Cheng Enfu: The Transcendence of Whole-Process People's Democracy over Western Democratic Politics
The rooting and flowering of any form of democracy cannot be separated from a real and effective vehicle. As the fundamental political system of our country, the People’s Congress system is not only the prerequisite and guarantee for realizing the people’s democratic dictatorship but also an important institutional vehicle through which whole-process people’s democracy is implemented. In October 2021, at the Central Conference on Work Related to People’s Congresses, Xi Jinping emphasized the need to "uphold and improve the People’s Congress system and continuously develop whole-process people’s democracy." The report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC further pointed out that we must "develop whole-process people’s democracy and ensure that the people run the country." This has enriched and expanded the connotation of socialist democratic politics with Chinese characteristics, providing theoretical guidance and practical compliance for our profound understanding of the People’s Congress system as a vital institutional vehicle for realizing whole-process people’s democracy in our country.
I. The People’s Congress System is a Brand-New Political System in the History of Domestic and Foreign Political Development
The People’s Congress system is the fundamental guarantee and effective form for ensuring that state power is held in the hands of the people and that it embodies and reflects the will of the people. It is a "brand-new political system of great significance in the history of China's political development and even in the history of world political development."
(1) The Nature and Characteristics of the People’s Congress System The essence of the path of political development is the choice of political institutions. Among various national institutions, "political institutions are at the critical link." The core of our country's political system is to ensure that the people run the country, and the People’s Congress system is a "good system" for guaranteeing this. This can be elucidated starting from its nature and characteristics.
First, the nature of the People’s Congress system. Marxist dialectical materialism holds that content and form exist in a dialectical unity. At the level of state power, the relationship between content and form is the relationship between the national condition (国体, guótǐ) and the form of government (政体, zhèngtǐ). In China's case, the national condition of the people’s democratic dictatorship is the content, and the form of government—the People’s Congress system—is the form. The national condition determines the form of government, and the form of government serves the national condition. Therefore, the nature of the People’s Congress system must remain consistent with the nature of the people’s democratic dictatorship—that is, the nature of a socialist state with Chinese characteristics. This nature defines the political character and direction of development for the People’s Congress system.
Second, the characteristics of the People’s Congress system. The People’s Congress system is the "important channel and highest realization form for the people to run the country," possessing distinct characteristics: 1. Extensive democratic nature. People’s congresses are produced through democratic elections. In terms of composition, the deputies produced through democratic elections come from different ethnic groups, industries, strata, and parties, possessing extensive representativeness. 2. Effective coordination. Within the People’s Congress system, the state's administrative, adjudicatory, and procuratorial powers [1] have different divisions of labor and responsibilities, yet they support and promote one another, forming a sound situation of effective coordination. 3. High degree of efficacy. Our country has a large population base; a political system with a high degree of efficacy is the guarantee for the efficient operation of the form of government. The People’s Congress system follows the principle of democratic centralism, which allows for the "concentration of resources to accomplish major undertakings" [2].
(2) The Comparative Advantages of the People’s Congress System The People’s Congress system is a major institutional achievement obtained through long-term practice in revolution, construction, and reform by the Party and the people, based on profoundly summarizing and absorbing the historical lessons of China's political development since the beginning of the modern era. It is also the rational choice made after "trial and error" in institutional learning, innovation, and change. As a great creation in the history of human political institutions, it possesses advantages incomparable to other systems.
First, internal comparative advantages. This refers primarily to its advantages relative to historical political systems in China. Since the start of the modern era, the Chinese people have conducted arduous explorations regarding the historical task of "what kind of political system to establish," such as constitutional monarchy, the restoration of the imperial system, parliamentarianism, and the presidential system—all of which ended in failure. The most typical were the constitutional monarchy and the presidential system.
Constitutional monarchy, also known as limited monarchy, was the proposal of the bourgeois reformists represented by Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao [3]. It placed a monarch or king as the head of state, with the supreme power of the state actually or nominally held by one person. Under this bourgeois form of government, the monarch would no longer enjoy the supreme authority and dignity found under feudal autocracy, as the monarch’s power would be constrained to varying degrees by a constitution and parliament. Constitutional monarchy was the result of a compromise by the bourgeoisie with the feudal aristocracy (setting aside modern constitutional monarchies elsewhere). Because the bourgeois forces were weak while feudal forces were strong, and the feudal forces were themselves partially "bourgeoisified," the bourgeois revolution was incomplete. This system, which did not touch the foundations of the old society, was a manifestation of reformism. It could not complete the historical tasks of national salvation or the struggle against imperialism and feudalism, nor could it provide the institutional guarantee for the Chinese nation to achieve national prosperity and the people’s happiness.
The presidential system was the proposal of the Kuomintang (KMT) represented by Chiang Kai-shek. Its essence was a personal dictatorship or a one-party dictatorship of the KMT. Its greatest characteristic was that the president resembled a feudal emperor, concentrating legislative, executive, and judicial powers in one person. The shell of the KMT presidential system was a bourgeois democratic republic, but its core was feudalism. Historical experience shows that although adopting a Western-style presidential system was a historical step forward compared to feudal autocracy, in semi-colonial and semi-feudal China, the roots of feudalism were deep and the national bourgeoisie was congenitally weak. Coupled with the impact of foreign reactionary forces, the KMT presidential system could only be a "briefly flowering cactus" (昙花一现).
In short, constitutional monarchy and the KMT presidential system, as political programs that mechanically copied Western political models, could neither complete the national revolution against imperialism nor the democratic revolution against feudalism. Even less could they provide a sound institutional guarantee for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
Second, external comparative advantages. This refers to its advantages relative to political systems in world history outside of China. In Western countries, there are two main political systems: the separation of powers and the cabinet system, both of which are bourgeois in nature.
The system of separation of powers is typically represented by the United States. Its choice of this system was determined by historical conditions, specific national circumstances, and class nature at the time; its core meaning is the separation, checks, and balances of power. However, American political practice has almost never truly realized the separation of powers. This is because, after the bourgeoisie achieved revolutionary victory, the separation of powers actually lost its "class power-sharing" connotation. In other words, the reality behind the American democratic slogan "sovereignty lies with the people" is "sovereignty lies with the monopoly oligarchs," alienating "mass democracy" into "elite democracy." Monopoly capitalists in fields such as finance, the military-industrial complex, media, and technology interfere and penetrate all "three powers" to ensure they "reap harvests regardless of drought or floods." Therefore, the separation of powers cannot be truly realized. As the French political scholar Pierre Rosanvallon pointed out, the American public basically no longer believes the government serves the public interest; most believe the political system is controlled by a few large interest groups, often leaving the masses behind for their own benefit.
The parliamentary-cabinet system is typically represented by the United Kingdom, advocating "parliamentary supremacy." That is, parliament is both the legislative and the power organ; the cabinet is composed of one or more parties that have won a majority of seats in parliament and is responsible to parliament, while possessing the power to dissolve it. The Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party in parliament, while the head of state holds only a nominal position without real power. The French thinker Montesquieu, as a representative of Western “separation of powers” theory, proposed his political views believing that Britain practiced such a system. In reality, Montesquieu’s understanding was mistaken. Under the British parliamentary system, there is a hidden hand behind parliamentary politics: party politics. The "parliamentary supremacy" of the British system is, in essence, "ruling party supremacy."
In short, although the bourgeois separation of powers and parliamentary systems were historically progressive compared to feudal autocracy, they are both built on an abstract theory of human nature. Using the "social contract"—an imaginary fiction—as a ruse, they turn their systems into mere forms of "mass democracy" that fail to correctly reveal the essence of social democracy or realize true democratic politics. They remain mechanisms for protecting "elite" interests.
II. The People’s Congress System is the Most Important Vehicle for Our Country's Whole-Process People's Democracy
The institutionalization of democracy is the guarantee for its procedural and standardized implementation; institutional advantages are the key to realizing democracy. The report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC clearly stated: "Whole-process people’s democracy is the defining feature of socialist democracy; it is democracy in its broadest, most genuine, and most effective form." As the "main thread of the design and arrangement of the People’s Congress system," the rooting of whole-process people’s democracy cannot be separated from the People’s Congress system as a real and effective vehicle.
(1) The People’s Congress System is the Broadest Manifestation of Our Whole-Process People’s Democracy China's whole-process people’s democracy is the broadest socialist democracy, primarily reflected in its "comprehensive subjects" and "comprehensive content." Regarding "comprehensive subjects," it includes all people within the scope of democracy, overcoming the limitation where "all previous movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities," ensuring that all people can participate in democratic practice. Regarding "comprehensive content," it includes all aspects of public affairs, ensuring that everything from "national legislation to trivial neighborhood disputes" can be resolved through democratic means, so that "the people feel equity and justice in every judicial case," truly allowing the people to enjoy extensive democratic rights. In short, the "all subjects" and "all content" of our whole-process people’s democracy realize a democratic system with complete subjects and content, providing a realistic basis for the broadest socialist democracy.
The People's Congress system as the broadest manifestation of whole-process people's democracy is concentrated in its adherence to the leadership of the Party. Xi Jinping pointed out: "Finding the greatest common divisor of the will and requirements of the whole society is the essence of people's democracy." The essence of the "greatest common divisor" is "the broadest democracy." As a country with a population of over 1.4 billion, to realize extensive democracy on such a staggering scale, it must have a strong and powerful core of leadership. The CPC, as a Marxist party, has no special interests of its own. Based on its political stance of committing itself to the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people, it is the embodiment of the people's will and possesses the most extensive representativeness. The People's Congress system's adherence to Party leadership provides the guarantee for upholding the fundamental interests of the broadest people, providing the core subject for the broadest democracy. Furthermore, the People's Congress system takes the Party's democratic centralism as its organizational principle, "building a democratic system covering over 9.6 million square kilometers, more than 1.4 billion people, and 56 ethnic groups." This ensures to the greatest extent that all people participate extensively in managing state and social affairs through people's congresses at all levels.
(2) The People’s Congress System is the Most Genuine Expression of Our Whole-Process People’s Democracy Our whole-process people’s democracy is the most genuine socialist democracy, primarily reflected in the "two ends of the process." First is the continuous improvement of the "input end" of democracy. Our democracy does not reject the spirit of "competitive elections" and fully guarantees the right of the people to vote according to their own will. Furthermore, to make up for the deficiencies of electoral democracy, consultative democracy has been added to the "input" stage, allowing electoral and consultative democracy to complement and support each other. Second is the continuous improvement of the "output end" of democracy. It "ensures not only that the people exercise their right to democratic elections according to law, but also their rights to democratic decision-making, management, and oversight," achieving a "full-chain democracy" with rational procedures and complete links. In short, whole-process people’s democracy organically unifies the "input" and "output" ends, realizing "the unity of process-oriented democracy and results-oriented democracy, procedural democracy and substantive democracy, direct democracy and indirect democracy, and people’s democracy and the will of the state." This "walking on two legs" approach avoids the democratic trap of "walking on one leg" (limited to electoral democracy), forming a mature democracy where advantages are complementary.
The system of People's Congresses is the truest expression of our country's whole-process people's democracy, concentrated in the fact that the system of People's Congresses persists in law-based governance. Law is an important embodiment of the democratic will; the truest democracy is a democracy that achieves legalization. Legalized democracy can prevent privileged incidents that transcend the law due to individual will, ensuring that legal support for the authenticity of democracy is obtained through maintaining the authority of the law. Democracy and the legal system are inseparable, which is why "democracy without the socialist legal system is by no means socialist democracy." Our country's Constitution stipulates: "The organs through which the people exercise state power are the National People's Congress and the local people's congresses at all levels." This legally establishes that the system of People's Congresses occupies a leading position in our country's system of state institutions, dictates that our country's system of state institutions must be directly or indirectly created and formed by the system of People's Congresses, and determines that the system of People's Congresses is the foundational root of our country's system of state institutions. Furthermore, by promoting the spirit of the rule of law and advancing various democratic undertakings strictly in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, the system of People's Congresses guarantees the rule-of-law standardization of democratic implementation. In short, the system of People's Congresses is the support for our country's whole-process people's democracy in terms of the legal system and law. Without a system of People's Congresses that matches our whole-process people's democracy, the latter would become water without a source or a tree without roots [4]—it would become an empty and inauthentic slogan, unable to express its reality.
(3) The system of People's Congresses is the most effective guarantee of our country's whole-process people's democracy.
"Democracy is not an ornament to be put on display, but is to be used to solve the problems the people need solved." Our country's whole-process people's democracy is the most effective socialist democracy, which is primarily embodied in "the people." The report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC emphasized: "The state is the people, and the people are the state." To evaluate whether a democracy is the most effective, one must primarily look at whether it stands on the side of the people and provides good answers to their questions. Our country's whole-process people's democracy consistently insists on the supremacy of the people and remains people-centered, taking the realization of the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people as the starting and ending point of democratic construction. By establishing a complete set of institutional systems to guarantee the democratic rights of the people as masters of the country, it embodies the people's standpoint and provides an objective basis for the most effective socialist democracy.
The system of People's Congresses is the most effective guarantee of our country's whole-process people's democracy, concentrated in the fact that it ensures the people are the masters of the country. Whether democracy is effective depends on whether the people truly achieve the status of being masters. The system of People's Congresses adheres to the principle of popular sovereignty, taking the people's status as masters of the country as its value pursuit and core content. It stipulates that people's congresses at all levels are composed of deputies democratically elected by the people. At the institutional level, this mobilizes the enthusiasm, initiative, and creativity of the people to devote themselves to state and social undertakings, ensuring their status as masters. The system of People's Congresses requires deputies to maintain close ties with the people, especially to listen to their opinions and accept their supervision. This indicates that the ultimate orientation of the system's insistence on the supremacy of the people and being people-centered is the people as masters of the country. Furthermore, General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important expositions on the system of People's Congresses—such as it being an "important institutional guarantee for the 'two miracles' [5]," a "good system," a "brand-new political system," and the "'three effective guarantees' [6]"—are also incisive explanations of why this system is the most effective guarantee for whole-process people's democracy.
In summary, the system of People's Congresses is the fundamental political institutional arrangement that persists in and achieves the organic unity of Party leadership, the people being masters of the country, and law-based governance. It lays the fundamental institutional foundation and reliable institutional guarantee for our country's whole-process people's democracy and is the most extensive, true, and effective vehicle for its realization. Therefore, the system of People's Congresses must be maintained over the long term and continuously improved in practice. We must "persist in taking the path of socialist political development with Chinese characteristics, develop whole-process people's democracy in an all-round way, and comprehensively advance the institutionalization, standardization, and proceduralization of socialist democratic politics."
III. Indicators for Evaluating Whether a Country's Political System is Democratic and Effective
The development path of democratic politics has internal laws as well as objective, scientific evaluation standards. Regarding how to evaluate whether a country's political system is democratic and effective, Xi Jinping has provided deep answers using eight "whethers" and four "looks and further looks," demonstrating keen political insight and unique theoretical perspective. These standards follow the basic laws of modern political development, involve the institutional arrangements of modern democratic politics, cover the main content of democratic systems, and embody the basic requirements of modern political civilization. They are important indicators for evaluating whether a country's political system is democratic and effective.
(1) The judgment criteria of the eight "whethers"
The judgment criteria of the eight "whethers" reflect the scientific nature and superiority of our country's political system, deepen the understanding of the development laws of national political systems, and enrich the Marxist political science theory regarding state institutions.
First, whether the country’s leadership can be replaced in an orderly and law-based manner. The orderly replacement of national leadership can also be termed the orderly replacement of the central leadership. It is worth mentioning that "replacement" here tends toward the meaning of a continuous cycle rather than a one-time hand-off. The orderly replacement of national leadership represents the orderly transfer of power within the central leadership, which concerns the general situation, the future, vitality, and stability; it is a strategic and global issue for the state. The orderly replacement of national leadership can promote and display a new political atmosphere and is an indicator of whether a country's political system is democratic and effective.
Through long-term practical exploration, our country has made progress in the orderly replacement of national leadership by reforming and improving the leadership systems of the Party and the state. For example, we have discarded the systems of abdication [7] and heredity found in Western countries, as well as the de facto system of life-tenure in positions. We have established a system of "younger generations," changing from a single-tier echelon to a two-tier echelon system, built a collective succession system, and implemented the term system and election system for leading officials. These measures ensure the normal transition and orderly replacement of the leading organs and leadership levels of the Party and the state, effectively preventing power struggles and political instability, and achieving the goals of political stability and increased cohesion.
The replacement of national leadership in the United States is a real-life version of House of Cards, determined by the nature of the capitalist state. As the most developed capitalist country in the world today, the naked monetary relations between people in the United States are reflected in all aspects of the economy and society, including the political sphere. Whether it is the presidential election, the election of members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, or gubernatorial elections, they are essentially "money elections." Because the "gold masters" [8] supporting the candidates are different, mutual struggle, infighting, and obstruction—the phenomenon of "blackening" one another—occur frequently. Furthermore, the relationship between American political parties is a competitive, veto-type relationship of "the predecessor builds the house, the successor tears down the beams." Even after the election, generation-like conflicts as fierce as fire and water remain, making it far from an orderly replacement of national leadership. In addition, with the frequent role reversals between the ruling and opposition parties in the ebb and flow of power, the "pendulum effect" of "you finish your performance, then I take the stage" [9] has become the norm. However, this norm is a state of disharmony at the cost of social division; it is essentially a zero-sum game that cannot provide a good political ecosystem for the orderly replacement of US national leadership.
Second, whether the whole people can manage state affairs, social affairs, and economic and cultural undertakings in accordance with the law. The report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC pointed out: "Our country is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and farmers; all power in the state belongs to the people." The people are the masters of the country and society, enjoying the democratic right to manage state affairs, social affairs, and economic and cultural undertakings. Effectively guaranteeing this right for the people is conducive to expanding national and social democracy, improving the legal system, and building and consolidating political civilization.
Our country's Constitution stipulates: "The people manage state affairs, economic and cultural undertakings, and social affairs through various channels and in various forms in accordance with the provisions of the law." This provides the fundamental legal basis for the whole people of our country to manage these affairs. In reality, our people can manage state and social affairs through multiple channels: for example, through mass organizations and other organizational forms to participate in state management; through workers' representative congresses to manage enterprises and public institutions; through cultural, educational, health, and scientific research organizations to manage economic and cultural undertakings; through neighborhood committees in cities and village committees in rural areas to manage grassroots social affairs; and through the people's congresses at all levels formed via elections to manage state and social affairs. It is evident that in terms of democratic management, our country can promote the people's spirit as masters and actively and effectively play the role of the people as the subject.
Conversely, the United States is built on the "democracy for the few" of the monopoly bourgeoisie. It primarily realizes the management of state and social affairs through multi-party competitive elections, which cannot achieve the goal of the "whole people" managing these affairs according to law. This American democratic method often becomes an alliance and competition between partisan and capital interests. It is a democratic feast and carnival where politicians and corporate oligarchs manipulate public opinion to achieve specific ends. The result is not only that the American people do not truly manage state and social affairs, but also that public will and interest are hijacked and diverted.
Third, whether the masses of the people can smoothly express their interest requirements. Democratic politics needs the smooth expression of the people's interest requirements as a prerequisite and foundation to find the "greatest common denominator" of those requirements. The Communist Party of China has always attached great importance to the expression of the people's interests, upholding the purpose of serving the people and a deeply rooted affection for them. We "insist on the principal status of the people, fully embody the people's will, guarantee the people's rights and interests, and stimulate the people's creative vitality," continuously broadening and smoothing the channels for the expression of the people's interests. We ensure that we reflect, respect, and maintain the will of the people. For example, we broadly solicit opinions through "open-door legislation," grasp interest requirements through the system of People's Congresses and the Political Consultative Meetings, build channels for petitions through the letters and visits system, collect needs through emerging online media channels, and reflect the people's wishes through various internal references [10] (important reports, newsletters, updates, etc.). Through these measures, the Party and the government think what the people think and feel the urgency the people feel, constructing a state of responsive democratic operation. This state is conducive to resolving social contradictions and preventing social risks, playing a fundamental role in building a harmonious society. It is a realistic manifestation of the governing philosophy of being people-centered and prioritizing the people, and even more so, an important manifestation of the Party and government maintaining "blood and flesh ties" [11] with the masses.
In contrast, the United States understands and defines the smooth expression of the people's interest requirements as "one person, one vote" periodic elections, treating it as a proud "democratic touchstone." While "decision-making by vote" is indeed a form of interest expression, the American version is essentially the institutional embodiment of an "elitist view of democracy." It is a tool for the American elite to implement their own interests through a narrow institutional process, disguised as the universal interests of the broad masses. Under the "vote-based" model, the expression of the American people's interests is only a one-time, short-term occurrence during voting; it lacks full-process, frequent, and daily expression channels and cannot meet the objective requirements for smooth interest expression. Moreover, under "political showmanship," this expression often works only at the time of voting but fails during implementation, suffering from a severe lack of sustained political efficacy. Consequently, voter turnout in the US is relatively low, often leading to a cynical and politically passive mentality that "it's the same whether one expresses oneself or not," preventing the true smoothing of interest expressions.
Fourth, whether all sectors of society can effectively participate in the country's political life. When everything from "something as large as a constitutional amendment to something as small as trash sorting" can receive "consultation by all" and "good consultation" from all sectors of society, the mechanism of democratic participation can continuously realize the cycle of "the masses propose, the deputies decide, the government acts, and the People's Congress evaluates." Government decision-making can thus continuously achieve "rule by the people," and the ordinary people can become the final beneficiaries.
The Report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC explicitly stated: "We must give full play to the enthusiasm, initiative, and creativity of the people and consolidate and develop a political situation characterized by liveliness, stability, and unity." The subjectivity of the people is particularly prominent in the participation of all sectors of society in the country's political life, realizing a Chinese-path participatory democracy. Taking the participation of various social sectors as an example: before the state decides to implement a particular resolution, it extensively solicits opinions and suggestions from all quarters of the people. It respects the people's right to know, to participate, to express themselves, and to supervise, stimulating the enthusiasm for participation across all sectors. By letting the wisdom of the people from all walks of life shine, the state ensures that the broad masses play their role as the subjects of the resolution, thereby maintaining and increasing democratic vitality. This effectively prevents phenomena such as "patriarchy" [12] or "one-man rule" [13], demonstrating both democratic nature and effectiveness. Regarding the scope of social participation: before the state decides to implement a resolution, it must take into account democratic rights in the political, economic, cultural, and social fields, achieving a multi-dimensional democracy across all aspects of society.
In contrast, in the United States, the means of production are based on a system of private monopoly. Consequently, it can only realize the active participation of a subset of the populace—primarily the wealthy class—in the country’s political life. This essentially shuts the door on the active participation of the majority of the people, making them "spectators of political life." The United States focuses the weight of national democratic life on the political and electoral spheres. Thus, even if multi-issue "identity politics" is high-profile and prevalent, it serves only as a tool for the ruling class to dilute the class consciousness of the masses and create "fragmentation" of public interests and social division. It is fundamentally incapable of truly and comprehensively realizing the rational demands and wide participation of the broad masses in "democracy as it should be" [14] across important fields such as the economy, culture, society, and ecological civilization.
Fifth: Whether national decision-making can achieve a scientific and democratic character. The success of national decision-making is the greatest success, and the failure of national decision-making is the greatest failure. Avoiding failure requires making national decision-making scientific and democratic. Through long-term practical exploration, accumulation of experience, and profound summarization, China has gradually formed a relatively mature collective decision-making mechanism. This has achieved a balance in the power structure within the leadership collective, laying a solid foundation for scientific and democratic national decision-making. Compared to individual decision-making mechanisms, the so-called collective decision-making mechanism follows the principle of democratic centralism—characterized by "collective leadership, democratic centralism, individual consultation, and meeting-based decision-making." It gives full play to the wisdom and strength of the collective and the broad masses of the people. This mechanism optimizes the quality and procedures of decision-making through a process of "democracy, centralism, then democracy again, and centralism again" before a final decision is reached. "Democratic centralism is the combination of centralism based on democracy and democracy under centralized guidance. It is both the Party's fundamental organizational principle and the application of the mass line in Party life." In a country like ours, characterized by obvious regional differences and diverse social interests, only by establishing this "collective-wisdom-gathering" (集思广益型) decision-making mechanism can we maximize the cohesion of various social forces and push our country forward toward the great goal of national rejuvenation.
In contrast, in the United States, government decision-making is held hostage by the money of narrow interests from numerous "lobbying firms," Wall Street financial oligarchs, the military-industrial complex, and major political donors. This is why, despite the U.S. State of the Union address being drafted, written, and repeatedly revised by presidential advisors and "scribes" [15], the decision-making and voting process often falls into a strange cycle of "the President proposes, Congress rejects; the Republicans propose, the Democrats reject; the Democrats propose, the Republicans reject."
Sixth: Whether talents of all kinds can enter the national leadership and management system through fair competition. Talent is the most active, critical, and foundational element in a national political system. The entry of talent into the leadership and management system through fair competition helps inject powerful intellectual momentum and innovative vitality into the democratic effectiveness of the political system.
China's national leadership and management system has continuously reformed the personnel system. It actively develops and establishes a vigorous system for selecting and appointing personnel that "recruits the wise broadly, enables everyone to make the most of their talents, and ensures officials can be both promoted and demoted" (广纳群贤、人尽其才、能上能下). It adheres to principles such as "combining integrity with ability," organizational recognition, and public consensus. This allows for the extensive gathering of outstanding talents from all sectors of society to actively devote themselves to the great causes of the Party and the state, providing broad space and channels for the development of talent across all fields.
In contrast, it is difficult for talents in the United States to enter the leadership and management system through fair competition. This is because the talent in the U.S. leadership and management system possesses extremely deep family lineages; they are often "born and raised in the system for generations," and the phenomenon of political dynasties and "government-business intimacy" is common. Whether they are intergenerational family talents or those benefiting from mutual business-political interests, they can only develop in a distorted fashion under the ecological pattern of American money politics, oligarchy, and dynastic politics. The pool of talent remains in a state of relative fossilization for long periods, making it difficult for progressive individuals with both integrity and ability to enter the national leadership and management system through fair competition.
Seventh: Whether the governing party can exercise leadership over state affairs in accordance with the Constitution and the law. To achieve scientific and democratic governance, the governing party must regard the "great tool of the state"—the Constitution and the law—as the rules of governance. Only by taking the Constitution and the law as the governing party's own rules of governance can the subjectivity of the people in national governance be ensured, providing an institutionalized and legalized guarantee for the people's status as masters of the country.
China continuously promotes the dialectical unity of governing in accordance with the law, scientific governance, and democratic governance, which has formed the basic framework for our Party's mode of governance. Ruling the country in accordance with the law is the Party's basic strategy for leading the people in governing the country. In fact, China has already formed and is continuously improving a system of socialist laws with Chinese characteristics, with the Constitution at the helm. By persisting in the integrated construction of a rule-of-law state, rule-of-law government, and rule-of-law society, the level of the rule of law across the whole society is continuously improving. All of China's major legislative decisions undergo democratic consultation and follow democratic procedures, fully reflecting the scientific nature of decision-making. This means our Party is able to exercise leadership over all state affairs in accordance with the Constitution and the law, effectively preventing the phenomenon of "substituting law with power or suppressing law with power." China insists on the organic unity of the Party’s leadership, the people's status as masters of the country, and the rule of law within the great practice of Chinese-path socialist democratic politics, which has greatly promoted democratic rule of law, fairness, and justice in national governance.
In contrast, the United States advocates that both the legislature and the government should be venues for open gaming between various interest groups and civil servants acting as "economic men" (self-interested individuals). This inevitably leads the U.S. governing party and various interest groups to place the rationality of their own parties and groups above public reason. For the sake of their own special and short-term interests, they disregard public and long-term interests, making it impossible to exercise leadership over national affairs entirely in accordance with constitutional and legal provisions. Furthermore, unlike the Chinese Constitution and laws, which differ in their high degree of textual conciseness and determinacy, the U.S. Constitution and laws possess considerable elasticity and flexibility, failing to provide a precise guarantee for the governing party to lead state affairs according to the law.
Eighth: Whether the exercise of power can be effectively constrained and supervised. Establishing a comprehensive system for the constraint and supervision of state power is an essential element for ensuring the effective operation of the national system and an important way to guarantee democratic performance. The Report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC emphasized: "From the masses, to the masses; always maintain blood-and-flesh ties with the people, and always accept people's criticism and supervision." Only when power is effectively constrained and supervised can we prevent the people's status as masters of the country from becoming an empty phrase. China follows the aspirations and requirements of the people for the constraint and supervision of power. Through self-reflection, comparative learning, and cumulative creation, we have gradually constructed a democratic mechanism for the operation of power constraint and supervision. For example, through institutional arrangements, China has formed a set of power constraint and supervision systems under the Party's leadership that provides full coverage and high efficiency (including the original system of inspections [16] at all levels). This is an integrated mechanism for correcting deviations that combines a disciplinary mechanism where one "dares not be corrupt," a preventive mechanism where one "cannot be corrupt," and a guarantee mechanism where one "is not tempted to be corrupt." Through educational enhancement, China ensures that public officials in power "hear, internalize, and act upon" advanced ideological ethics and serious Party discipline and state laws. Through the internalization of self-perception, public officials in power are encouraged and emboldened to conduct criticism and self-criticism, leading them to hold power in awe, maintain a sense of trepidation, and observe the "bottom line," becoming accustomed to living and working under constraint and supervision.
In contrast, within the American democratic framework, the constraint and supervision of power rely primarily on the "separation of powers," with national elections held every few years serving as the "weather vane" for power supervision. This set of mechanisms has revealed its limitations and inefficiency through long-term implementation. This is because the "elites" holding power in the U.S. are long-term beneficiaries of donations and lobbying from monopoly financial groups; a scientifically efficient system of power constraint would seriously hinder their acquisition of interests. The opportunity for Party rotation initiated by national elections must also be built on multi-year election cycles. National elections are merely limited improvements within the partial domains of capitalism and fragmented policies, unable to achieve thorough and effective constraint and supervision.
(II) The Four Criteria of "Whether... and, More Importantly, Whether..."
The four criteria of "whether... and, more importantly, whether..." and the eight "whethers" regarding democratic politics are an innovative theory that comprehensively and objectively clarifies whether a country's political system is democratic and effective. This can be corroborated through a comparative analysis of the characteristics and practical effects of the democratic systems in China and the United States.
First: To see whether the people have the right to vote and, more importantly, whether they have the right to broad participation. When people have the right to vote, they can freely express their individual will, but merely having the right to vote is far from enough. While the political equality represented by "one person, one vote" is achieved, other political inequalities, as well as inequalities in economic and social rights, may still persist. To solve this problem, the people must have full and broad rights of participation. The right to participation is the core of democratic politics. As Xi Jinping pointed out, "If the people are only called upon to vote and then go into dormancy, if they only listen to high-sounding slogans during election campaigns but have no say after the election, or if they are only favored during canvassing but are neglected after the election, such a democracy is a form of formalism." Clearly, it is vital that the people can deeply participate in the management of state and social life through legalized elections and other systems and methods beyond elections.
The Chinese Constitution stipulates: "All citizens of the People's Republic of China who have reached the age of 18 have the right to vote and stand for election, regardless of ethnicity, race, sex, occupation, family background, religious belief, education, property status, or length of residence." This stipulates that our people have the right to vote to express their individual will, marking "election as the starting point of democracy." Furthermore, according to the law, the Chinese people have the right to participate in the management of state, social, economic, and cultural affairs through various channels and forms, such as consultations, expert seminars, consultative meetings, demonstration meetings, colloquia, hearings, evaluation meetings, deliberative councils, criticism, and suggestions. Clearly, the Chinese people not only have the right to vote but also the right to broad participation. They can not only effectively express their democratic will but also fully exercise their rights to "democratic election, democratic consultation, democratic decision-making, democratic management, and democratic oversight."
In contrast, the United States focuses its democratic energy on competitive elections. The core procedure is that "the ruled people choose leaders through competitive elections." It is evident that the U.S. emphasizes liberal electoral democracy while neglecting governance-oriented participatory democracy. This democratic practice of replacing substantive justice with procedural justice is essentially superficial and false. This false democracy exists primarily because American electoral democracy is a converter of capital power into political power. Inherently following the logic of capital and suffering from the erosion and manipulation of money from major financial and interest groups, it ensures that the political direction of the winners is dictated by monied forces and group interests, making it difficult to represent the will and interests of the broadest masses of the people. Therefore, the United States only has a formal democracy of voting rights without the substantive democracy of broad participation.
Second: To see what verbal promises the people receive during the election process and, more importantly, how many of these promises are fulfilled after the election. Is it necessary to make verbal promises to the people during the election process? The answer is yes, as this is not only a convention but also a plan for the future and an expression of a pro-people attitude. However, verbal promises during the election process are not the end point of democracy; the end point should be the transformation of those promises into concrete actions. As Xi Jinping said, "If the people are only awakened at the time of voting and go into hibernation afterwards; if they only listen to flamboyant slogans during the campaign and have no standing thereafter; if they are wooed during the vote-seeking but ignored after the election, such a democracy is not a true democracy." It is clear that while the Party and government continuously respond to the needs and demands of the people and make verbal promises, they must also take effective action.
The party and government of our country maintain a high level of sustained attention and continuous responsiveness to the interests and demands of the people. This is because our democratic stages are complete, covering the entire process of the five major democratic categories: democratic elections, democratic consultation, democratic decision-making, democratic management, and democratic oversight. This has formed a systematic "full-chain democracy," overcoming the "half-baked democracy" [17] that emphasizes elections while neglecting management, and avoiding the unhealthy phenomenon and awkward situation where "there is democracy during the election, but no democracy once the election is over." This ensures that the verbal promises made to our people during the election process can be realized afterward.
In contrast, under the US system of "partisan democracy," the "electoral parties" are often "giants in words but dwarves in action" regarding election promises and implementation. American candidates gain votes merely through "shows" that are newsworthy, performative, and ornamental; they are not truly concerned with the demands of the general voters, but rather with the demands of the "gold masters" (donors) and interest groups backing them. (Unlike the "imperial power politics" of feudal autocratic societies, capital-autocratic societies practice "plutocracy" or "capital-power politics.") While the American people can easily obtain sky-high verbal promises during the election process, these promises are cast aside and become "empty checks" [18] after the election, with only limited fulfillment.
Third, one must look at what kind of political procedures and rules are stipulated by systems and laws, and more importantly, whether these systems and laws are truly executed. The vitality of systems and laws lies not only in possessing basic political procedures and rules but also in their ultimate successful execution and achievement of practical results. Only in this way can systems and laws "take root, blossom, and bear fruit." If systems and laws are merely for show and cannot be effectively implemented, they are reduced to being "nominal and useless."
The political procedures and rules stipulated by our country’s systems and laws are very strict. For example, looking at the entire process of election procedures and forms for National People's Congress deputies and the National People's Congress itself, various forms are adopted, such as initial inspection and solicitation of opinions, preparatory elections, secret balloting, and competitive elections (where there are more candidates than seats). These include both top-down organizational nominations and bottom-up free elections; it is a substantive procedural democracy. Furthermore, under the principle of "democratic centralism," our country's systems and laws possess a "whole-of-nation" executive advantage. As Deng Xiaoping stated: "The greatest advantage of socialist countries is that once a matter is decided upon, once a resolution is made, it is immediately executed without being hampered by entanglement." Therefore, our country’s systems and laws truly achieve the unity of expressing and satisfying the people's will, realizing a "strong and high democracy" characterized by strong executive power and high overall performance.
In contrast, although the US system and laws stipulate political procedures and rules, they are much weaker than those in China. This is because various interest groups and major political parties—founded on the private ownership of the means of production—often intentionally or unintentionally weaken certain political procedures and rules through gaming or collusion. The objectives and results of executing systems and laws differ vastly; situations frequently arise where a bill proposed by the President’s executive branch is vetoed by Congress, a bill proposed by the Senate is vetoed by the House of Representatives, or a bill proposed by the Republicans is vetoed by the Democrats. Any one of these vetoes can lead to the delay of a reasonable and legal bill, or even lead to a state of "discussing without deciding, deciding without acting." The shutdown of the US government due to fiscal crises is a prime example. This indicates that in a political ecosystem that is as incompatible as fire and water and often in a state of white-hot conflict, a bill cannot truly be grounded and ultimately dwindles into an "empty check."
Fourth, one must look at whether the rules and procedures for the exercise of power are democratic, and even more so at whether power is truly subject to the supervision and restraint of the people. The people are the legitimate source of all state power. Since power originates from the people and is conferred by them, it must only be used to serve the people, seek benefits for them, and be accountable to them; the people should also serve as the subjects of power supervision and restraint. As Mao Zedong cautioned: "Only by letting the people supervise the government will the government not dare to slacken. Only when everyone rises to take responsibility will we avoid the situation where 'when the man dies, his policies end' [19]." Countless historical experiences show that the less power is effectively supervised and restrained, the greater the possibility of abuse and corruption. Only when power is truly subjected to the people's all-around, strict supervision and restraint can it better perform its important role.
Through years of practice and improvement, our country has basically achieved the institutionalization, proceduralization, and standardization of rules and procedures for the exercise of power. This has further enhanced the vitality and anti-corruption nature of power, while preventing power from existing "without a cage" or being locked in a "cage of capital." For instance, we have formulated and implemented systems where power-holders dare not be corrupt, where the corrupt are inevitably severely punished, and where bribery and the taking of bribes are struck down together. We have improved systems for the disclosure of Party affairs, government affairs, judicial affairs, and public disclosure in various fields. We have strengthened systems for inquiry, accountability, economic liability auditing, resignation for blame, and recall. Simultaneously, we have proposed and implemented systems including intra-Party supervision, intra-government supervision, oversight by the National People's Congress, oversight by democratic parties, oversight by non-party personages, oversight by scientists, and mass supervision, allowing power to operate in the sunshine. This multi-layered systematic supervision and restraint in our country inherits and develops the fine traditional style of the ruling party, the National People's Congress, and the People's Government in maintaining close ties with the masses, as well as their capacity for self-criticism and self-revolution.
In contrast, the exercise of power in the United States finds it difficult to be subject to extensive supervision and powerful restraint by the people. Surrounded by numerous "lobbying firms" and political scenarios with or without caps on campaign donations, the majority of the people become "puppets" manipulated by bourgeois elites from all walks of life according to pre-arranged democratic scripts. They cooperate in performing "grand plays" of democracy but are unable to effectively supervise or restrain the false democratic behavior of capitalism.
The Constitution of the Communist Party of China, adopted by the 20th National Congress, states in summary: "We must uphold and improve the system of people's congresses, the system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the system of regional ethnic autonomy, and the system of community-level self-governance. We must develop a more extensive, more full, and more sound whole-process people's democracy, promote the extensive, multi-level, and institutionalized development of consultative democracy, and effectively guarantee the rights of the people to manage state affairs, social affairs, and economic and cultural undertakings." Facing the world's great changes unseen in a century, we must dispel "Western-style democratic superstition" and "Western-style system worship," exemplified by the United States. We must unswervingly hold high the scientific banner of whole-process people's democracy and uphold and improve the system of people's congresses. We should fully leverage the role of the people’s congress system as an important institutional vehicle for realizing our country's whole-process people's democracy. In particular, we must strengthen the leading role of legislation and the practical effectiveness of inspection, so that institutional advantages can be better transformed into national governance efficacy. By doing so, we can better consolidate the hearts of the people, gather their will, and together write a new chapter for political civilization with Chinese characteristics, making new and great contributions to the development and progress of human political civilization.