of the liberal democratic view and the developmental logic of political modernization are intertwined, together constituting the liberal democratic theoretical system embodied in Western modernization. First, it emphasizes that the property rights system is the key to promoting the development of Western modernization, and that democratic construction must be based on the property rights system and market order in order to protect individual rights. Second, using power to check power and preventing the state from harming individual freedom is the core of the Western liberal democratic view, manifested in systems such as the separation of powers, pluralistic governance mechanisms, and regional decentralization. Third, it constructs a “Western-centric” historical narrative of liberal democracy, pointing out that it is precisely because Westerners possess the democratic traditions of ancient Greece and Rome, and have prior experiments with representative democracy and republican systems, that they were able to initiate the wave of democratization before other civilizations. Fourth, it forms a knowledge system of democratic institutional construction and linear development, establishing the paradigmatic status of Western liberal democracy.

于是，自由民主观的生成演化与政治现代化的发展逻辑相互交织共同构成西方现代化蕴含的自由民主理论体系。第一，强调产权制度是推动西方现代化发展的关键，民主构建必须以产权制度和市场秩序为基础才能维护个人权利。第二，以权力制衡权力、防范国家对个人自由的危害是西方自由民主观的内核，表现为三权分立制度、多元治理机制、地区分权制度等。第三，构建“西方中心”的自由民主历史叙事，指出正是由于西方人拥有古希腊和罗马的民主传统、具有代议民主和共和制度的先期实验才能够比其他文明先开启民主化浪潮。第四，形成民主制度建构和线性发展的知识体系，确立西方自由民主的典范地位。

However, the liberal democratic view embodied in Western modernization conceals the essential attribute of hypocritical democracy under its logic of capital.

然而，西方现代化所蕴含的自由民主观掩盖了其资本逻辑下虚伪民主的本质属性。

First, the myth of the property rights system inverts the relationship between capital and democracy, confining democracy to serving the market economy. North pointed out that the property rights system, judicial system, and constitutional democracy established after Britain’s “Glorious Revolution” created a safe and stable investment environment for Britain’s first industrialization, enabling Britain to become a great power. However, the new institutionalist political science’s use of a static cost-benefit analysis method to explain dynamic institutional change is “an absurd combination of a square peg in a round hole,”[n] and the Western constitutional democratic system they advocate is a product of the bourgeoisie protecting commercial capitalists, stock speculators, and large manufacturers. Western modernization is modernization dominated by capital; the logic of capital is to achieve capital expansion through continuous expanded reproduction. On the one hand, the Western liberal democratic system maintains the capitalist ownership and distribution system, thereby liberating the productive forces oppressed under the feudal hierarchy; on the other hand, the property rights system, established on the basis of capitalist relations of production, as a tool of capital, has also become a shackle suppressing independent individuals in modern society. In capitalist society, workers without property lose the means to arrange and realize their own way of life according to their independent will, and the “freedom” that remains is also dominated and coerced by capital operators. As Marx said, “Capital is obviously a relation, and can only be a relation of production”;[n] the liberal democracy of the bourgeoisie is merely a specific formal determination arising from the capitalist economic process. These ideas and democratic systems define the relational needs of capital as the process of exchange between people, and the democratic system is also understood as the process of exchange of rights between the individual and the state. This obscures capital as the essential logic of capitalist democracy, making the maintenance of the market economy a proper part of political modernization, and capitalist representative democracy becomes part of the state power of “capital enslaving labor.”

第一，产权制度的神话颠倒了资本与民主的关系，将民主框限于为市场经济服务。诺斯指出英国“光荣革命”后建立的产权制度、司法体系、宪政民主为英国第一次工业化创造了安全稳定的投资环境，促使英国成为强国。然而，新制度主义政治学用静止的成本-收益分析方法解释动态的制度变迁是“方枘圆凿的荒谬结合”,而他们所推崇的西方宪政民主制度则是保护商业资本家、股票投机商和大制造商的资产阶级的产物。西方现代化是资本主导的现代化，资本的逻辑是通过不断扩大再生产实现资本增殖。一方面，西方自由民主制度维护资本主义的所有权和分配体系，从而解放了封建等级制压迫下的生产力；另一方面，建立在资本主义生产关系基础上的产权制度作为资本的工具也成为了压制现代社会独立个体的枷锁。在资本主义社会，没有资产的工人丧失了以自己独立意志安排和实现自己生活方式的凭借，所剩的“自由”也被资本经营者所支配与强制。正如马克思所说的，“资本显然是关系，而且只能是生产关系”,资产阶级的自由民主不过是从资本主义经济过程中生发出来的特定形式上的规定性。这些思想及民主制度将资本的关系需求界定为人与人的交换过程，民主制度也被理解为个体与国家权利的交换过程。这使得资本作为资本主义民主的本质逻辑被遮蔽，维护市场经济成为政治现代化应有之义，资本主义代议民主成了“资本奴役劳动”的国家政权的一部分。

Second, the political operational logic that prioritizes elections obscures the essence of elite democracy in Western modernization, confining democracy to voting. The representative democracy, parliamentary system, electoral system, and party system in the process of Western modernization together constitute the pillars of the operation of Western political systems. From the mid-20th century onward, the “American-style” liberal democratic view, characterized by Schumpeter’s “competitive elections,” became synonymous with the Western modernization view of democracy. Schumpeter negated the “popular will” idea of classical democratic theory; he also negated the idea of popular participation in politics, arguing that individuals are irrational, easily led, and lack a sense of responsibility. After completely dismantling the foundation of classical democratic theory, he defined democracy as a means, an institutional arrangement, and the essence of democratic politics as the rule of politicians. This concept simply and effectively made people believe that democracy is merely a competitive system of free voting. Belgian political scientist David Van Reybrouck believes that the root cause of the “democratic fatigue syndrome” currently afflicting Western societies is that they have all become “electoral fundamentalists,” blindly believing that the ballot box is the foundation of popular sovereignty. This election-first belief not only fails to help reach policy consensus, but easily erodes people’s sense of participatory efficacy, reduces citizens’ deliberative skills, and neglects the value of substantive democracy. More importantly, elections have become a democratic ritual, and people ignore the fact that election results depend on the game of competition among elites.

第二，选举至上的政治运行逻辑遮蔽西方现代化精英民主的本质，将民主限定为投票。西方现代化进程中的代议民主、议会制度、选举制度和政党制度共同构成西方政治制度运行支柱。20世纪中期起，熊彼特的“竞争式选举”为主要特征的“美国式”自由民主观成为西方现代化民主观的代名词。熊彼特否定了古典民主理论的“人民意志”思想;他也否定了人民参政思想，认为个体是非理性的、容易被诱导的、没有责任感。全面消解古典民主理论的基础后，他界定民主是一种手段，是一种制度安排，民主政治的本质就是政治家的统治。这一概念简单有效地使人们以为民主只是自由投票的竞争体制。比利时政治学家达维德·范雷布鲁克(David Van Reybrouck)认为当前西方社会身患“民主疲劳综合症”的根本原因就是他们全都成了“选举原教旨主义者”,人们盲目地认为投票箱是人民主权的根基。这种选举至上的信念不仅无助于达成政策共识，反而容易消解人民的参与效能感、降低公民协商技能、忽视实质民主价值。更重要的是，选举成了一种民主仪式，人民忽视了选举的结果取决于精英间的博弈游戏。

Third, the historical myth of liberal democracy provides the legitimacy for global capital expansion, packaging “democracy export” as a moral mission to “save the world.” Democracy is not an exclusive institution of Western countries; it is a primordial mechanism present since the dawn of human civilization, with roots traceable in the myths and epics of all peoples. However, Western modernization theorists have canonized the democratic republics of Greece and Rome, British constitutional democracy, and American competitive democracy as the orthodox lineage of human democratic history. Consequently, the Western “regional” liberal democracy has become a “universal” political value worldwide. This doctrine of Western liberal democratic superiority opens a moral window for Western modernized states to expand outward. As early as the Mexican-American War of 1846–1848, the U.S. Democratic Party began propagandizing the war’s victory as a glory of “democracy”; during World War I, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson proposed forming a league of democratic nations to secure peace; thereafter, nearly every U.S. president has made “democracy export” a key foreign policy. David Harvey points out that “from the late 19th century onward, the United States gradually learned to universalize its own values without spatial differentiation, and under this mask concealed its clear intentions of territorial acquisition and occupation.” [3]3 David Harvey, *The New Imperialism* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 47. [Translator’s note: The English edition reads: “From the late nineteenth century onwards the United States gradually learned to universalize its own values without any sense of spatial differentiation and to mask its clear intention of territorial acquisition and occupation behind that universalizing mask.”] Capitalist countries in the course of modernization inevitably face the concurrent crises of capital surplus and labor surplus; expanding territory is the primary path for Western developed countries to resolve this crisis. Propagandizing the superiority of liberal democracy, supporting various pro-American forces, controlling cultural dissemination, and providing economic aid are all means by which Western states induce late-developing countries to “willingly” become part of the global capital plunder chain.

第三，自由民主的历史神话为全球资本扩张奠定合法性基础，将“民主输出”包装为“拯救世界”的道义使命。民主并非西方国家的独有制度，民主是人类文明肇始之初即有的原始机制，这在各民族的神话故事和史诗中都能找寻根基。但是，西方现代化理论者将希腊罗马的民主共和、英国的宪政民主、美国的竞争民主作为人类民主史的正统。于是，西方“地域性”的自由民主成为了世界“普遍性”政治价值，这种西方自由民主优越论为西方现代化国家对外扩张打开了道义的窗口。早在1846—1848年美墨战争时期，美国民主党就开始宣传战争的胜利是“民主”的光荣；一战时期，美国威尔逊总统提出建立民主国家同盟来保障和平；此后，几乎每届美国总统都将“输出民主”作为重要的外交政策。戴维·哈维指出，“19世纪末期以降，美国逐渐学会了把自身的价值进行无空间差别的普遍化，并在此面具下遮掩领土获得和领土占领的明确意图”。资本主义国家在现代化发展进程中都会面临资本剩余和劳动剩余的并行危机，扩大领土是西方发达国家解决这一危机的主要路径。宣扬自由民主的优越性、支持各种亲美势力、控制文化传播、进行经济援助等手段都是西方国家让后发国家“心甘情愿”成为其全球资本掠夺环节的一部分。

Fourth, the meta-narrative of liberal democracy monopolizes the global cognitive framework of democracy, shaping Western-style democracy as the “end of history.” Through the collusion of Western modernization scholars and liberal democratic theorists, the establishment of Western liberal democratic institutions has become one of the criteria for evaluating political modernization. Western rationalism and linear historical determinism are the deep roots of Western liberal democratic monism. Western rationalism is essentially manifested as egocentrism, absolutism, and universalism, holding reason as supreme. Correspondingly, the theory of institutional rational construction holds that institutions are the result of deliberate human design, and that decision-makers can choose the optimal institutions to achieve their goals. This rationalism, when reflected in democratic institutional change, further reinforces the institutional advantages of the Western first-movers, providing the “moral legitimacy” for Western developed countries to intervene in the institutions of late-developing states. At the same time, linear historical determinism insists on the continuity of temporal sequence, denies the spatial composition of history and its unfolding as a process of pluralistic differentiation, and emphasizes the mechanical and teleological nature of history. Thus, Western liberal democracy is seen as progress in historical development, as the ultimate goal for other countries and for democratic development; this discourse gradually becomes “a rational and universally meaningful idea.” In essence, Fukuyama’s reasoning about the “end of history” commits the error that Marx and Engels long criticized—treating the historical process as an external process operating independently of human beings; it also commits the error of abstract humanists like Feuerbach and Stirner, who regard the abstract “human” as the creator of history. Fukuyama uses the “master-slave dialectic” and the “struggle for recognition” to argue for the universality of liberal democratic institutions; such abstract reasoning and its conclusions cannot serve as the theoretical foundation for the entire historical development of democracy.

第四，自由民主的元叙事垄断世界民主认知框架，将西式民主塑造为“历史终结”。在西方现代化学者和自由主义民主学者共谋下，建立西方自由民主制度成为政治现代化评判标准之一。西方理性主义和线性历史决定论是西方自由民主一元论的深层根源。西方理性主义本质上体现为自我中心主义、绝对主义和普遍主义，认为理性具有至上的地位。与此相对应，制度理性建构论认为，制度是人为理性设计的结果，决策者能够选择达致目标的最优的制度。这种理性主义反映在民主制度变革中会进一步强化西方先发制度优势，成为西方发达国家对后发国家制度干涉的“道德正当性”根据。同时，线性历史决定论坚持时间次序的连续性，否定历史的空间构成及其展开的多元差异化过程,强调历史的机械性、目的性。于是，西方自由民主被看成是历史发展的进步，是其他国家和民主发展的最终目的，这种话语逐渐成为“合乎理性的、有普遍意义的思想”。实质上，福山关于“历史终结论”的推理犯了马克思恩格斯早就批判的将历史过程视为脱离人而运转的外在过程的错误；也犯了费尔巴哈、施蒂纳等抽象人本主义者将抽象的“人”视为历史的创造者的错误。福山以“主奴辩证法”和“为承认而斗争”论证自由民主制度的普遍性，这种抽象推理及其结论不能成为整个民主历史发展的理论基础。

II. The Theoretical Connotations of the Unique View of Democracy Embedded in Chinese-Path Modernization

二、中国式现代化蕴含独特民主观的理论内涵

Chinese-path modernization is fundamentally distinct from Western capitalist modernization. This distinction is not a conceptual opposition between “Chinese” and “Western” particularities, but arises from the fact that Chinese-path modernization is built on a thorough critique of the capital logic of capitalist modernization and is grounded in the value concept of realizing the modernization of human beings. The view of democracy embedded in Chinese-path modernization is the intellectual crystallization born from the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the fine traditional Chinese culture. The connotations of this unique view of democracy mainly include the following aspects:

中国式现代化从本质上区别于西方资本主义现代化，这种区别并非是概念上“中国”与“西方”的特殊性对立，而是源于中国式现代化建立在对资本主义现代化资本逻辑彻底批判基础上，立足于实现人的现代化的价值理念上。中国式现代化所蕴含的民主观是马克思主义基本原理与中国具体实际相结合、与中华优秀传统文化结合而孕育的思想结晶。这一独特民主观的内涵主要有以下几个方面的内容：

1. Adhering to the democratic value of putting the people first.

1.坚持人民至上的民主价值观。

A view of democracy refers to people’s perspectives and attitudes on democratic issues such as democratic value, democratic subject, democratic essence, democratic institutions, democratic process, and democratic evaluation. Democratic value is the core of a view of democracy; it determines the fundamental orientation of that view and embodies the fundamental question of “for whom” democracy exists. “The essence of modernization is the modernization of human beings.” [4]4 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Urbanization,” December 12, 2013. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese is “现代化的本质是人的现代化.”] The awakening of individual subjectivity is a necessary prerequisite for modernization, and the free and comprehensive development of the human person is one of the goals of modernization. Although Western modernization enjoys the first-mover advantage of modern development, its capital logic limits its developmental scope; it does not take the realization of human value as its fundamental purpose, and its liberal democratic view has become a tool for disciplining the masses and controlling thought.

民主观指人们对于民主价值、民主主体、民主本质、民主制度、民主过程、民主评价等民主问题的观点和态度。民主价值观是民主观的核心，它决定民主观的根本指向，体现民主“为了谁”这一根本问题。“现代化的本质是人的现代化”,个人主体性的唤醒是现代化的必要前提，人的自由全面发展是现代化的目标之一。西方现代化虽然具有现代化发展的先发优势，但其资本逻辑限制了其发展限度，没有将人的价值的实现作为根本目的，其自由民主观也成为规训大众、控制思想的工具。

Unlike Western countries, which confine the people to an abstract holistic state, the Chinese people have always been a genuine political subject in the process of China’s modernization, serving as “the fundamental determining force of the nature of the state, the political direction, and the policy process.” [5]5 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on People’s Congress Work,” October 13, 2021. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese is “国家性质、政治方向、政策过程的根本决定力量.”] This is determined by the essential difference between socialist democracy and capitalist democracy. Socialist democracy is built on the basis of public ownership of the means of production, enabling the genuine realization of economic equality for the people and consolidating political equality; socialist democracy is democracy enjoyed by the overwhelming majority, where members of society are not only exercisers of state power but also directly participate in the management of public affairs and economic affairs; socialist democracy is democracy that takes the ultimate realization of labor emancipation as its fundamental goal, thus placing greater emphasis on real people achieving individual emancipation and social development through collective participation in society. Therefore, in the process of the CPC leading China toward modernization, guiding the people to seize political power and establish their own state, serving the people wholeheartedly, and extending the fruits of modernization to all the people have become the core tenets of the CPC’s promotion of socialist democracy and the practical requirements of the people-centered democratic value. Specifically, the people’s standpoint is the starting point of the people-centered view of democracy; realizing the people’s happiness is the livelihood orientation of putting the people first; “the people are the country” [6]6 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Celebration of the 100th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party of China,” July 1, 2021. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese is “人民就是江山,” a condensed formulation of the idea that the people are the foundation of the state.] is the vivid embodiment of the people-centered view of democracy. When the people become the core of modernized politics, the predicament of Western modernized democracy is fundamentally resolved. The problems of Western modernization are essentially “problems of the economic base binding the superstructure, eroding the equal value of modernization in the name of freedom”; [7]7 The author’s paraphrase of a critical observation on Western modernization. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese is “经济基础捆绑上层建筑、以自由之名侵蚀现代化平等价值的问题.”] the restrictions on democracy, the fear of the people, and the dependence on capital all stem from this. Chinese-path modernization takes the people as the fundamental purpose of modern development, with the promotion of social fairness and justice and the enhancement of the people’s well-being as its starting point and ultimate goal. The unique view of democracy it contains thus acquires the significance of transcending capitalist capital democracy and ultimately realizing the modernization of human beings.

不同于西方国家将人民局限于抽象整体状态，中国人民在中国现代化发展进程中始终是真实的政治主体，是“国家性质、政治方向、政策过程的根本决定力量”。这是由社会主义民主与资本主义民主的本质差异所决定的。社会主义民主建立在生产资料公有制基础上，能够真实实现人民经济平等并巩固政治平等；社会主义民主是绝大多数人共同享有的民主，社会成员不仅是国家权力的行使者，而且要直接参与公共事务和经济事务的管理；社会主义民主是以最终实现劳动解放为根本目标的民主，于是更注重现实的人在社会中通过共同参与实现个体解放与社会发展。因此，在中国共产党领导中国实现现代化的进程中，引导人民取得政权建立自己的国家、全心全意为人民服务、将现代化成果惠及全体人民就成为中国共产党推进社会主义民主的核心要旨，是人民至上民主价值观的实践要求。具体来说，人民立场是人民至上民主观的出发点，实现人民幸福是人民至上的民生指向，“人民就是江山”是人民至上民主观的生动体现。当人民成为现代化政治的核心，就从源头上消解了西方现代化民主的困境。西方现代化问题本质上是“经济基础捆绑上层建筑、以自由之名侵蚀现代化平等价值的问题”,对民主的限制、对人民的恐惧、对资本的依赖皆源于此。中国式现代化把人民作为现代化发展的根本目的，以促进社会公平正义、增进人民福祉为出发点和落脚点，其所蕴含的独特民主观具有了超越资本主义资本民主、最终实现人的现代化的意义。

2. Adhering to the view of democratic institutions in which the people are the masters of the country.

2.坚持人民当家作主的民主制度观。

Institutional modernization is also a core component of the modernization system, serving as the rule-based carrier that propels a country from tradition to modernity. Western liberal democratic institutions believe in “using power to check power”: they construct electoral systems to check authoritarianism through the number of votes; they design party systems to check the dominance of a single party through party competition; they implement separation-of-powers systems to fragment the concentration of power through checks and balances. This set of views on democratic institutions strips away the substantive participation of the people in democracy, instead exacerbating political vetoes, reducing the effectiveness of national governance, and becoming a stumbling block to institutional modernization.

制度现代化也是现代化系统中的核心构件，是推动一个国家从传统到现代的规则载体。西方自由民主制度信奉“以权力制约权力”,他们构建选举制度，以选票数量制约专权；他们设计政党制度，以党争制约政党独大；他们实施分权制度，以权力制衡分化权力集中。这一套民主制度观抽离了民主中人民实质参与的部分，反而加剧政治否决、降低国家治理效能，成为制度现代化的绊脚石。

The Communist Party of China has led the people in creating a comprehensive, broad, and organically interconnected institutional system for the people being the masters of the country. In the early stages of China’s modernization development, the CPC successively proposed the establishment of a “genuine democratic republic,” a “Chinese Soviet Republic,” and a “New Democratic Republic,” and explored the Soviet system of combining legislative and executive powers in the Central Revolutionary Base Area centered on Ruijin, established a system of people’s councils in the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region, and introduced the “Three-Thirds System.”[8]8 The “Two Integrations” (两个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the people’s democratic dictatorship was formally written into the Constitution, which is also the most concentrated conceptual embodiment of the democratic practice of Chinese Communists during the New Democratic period. Entering the New Era, the report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC pointed out that whole-process people’s democracy is one of the essential requirements of Chinese-path modernization, and the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee called for raising the level of institutionalization, standardization, and proceduralization of whole-process people’s democracy. From the understanding and developmental trajectory of the practice of democratic institutions, it can be clearly seen that the concept of the people being the masters of the country has always been embedded in institutional construction.

中国共产党领导人民创造了全面、广泛、有机衔接的人民当家作主制度体系。在中国现代化发展初期，中国共产党分别提出建立“真正民主共和国”“中华苏维埃共和国”“新民主主义共和国”,并在以瑞金为中心的中央革命根据地探索议行合一的苏维埃制度、在陕甘宁边区建立参议会制度和引入“三三制”。中华人民共和国成立后，人民民主专政正式写入宪法，这也是中国共产党人在新民主主义时期民主实践最集中的观念体现。进入新时代，党的二十大报告指出全过程人民民主是中国式现代化的本质要求之一，党的二十届三中全会要求提高全过程人民民主制度化、规范化、程序化水平。从民主制度实践的认识和发展脉络中，能清晰看到人民当家作主的观念始终嵌入制度构建中。

In terms of institutional functions, the CPC provides fundamental political guarantees for the realization of the people being the masters of the country in terms of value orientation, organizational mechanisms, and development strategies. The system of people’s congresses ensures that the state power exercised by the people through the congresses is unified, rather than divided into three mutually independent powers, and that the will of the people can be expressed most directly, completely, and truthfully. The system of multiparty cooperation and political consultation led by the CPC breaks through the traditional framework of old-style party systems, creating a composite model that combines “leadership-cooperation” with “governing-participating in governance.” The system of regional ethnic autonomy organically integrates the mastery of the country by ethnic minorities and the political integration of a multi-ethnic state through the self-governance of minority peoples, the enjoyment of equal rights by the vast majority of ethnic minorities, and support and assistance for economic development. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the Party has embedded grassroots Party organizations within grassroots mass self-governance organizations, and by innovating the organizational mechanisms for grassroots democratic decision-making, improving democratic deliberation and decision-making procedures, and perfecting the operational mechanisms for democratic supervision, it has enabled grassroots people to be informed, participate, express themselves, and exercise supervision over matters in their own localities. In summary, the view of democracy built upon the institutional system of the people being the masters of the country consistently adheres to a people-centered approach, incorporates concrete and real individuals into the entire national political system, and transforms abstract popular sovereignty, diverse popular interests, and pluralistic popular opinions into reality through the subject form of “being the masters.”

在制度功能方面，中国共产党在价值指向、组织机制和发展战略方面为人民当家作主的实现提供了根本政治保障。人民代表大会制度保证了人民通过代表大会行使的国家权力是统一的，而不是被分割为相互独立的三种权力，人民的意志能够得到最直接、完整、真实的表达。中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度突破了旧式政党制度传统框架，创造了“领导—合作”与“执政—参政”相结合的复合模式。民族区域自治制度通过少数民族人民的自治、广大少数民族享有平等的权利、支援帮扶经济发展等方式将少数民族当家作主和多民族国家的政治整合有机结合起来。党的十八大以来，中国共产党将基层党组织嵌入基层群众自治组织中，通过创新基层民主决策组织机制、健全民主议事决策程序、完善民主监督运行机制，让基层民众对身边的事务知情、参与、表达和监督。总之，建立在人民当家作主制度体系之上的民主观始终坚持以人民为中心，将具体的现实的个人纳入整个国家政治体制中，使抽象的人民主权、多样的人民利益、多元的人民主张都以“作主”这一主体形式变成了现实。

3. Adhering to the view of the democratic process of whole-process people’s democracy.

3.坚持全过程人民民主的民主过程观。

The expression and realization of their own interests by the people through democratic forms is an important component of democratic practice. In the Western modernization view of democracy, this is often referred to as political participation, including elections, voting, demonstrations, strikes, lobbying, etc., and is also where Western liberal democratic theorists believe they are more advanced than late-developing countries. However, these forms of political participation remain only at the stage of expressing opinions and political communication, and in contemporary political operations, they are still in the input stage of politics, while important parts such as political decision-making, political implementation, and political supervision are rarely involved.

人民通过民主形式来表达和实现自己利益是民主实践的重要构成。这在西方现代化民主观中往往被称为政治参与，包括选举、投票、游行、罢工、游说等，也是西方自由主义民主论者认为他们比后发国家民主先进的地方。然而这些政治参与的方式仅仅停留于表达意见和政治沟通环节，在当代政治运行中还处于政治输入阶段，而重要的政治决策、政治执行、政治监督等部分则少涉及。

The CPC has led the Chinese people in exploring, establishing, and continuously developing whole-process people’s democracy, creating a new form of realizing people’s democracy. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out that whole-process people’s democracy is “a democracy of the entire chain, in all aspects, and covering all areas; it is the broadest, most genuine, and most effective socialist democracy.”[9]9 The May Fourth Movement (1919) was an anti-imperialist, anti-feudal cultural and political movement that is often seen as a watershed in modern Chinese history, marking the entry of the working class onto the political stage. It is a democracy of the entire chain because the “five democracies”[10]10 The War of Resistance Against Japan (1937–1945) was China’s war against Japanese invasion, fought under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and in cooperation with the Kuomintang. interact and connect, interlocking with each other, covering the entire political system. It is a democracy in all aspects because democratic consultation, democratic decision-making, democratic management, and democratic supervision are embedded in all aspects of modernization, including the political, economic, social, cultural, and ecological fields. It is a democracy covering all areas because the CPC, through democratic centralism and the mass line, leads governments and organizations at all levels to effectively respond to and absorb the needs of the people through information communication, consultation and hearings, and deliberative review, and in democratic consultation at all levels (consultation between parties, between people’s congresses, within the government, within the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, and among people’s organizations), democratic decision-making (legislation, strategic planning, fiscal budgets, work reports), and democratic supervision (supervision by democratic parties, supervision by the CPPCC, supervision by the masses, supervision by public opinion), it gathers the interests of the people, which is conducive to achieving a high degree of alignment between the will of the people and the nature and purpose of the ruling party.

中国共产党带领中国人民探索建立并不断发展全过程人民民主，开创了人民民主实现方式的新形态。习近平总书记指出全过程人民民主“是全链条、全方位、全覆盖的民主，是最广泛、最真实、最管用的社会主义民主”。之所以是全链条的民主，因为“五个民主”互动贯通、环环相扣，覆盖整个政治系统。之所以是全方位的民主，因为民主协商、民主决策、民主管理、民主监督等嵌入政治领域、经济领域、社会领域、文化领域和生态领域等现代化各方面。之所以是全覆盖，因为中国共产党通过民主集中制和群众路线领导各级政府和组织以信息沟通、咨询听证、协商审议等方式有效回应和吸纳人民需求，并在各级民主协商(政党协商、人大协商、政府协商、政协协商、人民团体协商)、民主决策(立法、战略规划、财政预算、工作报告)、民主监督(民主党派监督、人民政协监督、群众监督、舆论监督)中汇集人民利益，有利于实现人民意志与执政党宗旨属性高度契合。

The view of the democratic process of whole-process people’s democracy is also an inevitable requirement for the modernization of a country with a huge population. Only by implementing whole-process people’s democracy can it be ensured that the different individual interests of more than 1.4 billion people are expressed and integrated, achieving the unity of individual interests with the overall development of the country in solving problems such as the super-large-scale needs of people’s livelihoods and regional development disparities.

全过程人民民主的民主过程观也是人口规模巨大的国家实现现代化的必然要求，只有实施全过程人民民主才能够确保十四亿多人口不同的个体利益得以表达与整合，在解决超大规模民生需求和区域发展差异等问题中实现个体利益与国家整体发展相统一。

4. Adhering to the view of democratic evaluation that is broad, genuine, and effective.

4.坚持广泛真实管用的民主评价观。

For a long time, the right to evaluate democracy has been controlled by Western intellectual circles. These Western democratic evaluation indicators use the presence of competitive elections as the criterion for judgment, neglecting “subjective standards.” However, the “honor students” of democracy on evaluation indicators often become “poor students” in political practice, falling into governance deficits and political decline. Clearly, the view of democratic evaluation formed by Western modernization can neither truly reflect the state of democratic development in the world nor is it conducive to guiding the achievement of substantive democracy.

长期以来民主评价权都被西方知识界所掌控，这些西方民主评价指标以是否有竞争性选举作为评判标准，忽视“主观标准”。然而，评价指标上的民主“优等生”很多时候却成为政治实践中的“差生”,陷入治理赤字、政治衰退中。显然，西方现代化形成的民主评价观既不能真实反映世界民主发展状况，也无益于引导实质民主的达成。

General Secretary Xi Jinping profoundly elucidates major issues such as who evaluates democracy and how it is evaluated, emphasizing: “Democracy is the right of the people of every country, not the patent of a few countries. Whether a country is democratic should be judged by its own people, not dictated by a few outsiders.”[11]11 The “Two Integrations” (两个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of China’s traditional culture. The Chinese people have different democratic value demands in different historical periods. During the period of striving for national independence, establishing a people’s republic and obtaining independent and equal citizenship were important democratic goals; in the early stages of modernization, solving the problems of food and clothing and achieving prosperity were the core content of democracy; in the deepening process of modernization, fully guaranteeing the people’s participatory subjectivity throughout the entire process, enabling the people to achieve coordinated development of material and cultural-ethical progress, and enhancing the people’s subjective well-being through livelihood security are all new requirements for the in-depth development of democracy. The Chinese people have formed a pragmatic and composite view of democracy in the course of China’s modernization development, which includes both substantive demands such as social equality and governance performance, and procedural demands such as political rights and competitive elections. Therefore, democratic evaluation is a unity of historical needs and subjective feelings. As General Secretary Xi Jinping creatively proposed the democratic evaluation standard of “four

习近平总书记深刻阐明民主由谁评判、怎么评判等重大问题时强调：“民主是各国人民的权利，而不是少数国家的专利。一个国家是不是民主，应该由这个国家的人民来评判，而不应该由外部少数人指手画脚来评判。”②②中国人民在不同的历史时期有不同的民主价值诉求。在争取民族独立时期，建立人民共和国、获得独立平等的公民身份就是重要的民主目标；在现代化建设初期，解决温饱脱贫致富是民主的核心内容；在现代化不断深入进程中，充分保障人民全过程的参与主体性、使人民实现物质文明和精神文明的协调发展、在民生保障中增强人民主体幸福都是民主纵深发展的新要求。中国人民在中国现代化发展中形成的是实事求是的复合民主观，既包括社会平等、治理绩效等实质诉求，也包括政治权利、竞争性选举等程序诉求。因此，民主评价是历史性需求和主观性感受的统一。正如习近平总书记创造性地提出“四个要看、四个更要看”的民主评价标准，即“一个国家民主不民主，关键在于是不是真正做到了人民当家作主，要看人民有没有投票权，更要看人民有没有广泛参与权；要看人民在选举过程中得到了什么口头许诺，更要看选举后这些承诺实现了多少；要看制度和法律规定了什么样的政治程序和政治规则，更要看这些制度和法律是不是真正得到了执行；要看权力运行规则和程序是否民主，更要看权力是否真正受到人民监督和制约。”④④这是中国共产党人基于人类政治文明建设和发展规律对什么是“真正意义”的民主的科学回答。

III. Global Significance: The Transcendence of the Democratic View Embedded in Chinese-Path Modernization over Western Liberal Democracy

三、世界意义：中国式现代化蕴含独特民主观对西方自由民主观的超越

Whether Western liberal democracy is the only "correct path" to political modernization, whether only elite-crafted democratic institutions can drive modernization, and whether it is difficult for multi-ethnic states to achieve simultaneous progress in political economy and ethnic integration—these questions are both theoretical and practical challenges in political modernization and shackles that restrict late-developing countries from independently exploring democratic paths. The unique democratic view embedded in Chinese-path modernization has driven the successful practices and remarkable achievements of Chinese-path modernization, breaking the world's superstition about Western liberal democracy and setting an example and confidence for late-developing countries to independently advance toward modernization.

是否只有西方自由民主一条通向政治现代化的“正确道路”、是否只有精英创制的民主制度才能推动现代化发展、是否在多民族国家难以实现政治经济与民族融合的多向共进，这些问题是政治现代化理论与实践中的难题，也是限制后发国家自主探索民主道路的桎梏。中国式现代化蕴含的独特民主观推动中国式现代化取得的成功实践和显著成就，打破了世界对西方自由民主观的迷信，为后发国家独立自主迈向现代化树立了典范和信心。

1. Adhering to historical materialism, breaking the monism of Western democracy, and opening up the autonomy and diversity of democratic development.

1.坚持唯物史观，打破西方民主一元论，开拓了民主发展的自主性和多样性。

Classical Western modernization theory upholds the view that “modernization equals Westernization,” holding that the modernization process is divided into four stages: the challenge of modernity, the consolidation of power by the leading elite, economic and social transformation, and social integration. Western political theory simplifies this linear development into “democracy = electoral politics + voting ⇒ economic development, clean governance, and social progress.” They regard this as a transplantable and imitable model of political institutions. However, the reality is that there is a gap between Western liberal democratic theory and the complex political realities of the Third World. The single evaluative standard of the Western liberal democratic view does nothing to help late-developing countries achieve political integration, political stability, and democratic construction. This Western democratic monism has led political modernization to remain trapped in the theoretical errors of studying the conditions for liberal democracy, designing liberal democratic institutions, and preventing the collapse of liberal democratic systems. This is precisely where the fallacy of Western democracy lies. Western scholars often proceed from a bourgeois ideological standpoint, deducing the rationality of democratic institutions through a logical deduction of human nature, then limiting contemporary democracy to the rules of voting by invoking the finitude of human behavior, and finally endowing this theory with scientificity through an empirical logic of reality.

西方经典现代化理论秉持“现代化=西方化”的观点，认为现代化进程分为现代性的挑战、领导阶层权力的巩固、经济与社会的转变、社会整合四个阶段。西方政治理论将这种线性发展简单化为“民主=选举政治+投票⇒经济发展、政治清明、社会进步”,他们认为这是可移植、可模仿的政治制度模式。但是，现实却是西方自由民主理论与第三世界复杂的政治现实之间存在着鸿沟，西方自由民主观单一的评价标准无益于推动后发国家实现政治整合、政治稳定和民主建构。这种西方民主一元论导致政治现代化长期陷于研究自由民主的条件、设计自由民主制度、防止自由民主制度崩溃的理论误区。这恰恰是西方民主谬误所在，西方学者往往从资产阶级意识形态出发，以一种人性逻辑演绎的方式抽象出民主制度的合理性，又用人类行为的有限性将当代民主局限为投票规则中，并以经验主义的现实逻辑赋予这一理论以科学性。

The question of the view of democracy is first and foremost a question of the view of history, that is, how democratic ideas and democratic institutions arise. In *The German Ideology*, Marx and Engels pointed out that the starting point of all theory is “the material production of immediate life.” The relations of intercourse arising from a given mode of production constitute the structural foundation of the entire history, and the entire social structure conditions the formation of the structure of consciousness. Historical materialism emphasizes that objective practice determines ideas. Mao Zedong’s expositions on the “New Democratic Republic,” the “joint dictatorship of all revolutionary classes,” the “mass line,” “democratic centralism,” and the “People’s Congress,” Deng Xiaoping’s analyses of “democracy and centralism,” “democracy and dictatorship,” and “democracy and the legal system,” as well as the theoretical innovations of consultative democracy and whole-process people’s democracy in the New Era, all embody the integration of democratic theory with the concrete social practice of the time.

民主观的问题首先是历史观问题，即民主观念、民主制度是如何产生的。马克思和恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中指出，全部理论的出发点是“直接生活的物质生产”,一定生产方式所产生的交往关系是整个历史的结构性基础，全部社会结构制约意识结构的形成。历史唯物主义强调客观实践决定观念。毛泽东关于“新民主主义共和国”“各革命阶级联合专政”“群众路线”“民主集中制”和“人民代表大会”的论述，邓小平关于“民主与集中”“民主与专政”“民主与法制”的分析，以及新时代协商民主理论、全过程人民民主理论的创新都体现了民主理论与当时具体的社会实践相结合。

Therefore, the unique democratic view embedded in Chinese-path modernization theoretically transcends the modernization framework of “the East being subordinate to the West,” forming a conceptual system different from Western democratic monism, and possesses universal value. First, the significance of “autonomous development.” Chinese-path modernization is the historical and practical context in which this unique democratic view takes shape. This means that the democratic view embedded in Chinese-path modernization must proceed from the actual economic and political conditions of China’s modernization and serve China’s modernization development; it must also fully embody the “Two Integrations”[n] to ensure the socialist nature and the adaptation to the times and localization of the democratic view, such as “democratic centralism” and “discussing matters when there is something to discuss,” which are typical examples. Second, the significance of “diverse development.” There is no single model of modernization that is universally applicable, nor is there a single standard of universal civilization. In his later years, after extensive research on Eastern societies, Marx pointed out that Russia “might possibly bypass the Caudine Forks of the capitalist system and appropriate all the positive achievements of the capitalist system.” Human development can shift from a unilinear, monistic evolutionary model to a multilinear, pluralistic evolutionary model. Moreover, Marx believed that on the question of the path of development, for any nation-state, there is no “supra-historical” cognition based on “the master key of a general historico-philosophical theory.” Each country can, while respecting the laws of history, choose a path of civilizational development suited to its own conditions. The democratic view embedded in Chinese-path modernization reveals the historical, concrete, staged, and differentiated nature of the path of democratic development. Therefore, in the process of modernization, late-developing countries can fully create their own models of democratic development by integrating their national conditions and the changes in the global economic and political landscape.

因此，中国式现代化的独特民主观在理论上超越“东方从属于西方”现代化框架，形成了不同于西方民主一元论的观念体系，并具有普遍性价值。首先，“自主性发展”的意义。中国式现代化是这一独特民主观形成的历史和现实情境。这意味着中国式现代化蕴含的民主观必须从我国现代化经济政治现实条件出发，服务于中国的现代化发展；也必须充分体现“两个结合”,才能保证民主观的社会主义性质和时代化本土化，如“民主集中制”“有事好商量”即是典型代表。其次，“多样性发展”意义。世界上不存在定于一尊的现代化模式，也不存在同一性标准的普遍文明。马克思晚年对东方社会进行大量研究后指出，俄国“有可能不通过资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷，而占有资本主义制度所创造的一切积极的成果”,人类发展可以实现从单线一元进化模式向复线多元进化模式转变。而且，马克思认为，在道路发展模式的问题上，对任何民族国家而言，不存在基于“一般历史哲学理论这一把万能钥匙”而形成的“超历史”认知⑧⑧,各国能够在尊重历史规律的前提下选择适合自身的文明发展道路。中国式现代化蕴含的民主观揭示民主发展道路的历史性、具体性、阶段性和差异性。因此，现代化发展进程中后发国家完全可以结合本国国情以及世界经济政治格局变化开创自身民主发展模式。

2. Adhering to the mass view of history, deconstructing the Western democratic theory of elite creation, and expanding a new path for people’s democracy to advance comprehensive modernization.

2.坚持群众史观，解构西方民主的精英创制论，拓展了人民民主推进全面现代化的新道路。

When Western-style democracy is packaged as a universal value, the democratic view in Western modernization has also completed the discursive construction project of using democracy to conceal its capitalist liberal ideology. Bourgeois thinkers, by constructing a “secular image” around the “abstract human,” and by establishing modern values such as “liberty, equality, fraternity,” have completed the beautification, abstraction, and absolutization of the unfair and irrational relations of production concealed by commodities. The Western liberal democratic view is a new substitute for such values in the 20th century, “the theoretical expression of the material relations that dominate individuals.” On the one hand, Western liberal democratic theorists propagate that liberal democracy is omnipotent, exaggerating its “magic bullet” effect on modernization; on the other hand, they vigorously argue for the irrationality and inefficiency of popular political participation, stigmatize people’s democracy, and confine democracy to limited passive actions. This series of operations—controlling democratic knowledge, replacing democratic concepts, and concealing the capitalist nature of democracy—has led to the alienation of the democratic view. That is, the democratic view has become a discourse controlled by Western developed countries. The subject of the democratic view does not create the democratic view but is instead constantly admonished to only elect capable leaders to express their opinions, resulting in the ossification, monetization, and oligarchization of political modernization. Moreover, Western modernization theorists extol the critical moment when elites reshape the political institutional transformation of late-developing countries, which directly misleads some late-developing countries onto a path of elite worship and the denial of people’s democracy. Huntington believed that the interaction among reformers, conservatives, and moderates is most important in the transformation of liberal democratic institutions; scholars like Weber argued that elite rule exists in the process of democratic development. They believe that the reason countries like Singapore and Japan have become models of modernization is that they either established elite party systems or imitated the West in establishing elite electoral systems.

当西式民主被包装为普世价值，西方现代化中的民主观也完成了以民主掩盖其资本主义自由意识形态的话语建构工程。资产阶级思想家通过围绕“抽象的人”构建起“世俗形象”,通过建立“自由、平等、博爱”等现代价值完成了对商品掩盖下不公平不合理生产方式的美化、抽象化和绝对化。西方自由民主观就是这类价值在20世纪新的替代物，“是那些统治个人的物质关系的理论表现”。西方自由民主理论者一方面宣扬自由民主无所不能，夸大自由民主对现代化的“魔弹”作用；另一方面又极力论证人民参与政治的非理性和低效率，污名人民民主，将民主框限于有限的消极行动中。这一系列控制民主知识、替换民主概念、掩饰资本民主本质的操作造成民主观的异化，即民主观成为西方发达国家掌控的话语，民主观的主体不创造民主观，反而被不断告诫只能选举有领导能力的代表来表达自己的意见，造成政治现代化僵化、金钱化、寡头化。而且，西方现代化理论者推崇精英重塑后发国家政治制度变革的关键时刻，这直接误导一些后发国家走向精英崇拜、否定人民民主的道路。亨廷顿认为在自由民主制度变革中改革派、保守派、温和派的互动最为重要;韦伯等学者认为民主发展过程中都存在精英统治现象。他们认为，新加坡、日本等东亚国家之所以成为现代化发展的典范，是因为这些国家要么建立的是精英政党制度，要么仿效西方建立精英选举制度。

The people are the creators and practicing subjects of ideas. That the masses of the people are the creators of history is a basic principle of Marxism. “In the object dimension of historical dialectics, man is not a self-subject but an objective subject.” The democratic view embedded in Chinese-path modernization is the result of the Chinese people, as the main force, learning from and drawing on foreign democratic theories, repeatedly practicing and creating in combination with China’s democratic context and people-oriented culture. After the May Fourth Movement,[n] Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu further pointed out that to achieve the people being the masters of the country, it was necessary to guide the people in class struggle and transform the proletariat into the subject of democracy. These ideas provided a new direction for the new youth and the working masses who were urgently seeking to save the nation from subjugation and oppose multiple oppressions. During the War of Resistance Against Japan,[n] the Communist Party of China established and adjusted the system of参议会 (councils) in various base areas, reflecting the class coalition characteristics necessary under the situation of the whole nation’s war of resistance. For example, the参议会 of the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region, founded in 1939, broke the Kuomintang’s stipulation that it was advisory in nature from a legal text; after the second参议会 of the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region convened in November 1941, the powers of the参议会 expanded, strengthening its supervision and restraint over the government. Entering the New Era, General Secretary Xi Jinping, on the basis of China’s rich democratic practices, put forward the major concept of whole-process people’s democracy. Shanghai established grassroots legislative contact points to complete the solicitation of opinions on draft laws; Zhejiang Province achieved full coverage of the people’s congress deputy ballot system for people’s livelihood projects at the city, county, and township levels, giving the ultimate beneficiaries a voice and transforming post-hoc supervision into whole-process tracking. Only a democratic view generated from the needs of the people can unleash the powerful force of the people’s participation in modernization practice. As Mao Zedong emphasized, “Only the people are the motive force in the making of world history”; General Secretary Xi Jinping also pointed out, “History has repeatedly proven that the masses of the people are the main force in historical development and social progress.”

人民才是观念的创造者和践行主体。人民群众是历史的创造者是马克思主义的基本原理。“人在历史辩证法的客体向度中不是自我主体，而是客观主体”。中国式现代化蕴含的民主观是中国人民作为主体力量学习借鉴外来民主理论，结合本国民主情境与民本文化反复实践创造的结果。五四运动以后，李大钊、陈独秀进一步指出要实现人民当家作主必须引导人民进行阶级斗争，让无产阶级转换成民主的主体，这些观念为亟需探寻中国救亡图存和反对多重压迫的新青年、劳工大众提供了新方向。抗战时期，中国共产党在各根据地建立和调整参议会制度，体现了当时全民族抗战形势下所必须的阶级联合特性。如1939年创立的陕甘宁边区参议会，从法律文本上打破了国民党规定其为咨询性质的框框；1941年11月陕甘宁边区第二届参议会展开后，参议会权力扩大加强了对政府的监督制约。进入新时代，习近平总书记在中国丰富的民主实践基础上提出全过程人民民主重大理念。上海市设立基层立法联系点完成法律草案的意见征询工作;浙江省实现了市县乡民生项目人大代表票决制全覆盖，让最终受益者有了话语权，变事后监督为全程跟踪。只有从人民需要中生成的民主观才能发挥其调动人民投身现代化实践的强大力量。正如毛泽东强调“只有人民，才是创造世界历史的动力”;习近平总书记也指出，“历史反复证明，人民群众是历史发展和社会进步的主体力量”。

By placing the people at the core of democracy, the democratic view embedded in Chinese-path modernization transcends capitalist relations of production at the economic-structural level, shaping a truly equal democratic relationship; liberates the logic of material enslavement at the ideological level, establishing a people-centered political concept; and breaks the superstition of elites at the political-cultural level, shaping the political confidence that the people create democratic ideas.

中国式现代化蕴含的民主观将人民置于民主的核心，就从经济结构上超越了资本主义生产关系，塑造真实平等的民主关系；在意识形态上解放物的奴役逻辑，建立以人民为中心的政治理念；在政治文化上破除精英迷信，塑造人民创造民主观念的政治自信。

3. Adhering to the “Two Integrations,” resolving the paradox of modernization, and creating a new model for the organic unity of democratic governance and ethnic unity in a multi-ethnic country.

3.坚持“两个结合”,破解现代化悖论，创造了多民族国家实现民主治理与民族团结有机统一的新模式。

Developing countries in the course of modernization often face multiple crises such as crises of identity, participation, and distribution. Huntington pointed out that modernization in late-developing countries entails an inherent tension between rapid economic development and long-term political stability. This is known as the “Huntington paradox.” This modernization “paradox” reinforces Western-centrism and the notion of Western institutional superiority; scholars of Western modernization argue that late-developing countries can achieve good governance only by taking the Western liberal-democratic path. Yet the Western liberal-democratic system does not help late-developing countries achieve political integration; on the contrary, it exacerbates ethnic fragmentation, political polarization, and state fragility. The reasons are mainly three. First, in the course of modernization, traditional and modern ideas clash violently, the political identities of traditional society are dissolved, and regional, ethnic, religious, and class identities become easier to recognize and accept. The Western electoral system, by stimulating voters’ regional or identity-based preferences, intensifies political conflict alongside party identification. Second, the precondition for democratic development is state-building; late-developing countries often urgently need to awaken the national consciousness of their people in order to achieve national independence. The “zoning systems, ethnic federalism, ethnic power-sharing, and granting of collective rights” in the Western liberal-democratic system “unnecessarily solidify mutual exclusion and hostile ethnic identification among groups,” which is detrimental to national identity after state reconstruction. Third, the political promises made in elections inevitably make political distribution serve the bourgeoisie and its allies first, leading to persistent inequality in livelihood policies and further intensifying class contradictions and political confrontation. This has been especially evident recently in Eastern European and Latin American countries. Therefore, “a high degree of voter political fragmentation easily triggers intense political conflict, and excessively intense political conflict in turn affects the stability of the democratic system, even causing its collapse.”

发展中国家在现代化发展中往往面临着认同危机、参与危机、分配危机等多重危机。亨廷顿指出，后发国家现代化具有经济快速发展与政治长期稳定的内在张力。这被称为“亨廷顿悖论”。这一现代化“悖论”强化了西方中心论和西方制度优越论，西方现代化学者指出后发国家只有走西方自由民主道路才能达到善政良治。然而，西方自由民主制度无助于后发国家政治整合，反而加剧了种族分裂、政治极化、国家脆弱。究其原因，主要有三点：其一，在现代化发展中，传统与现代观念激烈冲击，传统社会的政治身份被瓦解，地区认同、民族认同、宗教认同、阶级认同更容易被识别和接受。西方选举制度通过激发选民的区域性或身份性偏好，在政党认同的同时激化政治冲突。其二，民主发展的前提是国家建构，后发国家往往亟需唤醒民众的民族意识以达到民族独立的目标，西方自由民主体制中的“分区制度、民族联邦主义、族群的权力分享、给予集体权利等，都会不必要地固化族群间的相互排斥和敌意性民族认同”,并不利于国家重建后的国家认同。其三，选举中的政治承诺必然使政治分配优先服务于资产阶级及其同盟，从而导致民生政策的持续不平等，进一步激化阶级矛盾和政治对抗，这在最近的东欧和拉美国家尤其明显。因此，“高度的选民政治分裂容易引发剧烈的政治冲突，而过于剧烈的政治冲突则会影响民主政体的稳定性，甚至引发民主政体的崩溃”。

In response to the problems of political order and social vitality in modernization, General Secretary Xi Jinping points out that “Chinese-path modernization should and can achieve a dynamic equilibrium of being lively without chaos, active yet orderly.” This is because the Communist Party of China has consistently adhered to the “Two Integrations” [n11], exploring in the process of Chinese-path modernization a plan that promotes mutual reinforcement among state-building, democratic governance, and ethnic integration to achieve political consolidation and popular unity. Marx and Engels pointed out that only by establishing a single and indivisible democratic republic can the political construction of a multi-ethnic state be achieved, and that efforts must be made to advance socialist construction, promote ethnic equality, and uphold national independence in order to realize the construction of a national community. This reveals the importance of the coordinated development of democratic construction and ethnic equality, and of democratic development and ethnic integration, in the process of modernization. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out that the unity of Chinese civilization “determines that national unity will forever be the core of China’s core interests, and determines that a strong and unified country is the destiny of all ethnic groups.” “Great unity” (大一统) [n12] is a main thread running through China’s historical political structure and ideological culture; it defines the historical starting point and internal environment of China’s modern state-building. “China’s modern state-building must create a new form of political great unity, one that can integrate with the modern state and serve as the internal support for China’s modern state-building.” Therefore, the inherent unity within China’s political development requires the establishment of a centripetal political system. At different historical stages, the CPC has promoted the interactive progress of “people’s democracy” and “ethnic construction” in China, including practicing “Party members have no distinction of ethnicity or nationality,” “the Anti-Japanese National United Front is for all ethnic groups within the country,” “upholding and developing socialist ethnic relations of equality, solidarity, mutual assistance, and harmony,” “strengthening the great unity of all ethnic groups,” and “forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation,” thereby deepening ethnic consensus and common prosperity. On this basis, the unique view of democracy embodied in Chinese-path modernization contains the “unified” sentiment of “all ethnic groups merging into one,” a world vision of the common good for all under heaven, a tradition of consultation that pools wisdom, and an inclusive stance of seeking common ground while reserving differences. Strategically, this view of democracy is expressed as: perfecting the grand united front framework, effectively solving the problem of political absorption, and stimulating the consciousness of shared destiny among all ethnic groups of the Chinese nation; adhering to the unity of Party leadership, the united front, and consultative democracy, and enhancing the centripetal force and solidarity of different groups through extensive, multi-tiered, and institutionalized consultation.

针对现代化发展中政治秩序和社会活力难题，习近平总书记指出，“中国式现代化应当而且能够实现活而不乱、活跃有序的动态平衡”。因为中国共产党始终坚持“两个结合”,在中国式现代化进程中探索国家建构、民主治理、民族融合相互促进实现政治整合、凝聚人心的方案。马克思恩格斯指出只有建立单一而不可分的民主共和国才能实现多民族国家的政治建构，而且要着力推进社会主义建设、推行民族平等、坚持国家独立才能够实现民族共同体建设。这揭示了现代化进程中民主构建与民族平等、民主发展与民族融合协同发展的重要性。习近平总书记指出，中华文明的统一性“决定了国家统一永远是中国核心利益的核心，决定了一个坚强统一的国家是各族人民的命运所系”。“大一统”是贯穿中国历史政治格局和思想文化的一条主线，这限定了中国现代国家政权建设的历史起点和内部环境，“中国现代国家构建必须创造一种政治大一统的新形态，它必须能够同现代国家融合在一起，并且成为中国现代国家构建的内在支撑”。因此，中国政治发展内蕴的统一性要求建立具有向心力的政治体制。中国共产党在不同历史阶段推动我国“人民民主”与“民族建设”互动共进，包括践行“党员无民族与国界之分”“抗日民族统一战线是国内各民族的”“维护和发展各民族平等团结互助的社会主义民族关系”“加强各民族大团结”“铸牢中华民族共同体意识”,从而深化民族共识和共同繁荣。基于此，中国式现代化蕴含的独特民主观包含了“各民族融为一体”的“统一”情怀、天下为公的世界视野、集思广益的协商传统、求同存异的包容立场。在战略上，这一民主观表现为：完善大统战格局，有效解决政治吸纳难题，激发中华民族各族人民的命运交融意识；坚持党的领导、统一战线与协商民主相统一，以广泛多层制度化的协商增强不同群体的向心力和团结力。

The CPC’s organic integration of democracy with the united front, and of people’s democracy with the construction of the Chinese national community, is both a product of combining the Marxist view of democracy and ethnicity with the concrete realities of China as a multi-ethnic state, and a creative exploration of how a multi-ethnic state can achieve a balanced unity of political order and social development. This holds significant value for other countries in breaking free from the biases of Western modernization theory, responding to the challenges of world ethnic separatism, rebuilding democratic trust, and exploring centripetal democratic systems.

中国共产党将民主与统战、人民民主与中华民族共同体建设有机结合，既是中国共产党将马克思主义民主观、民族观同中国多民族国家具体实际相结合的产物，也是其对多民族国家如何实现政治秩序和社会发展平衡统一的创造性探索。这对其他国家摆脱西方现代化理论偏见，应对世界民族分离主义挑战、重塑民主信任、探索向心型民主体制都具有重要价值。

IV. Conclusion

四、结 论

Looking at the entire course of world modernization, democratic ideas have played an important role in promoting the dispelling of ignorance, national independence, state-building, and political development. Western political scholars rarely focus on analyzing which view of democracy is more conducive to modernization, or whether different modernization paths nurture different views of democracy, because in the view of the vast majority of Western scholars, Western liberal democracy is the best democratic concept for modernization. This theoretical presumption about democracy is in essence an attempt to provide legitimacy for Western countries to seize the resources and markets of late-developing countries; it is the political value expression of the logic of capital supremacy. The unique view of democracy embodied in Chinese-path modernization adheres to the historical materialist principle that social being determines social consciousness, adheres to the mass view of history that the people create history, and adheres to the methodology of the “Two Integrations.” On the basis of the laws of historical development of modernization, it thus transcends the Western liberal-democratic view, which is fundamentally based on economic logic and “spiritual” logic.

纵观世界现代化变迁历程，民主观念对祛除蒙昧、民族独立、国家建构、政治发展具有重要的推动作用。西方政治学者鲜少集中分析何种民主观更利于现代化，不同的现代化道路是否蕴育不同的民主观等问题，因为，在绝大部分西方学者看来，西方自由民主是现代化的最佳民主观念。这种民主理论臆断实质上是为西方国家谋求后发国家资源与市场提供合法性支持，是资本至上逻辑的政治价值表征。中国式现代化蕴含的独特民主观坚持社会存在决定社会意识的唯物史观、坚持人民创造历史的群众史观、坚持“两个结合”的方法论，这就在现代化历史发展规律的基位上超越了以经济逻辑和“精神”逻辑为根本的西方自由民主观。

Then why does the unique view of democracy embodied in Chinese-path modernization emphasize the word “unique”? Does this not tend toward “exceptionalism” or “particularism,” lacking the commonality to become a universal theory of world modernization? In fact, the unique view of democracy embodied in Chinese-path modernization emphasizes uniqueness for two reasons. First, to highlight that the view of democracy in Chinese-path modernization differs qualitatively from existing views of democracy, representing the fundamental distinction between the socialist “people” as subject and the capitalist “capital” as subject. Second, to highlight that the view of democracy embodied in Chinese-path modernization differs systematically from other views of democracy in its basic connotations, generative logic, and mechanism of action, establishing self-identity through comparative advantage over other views of democracy. In particular, the “Second Integration” [n13] has enabled Chinese-style democracy to establish the status of a “cultural self” in the development of world political civilization, constructing a democratic paradigm with the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation.

那么，为何中国式现代化蕴含的独特民主观要强调独特二字，这是否会走向“例外论”或“特殊论”,缺乏通向世界现代化普遍理论的共通性呢?事实上，中国式现代化蕴含的独特民主观强调独特原因有二：一是为了彰显中国式现代化民主观与已有的民主观具有质性差异，是社会主义“人民”主体与资本主义“资本”主体的根本区别；二是为了凸显中国式现代化蕴含的民主观在基本内涵、生成逻辑、作用机理上与其他民主观具有系统性差异，在与其他民主观的比较优势中确立自我认同。特别是“第二个结合”让中国式民主在世界政治文明发展中确立了“文化自我”的地位，构建起具有中华民族文化主体性的民主范式。

As part of the common values of all humanity, a universal understanding of the cause and concepts of human democracy can truly advance only on the basis of a conceptual grasp of the democratic concepts of various countries, nations, and civilizations. Socialism replacing capitalism does not mean destroying everything capitalism has created; rather, it means preserving the fruits of civilization that humanity has already created, after “appropriating” all the “positive achievements” of capitalism, and replacing capitalism with socialism. Therefore, the view of democracy embodied in Chinese-path modernization represents the developmental form of socialist democracy, a democratic form that has already transcended the capital-centered democracy of capitalism. In the course of world history, socialist democracy, as the essential requirement of socialism with Chinese characteristics, is broader, deeper, and more genuine than capitalist democracy, and thus possesses the true universality of democracy. More importantly, the universality of the view of democracy embodied in Chinese-path modernization is created and generated through practice, formed on the basis of the Chinese nation’s study and drawing on the beneficial achievements of the historical development of human democracy. Hence this universality is neither abstract universality nor isolated universality; it is a universality that can respond to the current universal crises of humanity and has practical significance. “Only by solving the problems of the nation well can we have a stronger ability to solve world problems; only by summarizing China’s practice well can we have a stronger ability to provide ideas and methods for solving world problems.” For this reason, this unique view of democracy serves as a universal model for developing countries in the 21st century to independently explore their own path to democracy and to resolve multiple governance difficulties.

作为全人类共同价值的一部分，人类民主事业和观念的普遍性理解只有对各个国家、民族和文明的民主观念进行思想性把握的基础上才能真正推进。社会主义替代资本主义并不是要摧毁资本主义所创造的一切，而是在“占有”资本主义“一切积极的成果”后保存人类已经创造的文明成果而以社会主义替代。那么，中国式现代化蕴含的民主观代表的是社会主义民主的发展形态，是已经超越资本主义以物为中心的民主形态。在世界历史进程中，作为中国特色社会主义本质要求的社会主义民主比资本主义民主更广泛、深刻、真实，也就具有了民主真正的普遍性。更重要的是，中国式现代化蕴含的民主观具有的普遍性是通过实践创造和生成的，是中华民族在学习借鉴人类民主发展历程有益成果基础上形成的，于是这种普遍性不是抽象的普遍性，也不是孤立的普遍性，是能够回应人类当前普遍危机、具有实践意义的普遍性。“解决好民族性问题，就有更强能力去解决世界性问题；把中国实践总结好，就有更强能力为解决世界性问题提供思路和办法”。正因为此，这一独特民主观对21世纪发展中国家独立探索民主之路、解决多重治理之困具有普遍性的典范作用。

Author’s bio: Wang Jing, Professor at the School of Marxism, Southwest Jiaotong University (Chengdu, Sichuan 611731).

作者简介：王菁，西南交通大学马克思主义学院教授(四川成都611731)。