Cheng Enfu and Sun Shaoyong: The Transcendence of Whole-Process People's Democracy over Western Democratic Politics
The taking root of any form of democracy is inseparable from a real and effective vehicle. As the fundamental political system of our country, the system of people's congresses is not only the prerequisite and guarantee for realizing the people's democratic dictatorship but also the 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 system of people's congresses and continuously develop whole-process people's democracy." The report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC further pointed out the need to "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 system of people's congresses as the important institutional vehicle for realizing whole-process people's democracy in our country.
I. The System of People's Congresses is a Brand-New Political System in the History of Chinese and Foreign Political Development
The system of people's congresses is the fundamental guarantee and effective form for ensuring that state power is held in the hands of the people and for embodying and reflecting the people’s will. 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 System of People’s Congresses The essence of the path of political development lies in the choice of political systems. Among various national systems, "the political system is at the key link." The core of our country's political system is to ensure that the people run the country, and the system of people's congresses is a "good system" for ensuring this. This can be elucidated from its nature and characteristics.
First, the nature of the system of people's congresses. Marxist dialectical materialism holds that content and form constitute a dialectical unity. At the level of state power, the relationship between content and form is the relationship between the national condition [1] (guoti) and the form of government (zhengti). Taking our country as an example, the national condition of the people's democratic dictatorship is the content, and the form of government of the system of people's congresses is the form. The national condition determines the form of government; the form of government serves the national condition. Therefore, the nature of the system of people's congresses must remain consistent with the nature of the people’s democratic dictatorship—namely, the nature of a socialist state with Chinese characteristics. This nature dictates the political character and direction of development of the system of people’s congresses.
Second, the characteristics of the system of people’s congresses. The system of people’s congresses is "an important channel and the highest realization form for the people to run the country." It possesses distinct characteristics: 1) Broad democracy. People's congresses are produced through democratic elections. In terms of composition, the people's deputies produced through democratic election come from different ethnic groups, industries, strata, and parties, possessing broad representativeness. 2) Effective coordination. Within the system of people's congresses, the state's administrative, judicial, and procuratorial powers have different divisions of labor and responsibilities, yet they support and promote one another, forming a favorable situation of effective coordination. 3) High efficiency. Our country has a large population base; a highly efficient political system is the guarantee for the high-speed operation of the form of government. The system of people's congresses follows the principle of democratic centralism, which allows for the "concentration of resources to accomplish great tasks." [2]
(2) The Comparative Advantages of the System of People’s Congresses The system of people's congresses is a major institutional achievement obtained by the Party and the people through long-term practice in revolution, construction, and reform, based on a profound summary and absorption of the experiences and lessons of China's political development history in modern times. It is also a rational choice made by the Party and the people after "trial and error" in institutional learning, innovation, and change. As a great creation in the history of human political systems, the system of people's congresses possesses incomparable advantages over other political systems.
First, internal comparative advantage. The internal comparative advantage of the system of people's congresses primarily refers to its advantage compared to political systems in Chinese history. Since the beginning of the modern era, the Chinese people conducted arduous explorations regarding the historical task of "what kind of political system to establish," such as constitutional monarchy, the restoration of imperial rule, parliamentarianism, and the presidential system, yet all ended in failure. The most typical examples 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. It positioned a monarch or king as the head of state, with the highest power of the state actually or nominally held by one person. Under this bourgeois form of government, the monarch no longer enjoys the supreme authority and dignity found under feudal autocracy; the monarch's power is constrained to varying degrees by the constitution and parliament. Constitutional monarchy was the result of a compromise made by the bourgeoisie with the feudal aristocracy (the constitutional monarchies in the world today are a different matter). The bourgeois forces were weak while feudal forces were strong, and simultaneously, the feudal forces were partially "bourgeois-ified," leading to an incomplete bourgeois revolution. 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 and the struggle against imperialism and feudalism, nor could it provide an institutional guarantee for the Chinese nation to achieve national prosperity and the people's happiness.
The presidential system was the proposal of the Kuomintang represented by Chiang Kai-shek. Its essence was a personal dictatorship of the president or the one-party dictatorship of the Kuomintang. Its greatest characteristic was that the president resembled a feudal emperor, concentrating legislative, executive, and judicial powers in one person. The shell of the Kuomintang’s presidential system was a bourgeois democratic republic, but its core was feudalism. Historical experience shows that although adopting a presidential system in imitation of Western countries was a historical advancement compared to the feudal absolute monarchy, in a 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 Kuomintang’s presidential system could only be a "briefly flowering flower" [3].
In short, constitutional monarchy and the Kuomintang’s presidential system, as political programs that mechanically copied Western 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 realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
Second, external comparative advantage. The comparative advantage of the system of people's congresses primarily refers to its advantage compared to the 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 separation of powers is typically represented by the United States. The U.S. choice of the separation of powers was determined by the historical conditions, specific national circumstances, and class nature of the time; its core essence is the division, checks, and balances of power. However, U.S. actual political practice has almost never truly realized the separation of powers. This is because the American separation of powers actually lost its "class power-sharing" connotation after the bourgeoisie achieved revolutionary victory. In other words, the essence of the U.S. democratic slogan "sovereignty lies with the people" is "sovereignty lies with the monopoly oligarchy," alienating "mass democracy" into "elite democracy." Monopoly capitalists in fields such as finance, the military-industrial complex, media, and technology have stepped into and penetrated all "three powers" to ensure they "prosper regardless of the weather" [4]. Thus, the separation of powers cannot be truly realized. As the French political scholar Pierre Rosanvallon pointed out: "The American public basically no longer believes that the government serves the interests of the public. Most people believe that the U.S. political system is controlled by a few large interest groups, often leaving the public behind for their own interests."
The parliamentary cabinet system is typically represented by the United Kingdom, advocating "parliamentary supremacy." That is, the parliament is both the legislative body and the organ of power. The cabinet is composed of one or more parties that have obtained a majority of seats in parliament, is responsible to the parliament, and possesses the power to dissolve the parliament. 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 the representative of the Western advocacy for the "separation of powers," proposed this political viewpoint because he mistakenly believed the U.K. was a country implementing the "separation of powers." In fact, Montesquieu's understanding was erroneous; under the British parliamentary cabinet system, parliamentary politics is guided by a hidden hand—namely, party politics. The "parliamentary supremacy" of the British cabinet system is, in essence, "ruling party supremacy."
In short, although the bourgeois separation of powers and the parliamentary cabinet system represent historical progress compared to feudal autocracy, they are both built on the basis of an abstract theory of human nature. Using the imaginary fiction of the "social contract" as a pretense, they turn the separation of powers, the cabinet system, and "mass democracy" into mere forms. They cannot correctly reveal the essence of social democracy or realize true democratic politics; they remain as guarantees for "elite" interests.
II. The System of People's Congresses is the Most Important Vehicle for Whole-Process People's Democracy in Our Country
The institutionalization of democracy is the guarantee for the procedural and standardized nature of democracy, and institutional advantage is the key to the realization of 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 system of people's congresses," the taking root of whole-process people's democracy is inseparable from the real and effective vehicle of the system of people's congresses.
(1) The System of People's Congresses is the Broadest Manifestation of Whole-Process People's Democracy in Our Country Our country's whole-process people's democracy is the broadest socialist democracy, primarily manifested in "completeness of subjects" and "completeness of content." From the perspective of "completeness of subjects," our whole-process people's democracy includes the entire people within the scope of democracy, overcoming the limitation where "all previous movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities," and ensuring that all the people can participate in democratic practice. From the perspective of "completeness of content," our whole-process people's democracy includes all aspects of public affairs within the scope of democracy, ensuring that matters "as large as national legislation or as small as neighborhood trifles" can be resolved through democratic means, "allowing the masses to feel fairness and justice in every judicial case," and truly allowing the people to enjoy broad democratic rights. In short, the "all-encompassing subjects" and "all-encompassing content" of our whole-process people's democracy realize the development requirements of a complete democratic system and multi-faceted, multi-layered democracy, providing a realistic basis for the broadest socialist democracy.
The system of people's congresses is the broadest manifestation of our whole-process people's democracy, concentrated in its adherence to the leadership of the Party. Xi Jinping pointed out: "Finding the greatest common divisor of the will and demands of the whole society is the true meaning 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 such a staggering volume of broad democracy, our country must possess a strong and powerful leadership core. The Communist Party of China, as a Marxist party, has no special interests of its own. Standing on the political position of striving to realize the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people, it is the embodiment of the people's will and possesses the broadest representativeness of the people. The system of people’s congresses upholds the leadership of the Party, providing a guarantee for maintaining the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people and possessing the core subject for the broadest democracy. Furthermore, the system of people’s congresses takes the Party’s democratic centralism as its organizational principle, "constructing a democratic system covering over 9.6 million square kilometers, more than 1.4 billion people, and 56 ethnic groups," ensuring to the maximum extent that all the people broad participation in managing state and social affairs through people’s congresses at all levels. In short, through adhering to the leadership of the Party and the principle of democratic centralism, the system of people's congresses embodies the broad and vivid practice of whole-process people's democracy.
(2) The System of People's Congresses is the Most Genuine Expression of Whole-Process People's Democracy in Our Country Whole-process people's democracy in our country is the most genuine socialist democracy, primarily reflected in the "two endpoints of the process." First is the continuous improvement of the "input end" of our whole-process people's democracy. Our whole-process people's democracy does not exclude the spirit of "competitive elections," fully ensuring the people's right to vote according to their own will. Furthermore, to compensate for the deficiencies of electoral democracy, our whole-process people's democracy adds consultative democracy to the "input end," making electoral democracy and consultative democracy complementary and supportive of each other. Second is the continuous improvement of the "output end" of democracy. Our whole-process people's democracy "ensures that the people exercise democratic elections in accordance with the law, and also ensures that the people exercise democratic decision-making, democratic management, and democratic oversight," achieving a "full-chain democracy" with rational procedures and complete links in democratic operation. In short, whole-process people's democracy organically unifies the "input" and "output" ends of democracy, achieving the "unification of process democracy and results democracy, procedural democracy and substantive democracy, direct democracy and indirect democracy, and the people's will and the state's will." This "walking on two legs" [5] approach to democracy avoids the democratic trap of "walking on one leg" through electoral democracy alone, realizing a mature democracy where advantages complement each other to form a collective force, providing the internal basis for the most genuine socialist democracy.
The system of People’s Congresses is the most authentic expression of our country’s whole-process people's democracy, concentrated in its commitment to the rule of law. Law is an important manifestation of democratic will, and the most authentic democracy is one that is realized through legalization. Legalized democracy can prevent the occurrence of privileged events that transcend the law based on individual will, ensuring that the authenticity of democracy receives legal support through the maintenance of legal authority. Democracy and the legal system are inseparable; this 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 the leading position of the system of People’s Congresses within our country’s system of state institutions, determining that the state system must be created and formed—directly or indirectly—by the system of People’s Congresses, and that this system serves as the foundational root of our country’s state institutional framework. Furthermore, by promoting the spirit of the rule of law and advancing various democratic undertakings in strict accordance with relevant laws and regulations, the system of People’s Congresses guarantees the rule-of-law-based standardization of democratic implementation. In short, the system of People’s Congresses is the institutional and legal support for our country’s whole-process people's democracy. Without a system of People’s Congresses that complements whole-process people's democracy, the latter would become water without a source or a tree without roots [6]; it would become an empty and inauthentic slogan, unable to express its own reality.
(3) The system of People’s Congresses is the most effective guarantee for our country’s whole-process people's democracy.
“Democracy is not an ornament, not for decoration; it is used to solve the problems the people need solved.” Our country’s whole-process people's democracy is the most effective form of socialist democracy, and this is primarily reflected in the “people.” The report to the 20th CPC National Congress emphasized: “The country is the people, and the people are the country” [7]. 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 the people’s test. Our whole-process people's democracy consistently adheres to the principle of putting the people first and being people-centered, taking the realization of the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people as the starting point and goal of democratic construction. By establishing a comprehensive institutional system to guarantee the democratic right of the people to be 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 for our whole-process people's democracy, demonstrated centrally in its insistence that the people are the masters of the country. Whether a democracy is effective depends on whether the people truly exercise mastery. 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 engage in national and social affairs, ensuring their status as masters. The system requires that deputies maintain close contact with the people, particularly by listening to their opinions and accepting their supervision; this indicates that the ultimate orientation of the system is the people’s mastery. Furthermore, General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important expositions on the system of People’s Congresses—describing it as “an important institutional guarantee for the 'two miracles' [8],” a “good system,” a “brand-new political system,” and providing “three effective guarantees” [9]—serve as incisive explanations of why this system is the most effective guarantee for our whole-process people's democracy.
In conclusion, the system of People’s Congresses is the fundamental political institutional arrangement for maintaining and realizing the organic unity of Party leadership, the people’s mastery of the country, and the rule of law. It lays the fundamental institutional foundation and reliable guarantee for whole-process people's democracy and serves as the most extensive, authentic, and effective vehicle for its realization. Therefore, in practice, we must persist with and continuously improve the system of People’s Congresses over the long term, “adhere to the path of socialist political development with Chinese characteristics, comprehensively develop whole-process people's democracy, and fully 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 path of democratic political development has both internal laws and objective scientific evaluation criteria. Regarding how to evaluate whether a country’s political system is democratic and effective, Xi Jinping has provided profound answers using the “eight whethers” and the “four looks and four even-more-looks.” These standards follow the basic laws of modern political development, involve institutional arrangements of modern democratic politics, cover the main contents 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 developmental laws of state political systems, and enrich and develop Marxist political science theories regarding the state system.
First, whether the state leadership can be replaced in an orderly and law-based manner. The orderly replacement of state leadership can also be referred to as the orderly replacement of the central leadership. It is worth noting that “replacement” here skews toward the meaning of a continuous cycle rather than a one-off handover. The orderly replacement of state leadership represents the orderly transfer of power within the central leadership; it concerns the overall situation, the future, vitality, and stability. It is a strategic, global issue for the state. The orderly replacement of state leadership can promote and demonstrate a new political atmosphere and is a hallmark of whether a country’s political system is democratic and effective.
Through long-term practical exploration, China has made progress in the orderly replacement of state leadership by reforming and improving the leadership systems of the Party and the state. For example, we discarded the system of abdication [10] and hereditary succession, as well as the de facto life-tenure system for positions found in Western countries. We established a “Young Turks” [11] system to transform a single-tier echelon into a two-tier echelon, built a collective succession system, and implemented term-limit and election systems for leading cadres. These measures ensured the normal transition and orderly replacement of leading organs and leadership teams 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 world’s most developed capitalist country, the naked monetary relations between people in the U.S. are reflected in all aspects of economy and society, including the political sphere. Whether it is the presidential election, Congressional elections, or gubernatorial races, they are essentially “money elections.” Because candidates are backed by different “gold masters” (financial backers), mutual struggle, vilification, and obstruction are frequent. Furthermore, the relationship between American political parties is a competitive, veto-style relationship where “the predecessor builds the house and the successor tears down the beams.” Even after elections, fire-and-water generational conflicts persist, far from an orderly replacement of leadership. Coupled with the frequent role reversals between the ruling and opposition parties as their power waxes and wanes, the “pendulum effect”—where “you finish your performance and I take the stage” [12]—has become the norm. However, this norm is a discordant state achieved at the cost of social division; it is essentially a zero-sum game that cannot provide a healthy political ecosystem for the orderly replacement of national leadership.
Second, whether all the people can manage state affairs, social affairs, and economic and cultural undertakings in accordance with the law. The report to the 20th CPC National Congress 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 peasants, where all power belongs to the people.” The people are the masters of the state and society, enjoying the democratic right to manage state, social, economic, and cultural affairs. Effectively guaranteeing this right is conducive to expanding national and social democracy, perfecting the legal system, and constructing and consolidating political civilization.
China’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 law.” This provides the fundamental legal basis for all our people to manage these affairs. In reality, the Chinese people participate through various means, such as grassroots organizations, workers’ congresses in enterprises, and management of cultural, educational, health, and research organizations. They also manage grassroots social affairs through urban residents' committees and rural villagers' committees, and manage national and social affairs through the various levels of People's Congresses. Clearly, in democratic management, China is able to promote the people's spirit as masters and actively play their subjective role.
In contrast, the United States is built on the “democracy for the few” of the monopoly bourgeoisie. It primarily realizes management through multi-party competitive elections, failing to achieve management by “all the people.” This democratic method often becomes an alliance and arena for partisan and capital interests—a democratic feast or carnival manipulated by politicians and oligarchs to achieve specific ends. The result is not the real management of affairs by the American people, but rather the kidnapping and deviation of the public will and interest.
Third, whether the masses can smoothly express their interest requirements. Democratic politics requires the smooth expression of the masses’ interest demands as a prerequisite and foundation to find the "greatest common divisor" of those demands. 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 deep-rooted affection for them. It “adheres to the principal position of the people, fully embodies the people's will, guarantees the people's rights and interests, and stimulates the people's creative vitality,” continuously widening and smoothing the channels for expressing interests. For example, it solicits opinions through “open-door legislation,” grasps demands through the system of People’s Congresses and the Political Consultative Meetings, builds complaint channels through the petitioning system (letters and visits), collects needs through emerging network media, and reflects the people’s will through various neican [13] (internal reports and bulletins). Through these measures, the Party and government think what the people think and worry about what the people worry about, constructing a responsive democratic operation. This state is conducive to resolving social contradictions and preventing social risks, playing a foundational role in building a harmonious society. It is a realistic manifestation of the people-centered and people-first governing philosophy, and a vital sign of the Party’s "flesh-and-blood ties" with the masses.
In contrast, the United States understands and defines the smooth expression of interests as the “one person, one vote” periodic election, treating it as a proud democratic hallmark. While "voting-based decision-making" is a form of interest expression, the American version is the institutional incarnation of an “elitist view of democracy.” It is a narrow institutional implementation through which the American elite cloaks its own interests as the universal interests of the people. Under this model, the expression of the American people’s interests is a one-off, short-term event during polling; it lacks continuous, regular, and daily channels. In practice, this expression is often effective only during the vote and fails during implementation, severely lacking sustained political efficacy. Consequently, voter turnout in the U.S. is relatively low, often resulting in a cynical or passive mindset where it feels as though “expressing or not expressing” makes no difference.
Fourth, whether all sectors of society can effectively participate in the country’s political life. When everything “from constitutional amendments to trash sorting” can be subject to “consultation by all” and “thorough consultation,” the democratic participation mechanism can realize a cycle of “the masses propose, deputies decide, the government implements, and the People’s Congress evaluates.” Government decision-making can then truly be “determined by the people,” and the ordinary people become the ultimate beneficiaries.
The report to the 20th CPC National Congress clearly states:
"Unleashing the enthusiasm, initiative, and creativity of the masses to consolidate and develop a political situation characterized by vitality, 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. For example, before the state decides to implement a resolution, it extensively solicits opinions and suggestions from all sectors of the people. It respects their right to know, to participate, to express themselves, and to supervise, stimulating their enthusiasm for participation. By allowing the wisdom of all sectors of the people to shine, the subjective role of the broad masses in the resolution is fulfilled, maintaining and increasing democratic vitality. This effectively prevents phenomena such as "patriarchalism" [14] and "one-man rule" [15], demonstrating both democraticity and efficacy. Regarding the fields of social participation, before the state implements a resolution, it must attend to democratic rights in various fields such as politics, economy, culture, and society, realizing multi-dimensional democracy across all aspects of society.
In contrast, in the United States, the means of production are based on private monopoly; thus, it can only realize the active participation of a portion of the populace—primarily the wealthy class—in the country's political life. This essentially excludes the majority of the people from the gates of active participation, making them "spectators of political life." The United States primarily focuses the spotlight of national democratic life on the political and electoral spheres. Consequently, even when multi-issue "identity politics" are prominent and prevalent, they merely serve as a tool for the ruling class to dilute the class consciousness of the masses and create a "fragmentation" of interests and social division. This fundamentally fails to realize the rational demands and wide participation of "ought-to-be democracy" for the broad masses in vital fields such as 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 its failure is the greatest failure. To avoid failure, it is necessary to make 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 the scientific and democratic nature of national decision-making. Compared to individual decision-making mechanisms, the so-called collective decision-making mechanism follows the principle of democratic centralism—characterized as "collective leadership, democratic centralism, individual consultation, and meeting-based decision-making." [16] It gives full play to the wisdom and strength of the collective and the broad masses, optimizing the quality and procedures of decision-making through a process of "democracy, centralism, more democracy, and more centralism." "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, where regional differences are obvious and social interests are pluralistic, only by establishing this "pooling of wisdom" type of collective decision-making mechanism can we maximize the mobilization of various social forces and push our country toward the great goal of national rejuvenation.
Conversely, 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, although the U.S. State of the Union address is drafted, written, and repeatedly revised by presidential advisors and "literary scholars" [17], the decision-making and voting process often falls into a strange loop: "The President proposes, Congress rejects; the Republicans propose, the Democrats reject; the Democrats propose, the Republicans reject."
Sixth, whether talents from all fields can enter the national leadership and management system through fair competition. Talent is the most active, critical, and fundamental element in a national political system. When talent enters the leadership and management system through fair competition, it injects powerful intellectual momentum and innovative vitality into the democratic effectiveness of the political system.
China's national leadership and management system continuously reforms the personnel system, actively developing and improving a meritocratic mechanism that is full of vitality, where "the talented are employed, for every role there is a fit, and officials can be both promoted and demoted." By adhering to the principles of selecting personnel based on both integrity and ability, organizational recognition, and public consensus, the system extensively gathers outstanding talents from all walks of life to actively devote themselves to the great causes of the Party and the state, providing broad space and channels for the development of talent in various fields.
In contrast, in the United States, it is difficult for talents from various fields to enter the national leadership and management system through fair competition. This is because the talent in the American leadership and management systems possesses extremely deep family lineages; it is often a case of "generations born and raised within it," where multi-generational political dynasties and the phenomenon of "the closeness of officials and businessmen" are common. Whether regarding intergenerational family talent or mutually beneficial business-political talent, they can only develop in a distorted fashion under the ecological pattern of American money politics, oligarchy, and dynastic politics. Talent remains in a relatively frozen state for long periods, making it difficult for progressive individuals from all sectors who possess both integrity and ability to enter the leadership and management system through fair competition.
Seventh, whether the governing party can exercise leadership over state affairs in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the law. For a governing party to achieve scientific and democratic governance, it must treat the "heaviest weapon of the state"—the Constitution and laws—as the rules of governance. Only by taking the Constitution and laws as the governing party's own rules of governance can the subjectivity of the people in national governance be ensured, providing institutional and legal guarantees for the people to be masters of the country.
China continuously promotes the dialectical unity of law-based governance with scientific and democratic governance, forming the basic framework for our Party's governing style. Law-based governance is the basic strategy for the Party to lead the people in governing the country. In fact, China has formed and continuously improved a socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics, with the Constitution at its core. By upholding the integrated construction of a rule-of-law state, government, and society, the level of the rule of law throughout society is continuously improving. All of China's major legislative decisions undergo democratic deliberation and follow democratic procedures, fully reflecting the scientific nature of decision-making. This means our Party is able to lead national 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 Party leadership, the people being masters of the country, and law-based governance within the great practice of socialist democratic politics with Chinese characteristics, greatly promoting democracy, the 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 civil servants—acting as "economic men" (self-interested actors)—and various interest groups. This inevitably leads the U.S. governing party and interest groups to place the rationality of parties and interest groups above public reason, disregarding public and long-term interests for their own special and short-term interests. They are unable to fully lead national affairs according to Constitutional and legal provisions. Furthermore, unlike the high degree of conciseness and determinacy in the textual language of China's Constitution and laws, the U.S. Constitution and laws possess considerable elasticity and flexibility, failing to provide precise guarantees for the governing party to lead national affairs according to the law.
Eighth, whether the exercise of power can be effectively constrained and supervised. Building a comprehensive system of constraint and supervision over 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 CPC National Congress emphasized: "Go among the masses and stay close to them; always maintain flesh-and-blood ties with the people, and always accept their criticism and supervision." Only when power is effectively constrained and supervised can we prevent the principle of the people being masters of the country from becoming an empty promise. China follows the aspirations and requirements of the people for the constraint and supervision of power. Through self-reflection, comparative learning, and cumulative creation, it has gradually constructed a democratic operation mechanism for power constraint and supervision. For example, through institutional arrangements, China has formed a comprehensive and high-efficiency power constraint and supervision system under Party leadership (including the unique "inspection system" [18] at all levels). This mechanism integrates a punishment mechanism so people "dare not be corrupt," a prevention mechanism so they "cannot be corrupt," and a guarantee mechanism so they "do not want to be corrupt." Through educational enhancement, China ensures that public officials in power take advanced ideological ethics and solemn Party discipline and national laws into their "ears, brains, hearts, and actions." Through internalized perception, China allows public officials in power to have the courage to carry out criticism and self-criticism, making them hold power with awe, caution, and adherence to the bottom line, and allowing them to become accustomed to living and working under conditions of constraint and supervision.
Looking at the American democratic framework, the constraint and supervision of power exercise primarily rely on the "separation of powers," with national elections held every few years serving as the "vane" for power supervision. In its long-term implementation, this set of mechanisms has exposed limitations and inefficiency. This is because the "elites" holding power in the U.S. are long-term beneficiaries of funding, donations, and lobbying exchanges from monopoly cartels; scientific and efficient mechanisms for power constraint and supervision would seriously hinder their ability to obtain interests. The opportunity for a change of government through national elections must also be based on a cycle of many years. National elections are merely limited reforms carried out within the partial fields and fragmented policy scope of capitalism, unable to achieve thorough and effective constraint and supervision.
(2) The Four "Look at and, even more importantly, look at" Judgment Criteria
The four "look at and, even more importantly, look at" and the eight "whethers" regarding democratic politics are innovative theories that comprehensively and objectively clarify whether a country's political system is democratic and effective. This can be verified through a comparative analysis of the characteristics and practical effects of the democratic systems in China and the United States.
First, look at whether the people have the right to vote, and even more importantly, look at whether they have the right to extensive participation. When people have the right to vote, they can freely express their individual will, but having only the right to vote is far from enough. While the political right to equality of "one person, one vote" may be achieved, other political inequalities, as well as inequalities in economic and social rights, may still exist. To solve this problem, the people must have full and extensive rights of participation. Participation is the core of democratic politics. As Xi Jinping pointed out, "If the people are only given the right to vote but no right of extensive participation—in other words, if they are awakened only at the time of voting and go into hibernation afterwards—this kind of democracy is nothing but formalism." Thus, it is very important that through democratic elections and systems and methods other than elections, the people can deeply participate in the management of national and social life.
China's 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 the Chinese people have the right to vote to express their individual will, demonstrating that "election is the starting point of democracy." Furthermore, according to the law, the Chinese people have the right to participate in the management of state and social affairs, as well as economic and cultural undertakings, through various channels and forms, such as consultations, expert seminars, inquiry meetings, demonstration meetings, colloquiums, hearings, evaluation meetings, deliberative councils, criticisms, and suggestions. It is evident that the Chinese people not only have the right to vote but also the right to extensive participation. They can not only effectively express their democratic will but also fully exercise their rights of "democratic election, democratic consultation, democratic decision-making, democratic management, and democratic supervision."
In contrast, the United States focuses its democratic efforts on competitive elections, the core procedure of which is "the ruled people selecting leaders through competitive elections." It is clear that the United States emphasizes liberal electoral democracy while neglecting governance-based participatory democracy. This democratic practice of replacing substantive justice with procedural justice is essentially formalistic and false. This false democracy exists primarily because American electoral democracy is a converter of capital power into political power; it essentially follows the logic of capital and is subject to the erosion and manipulation of money from major cartels and interest groups. This causes the political direction of the election winners to be swayed by moneyed interests and group selfishness, making it difficult to represent the will and interests of the broadest masses of the people. Therefore, the United States has only the formal democracy of voting rights, without the substantive democracy of extensive participation rights.
Second, look at what verbal promises the people receive during the election process, and even more importantly, look at 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, because this is not only a convention but also a future plan 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 turning verbal promises into concrete actions. As Xi Jinping stated, "If the people are only awakened during voting and then go into hibernation, if they only listen to high-sounding slogans during the campaign but have no say after the election, or if they are favored only when soliciting votes but are left out in the cold after the election, such a democracy is not a true democracy." It is clear that while responding to the needs and demands of the people and making verbal promises, the Party and the government must follow through with effective actions.
The Party and the government of our country maintain a high level of sustained attention and continuous responsiveness to the demands of the people’s interests and needs. This is because the democratic links in our country are complete, covering the entire process of five major democratic dimensions: democratic elections, democratic consultation, democratic decision-making, democratic management, and democratic supervision. This has formed a systematic "full-chain democracy," overcoming the "half-way democracy" [19] that emphasizes elections while neglecting management, and avoiding the unhealthy phenomenon and embarrassing situation of "having democracy only during elections, but none after they are over." This ensures that the verbal promises made to our people during the election process can be realized after the election.
Conversely, under the U.S. system of "partisan democracy," "electoral parties" are often "giants in speech but dwarfs in action" when it comes to electoral promises and their implementation. American candidates obtain votes through news-driven, performative, and spectacle-oriented "shows." Their true concern is not the demands of the general electorate, but rather the demands of the "gold masters" (donors) and interest groups backing them. (Unlike the "imperial power politics" of feudal autocratic societies, capital-autocratic societies are characterized by "money-power politics" or "capital-power politics.") While the American people can easily obtain sky-high verbal promises during the election process, these promises are cast aside afterward, becoming "empty checks" that are only minimally fulfilled.
Third, we must look at what kind of political procedures and rules the system and laws prescribe, but even more so, we must look at 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 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 ornaments that cannot be effectively implemented, they are reduced to being "nominal."
The political procedures and rules prescribed by our country's systems and laws are very strict. For example, regarding the full-process elective procedures and forms for national people's deputies and the National People's Congress (NPC), various forms such as preliminary investigation and consultation, preparatory elections, secret ballot elections, and competitive elections [20] are adopted. These include both top-down organizational nominations and bottom-up free elections, representing a substantive procedural democracy. Furthermore, under the principle of "democratic centralism," our country’s systems and laws possess a "nationwide" execution advantage. As Deng Xiaoping stated, "The greatest superiority of socialist countries is that once a matter is decided upon and a resolution made, it is immediately executed without being hampered by internal friction." Consequently, our country's systems and laws truly achieve the unification of the expression of public opinion and the satisfaction of public opinion, realizing a "strong and high democracy" characterized by robust executive power and high total performance.
In contrast, while U.S. systems and laws prescribe political procedures and rules, they are much weaker than those in China. This is because interest groups and major political parties in various countries based on the private ownership of the means of production often weaken certain political procedures and rules through gaming or collusion, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The goals and results of executing systems and laws differ vastly; one frequently sees cases where a bill proposed by the President’s administration 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 legitimate and reasonable bills or even the situation of "discussing without deciding, deciding without acting," exemplified by the U.S. government shutdowns caused by fiscal crises. This demonstrates that in a political ecosystem that is as incompatible as fire and water and frequently in a state of white-heat, a bill cannot truly take root and ultimately becomes nothing more than an "empty check."
Fourth, we must look at whether the rules and procedures for the operation of power are democratic, but even more so, we must look at whether power is truly subject to the supervision and restraint of the people. The people are the legitimate source of all states' power. Since power originates from the people and is entrusted by them, it must only be used to serve the people, seek benefits for the people, and be responsible to the people. 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 stands up to take responsibility can we avoid the situation where 'when the leader dies, the policy ends'" [21]. Countless historical experiences show that the less effective supervision and restraint power faces, the greater the possibility of abuse and corruption. Only when power is truly subject to all-around and strict supervision by the people can its important role be better utilized.
Through years of practice and improvement, our country has basically realized the institutionalization, proceduralization, and standardization of power operation rules and procedures, further enhancing the vitality and anti-corruption nature of power while preventing power from both existing "without a cage" and from being "caged by capital." For instance, we have formulated and implemented systems ensuring that those in power do not dare to be corrupt, that the corrupt are strictly punished, and that bribery and the acceptance of bribes are attacked together. We have perfected systems for the transparency of Party affairs, government affairs, judicial affairs, and transparency in various fields of operation. We have improved systems for inquiry, accountability, economic liability auditing, resignation for negligence, and recall. Simultaneously, we have proposed and implemented systems including intra-Party supervision, intra-government supervision, NPC supervision, supervision by democratic parties, supervision by personages without party affiliation, supervision by scientists, and mass supervision, allowing power to operate "in the sunshine." This multi-layered systematic supervision and restraint in our country inherits and carries forward the fine traditional styles of the ruling party, the NPC, and the People's Government: maintaining close ties with the masses, self-criticism, and self-revolution.
Conversely, the operation of power in the United States struggles to be subject to broad supervision and powerful restraint by the people. Amidst the political landscape of numerous "lobbying firms" and capped or uncapped campaign donations, the majority of the people become "puppets" manipulated by bourgeois elites from all walks of life using pre-arranged democratic scripts. They cooperate in performing "great shows" of democracy but are unable to effectively supervise or restrain the fraudulent democratic behavior of capitalism.
The Charter of the Communist Party of China, adopted by the 20th National Congress, summarizes: "We must persist in 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 more extensive, more adequate, 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 great changes unseen in a century, to break the "superstition in Western-style democracy" and "worship of Western systems" represented by the United States, we must unswervingly hold high the scientific banner of whole-process people's democracy and persist in and improve the system of people’s congresses. We must 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—especially by strengthening the leading role of legislation and the practical effect of inspection—so that institutional advantages can be better transformed into national governance efficacy. In doing so, we will better consolidate the hearts of the people, gather public opinion, and together write a new chapter of socialist political civilization with Chinese characteristics, making new and great contributions to the development and progress of human political civilization.
(Authors: Cheng Enfu, Chief Expert of the Center for Innovative Marxism at Northwestern Polytechnical University, Chief Professor and Member of the Academic Division of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Member of the Education, Science, Culture and Public Health Committee of the 13th National People's Congress. Sun Shaoyong, Director of the Center for Innovative Marxism at Northwestern Polytechnical University, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the School of Marxism.)
Online Editor: Cai Hong Source: Studies on Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping Theories, Issue 10, 2022.