Zhao Chunli: An Analysis of the Unique View of Democracy Contained in Chinese-Style Modernization
General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in his important speech at the opening ceremony of the seminar on studying and implementing the spirit of the 20th CPC National Congress: "The unique worldviews, values, and views on history, civilization, democracy, and ecology inherent in Chinese-path modernization, as well as its great practices, constitute major innovations in the theory and practice of world modernization." Lenin believed that "in this or that form of democracy... every nation will have its own characteristics." Empirical research demonstrates that East Asian views on democracy have their own uniqueness, as do those within the Confucian cultural sphere and, specifically, within China. The unique view of democracy inherent in Chinese-path modernization consists of a series of theories, perspectives, and opinions on democracy formed by the Communist Party of China in the process of exploring the path of Chinese-path modernization. Based on the practice of democratic development within the global modernization process and the horizon of human political civilization, it both adheres to the general principles of democracy in modernization and distinguishes itself from the view of democracy in classical modernization theory. It inherits, enriches, and develops the Marxist view of democracy at the levels of ontology, epistemology, and methodology. It is a profound summary and elucidation of the laws governing Chinese-path modernization and the construction of socialist democracy, finding concentrated expression in the theory of whole-process people's democracy, and manifesting characteristics of uniqueness, comprehensiveness, and progressiveness. Current academic circles have conducted in-depth interdisciplinary and multi-dimensional research on Chinese-path modernization, providing thorough interpretations of the theory of whole-process people's democracy from the perspectives of values, institutions, practice, and discourse, and exploring the view of democracy inherent in Chinese-path modernization. Some scholars have also conducted deep analyses of the epistemological functions, ontology, epistemology, and methodology of whole-process people's democracy. Taken as a whole, however, research on the view of democracy from the perspective of Chinese-path modernization is not yet sufficiently systematic or profound. There are few studies that clearly explain the uniqueness of the democratic view of Chinese-path modernization from the philosophical heights of worldview and methodology. This provides space for us to explore this topic through the lenses of democratic ontology, epistemology, and methodology.
I. Democratic Ontology: Adhering to the Return and Practice of the Essence of Democracy in the Process of Chinese-path Modernization
Ontology is a philosophical concept; its original meaning is to investigate the origin and essence of the world—that is, the most important and core issues that constitute the world. Democratic ontology answers the question of what democracy actually is. Marx pointed out: "It must possess a certain meaning, or it cannot exist. Therefore, the whole point lies in determining the true meaning of democracy." From an ontological perspective, democratic ontology inquires into who enjoys democracy, whom it serves, and what goals it aims to achieve. The essence of democracy is that the people are the masters of the country [1], and its ultimate value lies in realizing and safeguarding the fundamental interests of the people. How is the people's status as masters of the country manifested? Generally speaking, there are two typical approaches. One emphasizes the people being masters in a formal and procedural sense. This view of democracy emphasizes representative systems and competitive elections, forming a Western-style exclusionary and interest-partitioning procedural view of democracy. It identifies this form as the "only choice" or the "end of history," establishing a "democratic monism" and universalism within the modernization process. The other approach emphasizes the people being masters in terms of content and substance. Whole-process people's democracy, formed in the process of Chinese-path modernization, emphasizes the principal status of the people in democratic politics. At the ontological level, it redefines the essence of democracy as the all-round participation of the people in political, economic, and cultural fields. This theoretical innovation both breaks through the abstract view of rights found in Western representative democracy and transcends the monarch-people dual structure of traditional "people-as-the-foundation" [2] thought, forming a Chinese-path inclusive and developmental substantive view of democracy. The reconstruction of democratic ontology by Chinese-path modernization is, in essence, a paradigm innovation of human political civilization. At the philosophical level, this innovation breaks through the individualistic ontology of Western democracy and establishes a dialectical view of democracy that unifies the individual with the collective, freedom with order, and form with substance. The substantive view of democracy established by Chinese-path modernization realizes the mutual promotion of democratic development and modernization construction, achieving the practice and return of the essence of democracy.
(1) Constructing a Democratic Ontology with the People as the Subject of Value, Power, and Practice
The report to the 20th CPC National Congress pointed out: "People's democracy is the lifeblood of socialism and is integral to the comprehensive construction of a modern socialist country." The construction of the democratic ontology in Chinese-path modernization is rooted in the Marxist historical materialism. It is an inheritance and development of the Marxist view of democracy, achieving a creative transformation and innovative development in combination with the traditional political wisdom of Chinese civilization.
Marxism emphasizes that the people are the creators of history and that the essence of democracy is "the people being masters of their own affairs." The view of democracy inherent in Chinese-path modernization inherits and develops this ontological cognition, establishing the ultimate status of the people as the subjects of power, practice, and value. It shifts democracy from the "social contract" of rights-transfer in Western political philosophy toward a practical ontology. Marxism holds that the subjects of democracy should be the broad masses of the people, emphasizing that the people are the masters of the state and all power in the state belongs to the people. In A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Marx clearly pointed out that the subject of democracy should be the people: "In democracy, the constitution appears as what it is, the free product of men... In monarchy we have the people of the constitution; in democracy the constitution of the people." He believed that "it is not the constitution that creates the people, but the people who create the constitution," and "in democracy the constitution, the law, the state itself, insofar as it is a political constitution, is only the self-determination of the people, and a particular content of the people." In capitalist society, the essence of democracy is bourgeois democracy. To truly realize the people as masters of the country, the proletariat must establish its own democratic rule and a new state system—one that can truly express the people's will, realize popular sovereignty, and ensure the people are both the source of power and the subjects of governance. The view of democracy in Chinese-path modernization inherits the Marxist democratic ontology regarding the people's principal status, establishing the concept of the "people" as a collective political subject. It recognizes that the people are the true creators of history, emphasizing that the broad masses are the true subjects of democracy and that democracy serves the people. It strives to ensure that the masses can exercise their abilities fairly and freely, sublimating democracy from a "set of rules for power games" into the people's self-governance, self-improvement, and self-perfection. General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed that "developing socialist democratic politics is about reflecting the people's will, protecting the people's rights and interests, and stimulating the people's creative vitality." By fully respecting the people's subjectivity and their pioneering spirit, the initiative, enthusiasm, and creativity of the people are released, providing a powerful impetus for the construction of Chinese-path modernization.
Fine traditional Chinese culture contains rich political wisdom regarding the people as the foundation. For instance, the Book of Documents (Shujing) states, "The people are the foundation of the state" [3], and "Heaven hears as my people hear; Heaven sees as my people see." The Book of Rites (Liji) mentions "the world belongs to the public" [4]. Mencius contains ideas like "The people are the most important, the altars of the gods of earth and grain come next, and the ruler is the least important" [5], and "There is a way to get the kingdom: get the people, and the kingdom is got." Propositions in fine traditional Chinese culture such as "acting for the people," "trusting the people," "loving the people," and "nurturing the people" still offer inspiration for the development of modern democratic politics. Although traditional "people-as-foundation" (minben) thought contains values like "the people are the foundation of the state" and "the people are more important than the ruler," its ontological logic remains centered on "Heavenly Mandate—Monarch" as the ultimate authority, leaving the masses in a subordinate position. Whether it is the indirect authorization of "Heaven hears as my people hear" in the Book of Documents or the moral obligation of "benevolent government and love for the people" in Confucianism, they essentially regard the "people" as an instrumental carrier for the legitimacy of rule. Their welfare depends on the ethical self-awareness of the monarch and lacks institutional power guarantees. The view of democracy in Chinese-path modernization inherits the traditional value core of "taking the people as the foundation." Through the transformation and integration with Marxist philosophy and modern political civilization, it has eliminated the passive, subordinate, and instrumental status of the people found in traditional minben thought. It has achieved a paradigmatic leap from "instrumental people-centralism" to "subjective democracy," reconstructing a new political philosophy paradigm centered on "people's subjectivity." This integration and transformation maintain the political attributes of socialist democracy while endowing it with the unique ethical and value dimensions of Chinese civilization, constructing a foundation for legitimacy with civilizational continuity at the philosophical level. The democratic view of Chinese-path modernization takes Marxist historical materialism as its theoretical foundation, reconstructing the political ontology through "people's subjectivity theory" and establishing the fundamental status of the people as the creators of history and the owners of power. This breakthrough is manifested in three dimensions.
First, at the level of existence (ontology), it overturns traditional power structures. With the assertion that "the country is the people, and the people are the country" [6], it elevates the people from political objects to subjects of power. In the political sphere, it constructs the institutional system of whole-process people's democracy, establishing the principle that "all power belongs to the people" through the Constitution. It transforms "people's subjectivity" into the legal procedure of "the people exercising state power" and realizes the practical transformation of popular sovereignty through the system of whole-process people's democracy. In the economic sphere, it innovates the "three-way distribution" mechanism [7] and achieves the material confirmation of subjectivity through the goal of "common prosperity." In the cultural sphere, it activates the modern transformation of traditional minben thought, sublimating the classical wisdom of "the people are the foundation of the state" into the development concept of "centered on the people," forming a historical continuity of subjective construction.
Second, at the level of axiology (values), it breaks through the ethical limitations of "instrumental people-centralism." It combines the collective concern of minben with Marxist democratic theory to build a modern democratic system where rights and obligations are unified. Through the rule of law, it guarantees civil rights such as the right to vote, participate, and supervise, turning democracy from a moral favor granted by rulers into an institutional path for the people's self-realization.
Third, at the level of praxeology (practice), it transcends the traditional "static harmony" governance model. It reconstructs the political community with a dynamic governance philosophy of "extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits." It embeds the "people-centered" approach into the entire process of policy formulation and execution. Through the institutional innovation of whole-process people's democracy, it transcends the Western individualistic paradigm of representative democracy. It promotes the leap of "people-centered" thought from an abstract ideal to concrete governance practice, sublimating democracy from a "technique of checks and balances" into a means of realizing "the value of the people as subjects."
(2) Practicing a People-Centered, Result-Oriented Substantive View of Democracy
In the journey of continuous struggle to realize Chinese-path modernization, the broad masses are not only the main subjects building this grand cause but also the primary recipients sharing the fruits of Chinese-path modernization. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "The ultimate goal of modernization is to realize the free and well-rounded development of individuals." The essence of modernization is the modernization of people. The struggle goals and planning deployments of Chinese-path modernization embody the original aspiration and founding mission of Chinese Communists and are a vivid presentation of the CPC's adherence to the people-centered development philosophy. Lenin proposed: "Only from [the beginning of] socialism will there begin a rapid, genuine, truly mass forward movement, embracing first the majority and then the whole of the population, in all spheres of public and private life." Only socialism can ensure that democracy is not merely formal and procedural but is factually and essentially "people-centered" rather than centered on the interests of capital or other groups. This ensures the correct "people-centered" direction in modernization construction and guarantees that modernization results are shared by the people. The American scholar [Carl] Cohen once noted that the substance of democracy is far more important than its form: "We must remember that the existence or nonexistence of democracy does not depend on any particular form of institution, but on the nature of the actual decision-making process."
The conception of democracy within Chinese-path modernization exhibits significant characteristics of substantive justice at the practical level. It transforms ontological commitments into governance efficacy, achieving a dialectical unity of value orientation, institutional innovation, and governance effectiveness. The socialist economic system with Chinese characteristics is dominated by socialist public ownership. This fundamentally alters the political logic of Western states wherein capital dominates state power, and it transcends the dominance and control over citizens' democratic rights exercised by capital in Western nations. The socialist economic system with Chinese characteristics makes possible the realization of substantive democracy—a democracy centered on the people and oriented toward the free and well-rounded development of individuals. In the process of Chinese-path modernization, the protection of people's rights, the maintenance of their fundamental interests, and the practice of lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty to pursue common prosperity have fundamentally benefited from the strong guarantee and material support provided by the socialist economic system with Chinese characteristics.
The socialist political system with Chinese characteristics has constructed a composite democratic structure of "extending from electoral democracy to consultative democracy." Through the organizational principle and system of "democratic centralism," it has established highly accountable and responsive people's governments at all levels, continuously responding to the people's needs and expectations for a better life. Through the system of People's Congresses, consultative democracy systems such as political consultation led by the Communist Party of China (CPC), systems of self-governance by urban and rural residents, and the system of regional ethnic autonomy, the people participate in and manage state affairs at all levels within the modernization process. Through people's democracy, the strategic goals of socialist modernization—which reflect and express the fundamental and long-term interests of the masses—are organically unified with the immediate and local interests of the people.
For instance, the "targeted poverty alleviation" policy determined aid recipients through democratic procedures such as grassroots democratic consultation, villagers' meetings, and the "Four Discussions and Two Openings" [8]. This fully mobilized the enthusiasm of the masses to participate, ensuring they truly became the subjects of the poverty alleviation process and embodying the principle of the people as masters of the country. Another example is the "opening the doors to draft the plan" form of democratic participation, which pools the rationality and wisdom of the populace, encourages citizens to consider the nation's long-term interests, and overcomes short-sighted populist phenomena. This approach drives modernization forward steadily, one step at a time. Through these institutional arrangements, the conception of democracy in Chinese-path modernization practices the value pursuit of substantive democracy, achieving a paradigmatic breakthrough from "formal justice" to "substantive justice." It overcomes the "capital-supremacy trap" of deficient Western democracy by pointing directly toward the substantive goal of people's interests, and avoids the "populist trap" of excessive democracy. Consequently, it avoids the "idling crisis" [9] of Western democracy while realizing the unity of scientific decision-making and representativeness of public opinion.
This democratic model, centered on the people and oriented toward outcome efficacy, not only provides a path of reference for developing countries but also proves the possible form of "democratic authenticity" at a philosophical level, becoming an important milestone in the evolution of human political civilization. It provides a governance solution centered on "the people's character" (人民性) at the level of global political civilization, highlighting the philosophical wisdom of the dialectical unity between Chinese cultural traditions and modernity.
II. Democratic Epistemology: Gaining a Regularity-Based Understanding of Democratic Construction from the Practice of Chinese-path Modernization
The understanding of the laws governing democratic construction and development in the process of Chinese-path modernization is based on the cognitive foundation of historical materialism. It views democracy as a product of the interaction between social existence and social consciousness, rather than an abstract theoretical framework. The laws and logic of democratic development all derive from practice and are tested by practice. For example, the "Fengqiao Experience" [10] extracted a logic of democratic governance from grassroots practice: "reelying on the masses to resolve contradictions on the spot." The viewpoint of practice is a fundamental viewpoint of Marxism; practice is not only an important category of Marxist philosophy but also the theoretical foundation and methodological basis of Marxism. Only by understanding democratic issues in the process of modernization based on practice can we obtain a regularity-based and truth-based understanding of democracy. Only then can we leap beyond the "stereotypical theorems" written in the academic works or textbooks of Western scholars to form a unique conception of democracy based on the nation, national conditions, and the socialist economic base.
The unique conception of democracy contained in Chinese-path modernization is not a subjective fantasy of the CPC or the Chinese people. It is a regularity-based summary and correct viewpoint regarding socialist democratic construction formed by the CPC leading the Chinese people through practical exploration of modernization. It is deeply rooted in Marxist epistemology based on historical materialism, breaking through the metaphysical limitations of Western democratic theory and shattering the historical idealist democratic epistemology of the "End of History" [11].
(1) Dissolving the Discourse Hegemony of Dependent Development through Civilizational Subjectivity to Establish an Autonomously Evolving Path for Democratic Growth
The development of democratic politics in the process of Chinese-path modernization has broken through the cognitive framework of Western-centrism, establishing a democratic epistemology of autonomous evolution and practical verification. In the process of modernization, healthy democracy generally possesses endogenous growth laws, manifested as the exploration of a democratic path with subjectivity and autonomy, a gradually improving process of institutional construction and development, and a democratic system with its own characteristics and realism. Democracy is an institutional arrangement for power restraint and rights protection based on a country's national conditions, politics, history, cultural tradition, and class structure. Those democratic models proven to be relatively successful are all democratic systems that suit their own national conditions and carry their own "cultural genes"—that is, they have primarily "grown" out of the country's own cultural matrix. These belong to the "endogenous political modernization model." As noted, "a nation with a great and long historical tradition must adapt its excellent historical civilization to the new requirements of the times; it must never be discarded or despised."
We have realized through the practice of modernization that democracy cannot be achieved by simple transplantation; one must explore a path suited to oneself through one's own practical development. After experiencing twists and turns in modernization and democratic construction, Deng Xiaoping repeatedly emphasized that "for China to achieve modernization, it must never pursue liberalization, and it must never take the Western capitalist road." He noted, "When we speak of democracy, we cannot copy bourgeois democracy; we cannot adopt that system of the separation of the three powers." General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that "all nations that have successfully developed and revitalized are those that have found a path suited to their own actual conditions." Those countries that successfully realized modernization—whether through endogenous or exogenous modernization—all carried out major reforms in the political sphere. Their political reforms and democratic construction involved path choices and institutional explorations based on their own national conditions, and they focused on following the endogenous factors of democratic growth. In the process of Chinese-path modernization, by adhering to the subjectivity and autonomy of political development, China has successfully explored a "three-in-one" path of democratic political development that adapts to modernization: "the organic unity of Party leadership, the people as masters of the country, and the rule of law."
The path of democratic development pioneered by Chinese-path modernization is neither a simple transplantation of Western democratic theory nor a mechanical continuation of traditional governance models. Instead, it breaks through the shackles of dependency theory. By activating the consciousness of subjectivity within civilizational genes and transforming civilizational subjectivity into the genetic code of institutional construction, it has achieved the creative activation of traditional governance wisdom and the autonomous growth of institutional rationality during the transformation to modernization. Through the modern decoding of civilizational genes, China has shattered the linear democratic evolutionism preset by Western modernization theory, which assumes that "the democratic society currently existing in developed Western countries is a reliable model for the rest of the world."
From the perspective of civilizational subjectivity, the governance concept of "the people as the foundation of the state" (民惟邦本) from fine traditional Chinese culture has achieved a value coupling with the system of People's Congresses. The traditional philosophical wisdom of "harmony without uniformity" (和而不同) has been transformed into the procedural design of the political consultation system. This institutional innovation is neither a simple return to the tradition of "rule by rites" (礼治) nor a mechanical transplantation of representative democracy. Rather, it transforms collective rationality from civilizational genes—such as the value consensus of "the world belongs to the public" (天下为公) [12]—into the underlying logic of modern state governance. For example, during the formulation of the "14th Five-Year Plan," a composite mechanism of "public suggestions – expert demonstration – democratic consultation" was used to transform over a million citizen opinions into an organic part of the national strategy. This policy-making mechanism transcends the fragmented decision-making model of Western interest group lobbying and breaks through the path dependency set by traditional dependency theory.
From a methodological level, China has created a two-way movement mechanism for institutional evolution. It has constructed a composite democratic ecosystem of "election + consultation" with Chinese characteristics, transforming civilizational subjectivity into a practical tool for overcoming the dilemma of dependency. By innovating the practical methods of democratic centralism and the CPC's mass line, it has achieved the coordinated advancement of modernization and political stability. This resolves the "Huntington Paradox"—the institutionalization dilemma of late-developing countries—proposed by Samuel Huntington: that "modernity brings stability, but modernization causes instability."
Regarding the democratic process, we have recognized through domestic and international experience that the democratic process must be gradual; we do not engage in "shock therapy" or "Flying-from-Afar Peak" [13] approaches to the political system. As a holistic historical process, modernization must emphasize the development of productive forces while also highlighting the counter-action of the superstructure, continuously making reform adjustments based on changes in the economic base and the state of productive forces to promote coordination between democratic construction and the modernization of the productive forces. Democratic development has both long-term strategic plans and phased goals; it is impossible to "achieve the whole task in one stroke" (毕其功于一役). If democratic development exceeds its proper limits, it will lead to its opposite. Modernization without democracy is incomplete and prone to "traps," while democracy without modernization will fall into poverty and chaos. The history of modernization shows that one cannot unilaterally promote the great development of productive forces without reforming the relations of production and the superstructure, nor can one unilaterally pursue a "Great Leap Forward" of the superstructure. "One cannot imagine suddenly transplanting a 'Flying-from-Afar Peak' in the political system." Democracy cannot be set as an abstract premise; one cannot build the "skyscraper" of democratic politics before the "foundation" is laid. One cannot engage in a one-way breakthrough of democratic political construction. Rather, one must carry out transformations and adjustments according to the state of the productive forces and the economic base, gradually improving democratic institutions. The immense achievements of Chinese-path modernization demonstrate the importance and superiority of advancing democratic political construction in tandem with the modernization of the economic base and the productive forces.
(2) Using the Three-Dimensional Evaluation Criteria of "Most Extensive, Most Genuine, and Most Effective" Democracy to Break Through the Single Western Cognitive Framework of "Competitive Elections"
The conception of democracy in Chinese-path modernization reconstructs the coordinate system for evaluating democratic politics. It breaks through the habitual thinking that alienates democracy into a mere procedural technique, turning instead toward a holistic grasp of the subjects, processes, and efficacy of democratic practice. While the West simplifies electoral competition as the gold standard of democracy, China has developed the Marxist party's stance on the side of the people and the traditional Chinese concept of "politics centered on the people's heart" (民心政治) into the value core of whole-process people's democracy, using this as the standard for democratic evaluation. After World War II, Western academia created a tradition of democratic discourse characterized by "scientification," "indexation," and the equation "democracy = elections." They monopolized the criteria for evaluating democracy, making competitive elections the most important—even the sole—yardstick for judging whether a polity is democratic, while whether the people can truly act as masters of the country became secondary. In response, some Western scholars have also criticized defining democracy as a competition for votes among elites, arguing that in the name of realism, this "strips democracy of all ethical content." The conception of democracy in Chinese-path modernization adheres to the standards of historical materialism in evaluation, judging whether a system is democratic based on facts rather than definitions and theories. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that our democracy is "the most extensive, most genuine, and most effective democracy." This view of democratic evaluation, based on objective practice and results, discards metaphysical cognitions of democracy.
General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Whether a country is democratic or not depends on whether the people are truly the masters of the country. It depends on whether the people have the right to vote, and more importantly, whether they have the right to extensive participation; it depends on what verbal promises the people receive during the election process, and more importantly, how many of these promises are fulfilled after the election; it depends on what kind of political procedures and rules are prescribed by systems and laws, and more importantly, whether these systems and laws are truly implemented; it depends on whether the rules and procedures for the exercise of power are democratic, and more importantly, whether power is truly overseen and constrained by the people." This standard firmly grounds the criteria for judging whether a political system is democratic in the realization and protection of people's rights, in the governance structure and effectiveness of the state during the modernization process, and in the efficacy of being "the most extensive, most genuine, and most effective." It breaks through the metaphysical thinking of Western political science—which starts from conceptual definitions and data models, resulting in an inversion of theory and reality—and proceeds from the basic requirement of historical materialism to "seek truth from facts." By conducting a scientific evaluation of whether a political system is democratic, the standard for measurement is no longer the existence of free, competitive, multi-party elections. A survey based on public perceptions of democracy in 23 countries shows the highest levels of agreement with statements such as "the public can express their interests and demands through unimpeded channels" (91.4%), "democracy should focus on solving the people's practical problems" (91.4%), and "state power should be effectively overseen by the public" (91.2%). Among these, developing countries showed the highest agreement with "democracy should focus on solving the people's practical problems" (92.4%), while global youth aged 18-35 showed the highest agreement with the principle that "the public can express their interests and demands through unimpeded channels," reaching 92.3%. The essence of democracy lies not in formalistic adversarial performances, but in whether it can form the broadest political consensus, construct the most genuine channels for participation, and achieve the most effective transformations in governance.
In reality, there are two traditions of democracy. One originates in ancient Greece and flourished in the Western democratic tradition of Britain and America; this is the democracy familiar to most. The second originates from the Marxist theory of the state. This democratic tradition is closely integrated with the socialist movements of the modern era, the revolutionary processes of colonial and semi-colonial countries pursuing democratic nation-building, and the contemporary "creative transformation and innovative development" [14] of traditional Chinese "people-as-the-center" (minben) [15] thought, striving to return to the essence of people’s democracy. The democracy inherent in Chinese-path modernization is the inheritance and development of this second democratic tradition. Under the hegemony of Western democratic discourse and theory, this second tradition has been neglected by academic circles both at home and abroad, leaving the democratic politics of socialism with Chinese characteristics without a fully effective, scientific, and rational academic expression. To break through the framing and blind spots of Western democratic standards, we must return to this second democratic tradition and construct China's independent academic knowledge and discourse system for democratic politics.
Our Party’s proposal of the "Eight Whethers," the "Four Looks and Four More-to-Looks," [16] and the "Six Effective Preventions" [17] represents a transcendence of Western democratic traditions and standards, serving as a model for constructing an independent Chinese knowledge system. Evaluating whether a country is democratic should proceed from the facts and effects of a country's institutional operations, from the actual feelings of the people, from whether democratic efficacy serves the requirements of modernization, and with the ultimate goal of whether it enables the people to lead a better life. It evaluates democracy from a functional perspective rather than a formalistic one. As some scholars have pointed out, systems that appear "democratic" in form (such as having periodic elections and multi-party competition) do not necessarily operate according to democratic principles; today’s Western democracy has become an "alienated democracy, a castrated democracy, a harmless democracy, and a de-functionalized democracy."
When Western political theory falls into the cognitive trap of "election fundamentalism," the three-dimensional standard of Chinese democratic practice provides new possibilities for reconstructing democratic epistemology. This epistemological breakthrough lies not only in expanding the boundaries of the subject of democracy but also in understanding democracy as a continuous process of deepening cognition, ultimately using practical efficacy as the criterion for testing.
III. Democratic Methodology: Innovating Democratic Practice through Systematic Methods of Full-chain, All-dimensional, and Full-coverage
The methodology of democracy addresses how democracy is realized and operated, primarily involving institutional mechanisms. Modernization is a comprehensive systematic project. "We must adhere to a systematic outlook. All things are interconnected and interdependent. Only by observing things with a view of universal connection, comprehensive systems, and developmental change can we grasp the laws of their development." To view and understand things from a systematic and holistic perspective, the most basic and core requirement is to grasp totality. "The process of modernization is not limited to one field of social reality, but includes all aspects of social life." Chinese-path modernization is the modernization of the coordinated development of material, political, spiritual, social, and ecological civilizations. In the practical exploration of Chinese-path modernization, we believe that democracy is not only an institutional arrangement in the political field—involving not just whose democracy it is or who truly rules the state—but also involves what institutional forms are used, and in which fields and to what extent rule is exercised. That is to say, democratic development in the process of modernization must adapt to the requirements of the comprehensiveness of modernization, establish a systematic outlook, and persist in the systematic, holistic, and comprehensive nature of democratic development. Developing whole-process people's democracy and constructing a democratic practice system characterized by institutional aggregation, procedural embedding, and efficacy orientation solves the structural dilemma between the norms and the reality of democracy methodologically. This achieves the unity of "instrumental rationality" and "value rationality," creates a path for democratic practice in an ultra-large-scale country, and avoids the separation of procedural justice and substantive justice, as well as the tension and conflict between modernization and democratization found in Western democracy.
(1) Adhering to a systematic outlook and developing full-chain and whole-process democratic procedures and institutional systems
Marxism holds that "the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes." "In a democracy, no single moment possesses a significance other than its own. Each moment is in fact only a moment of the whole people." By making every democratic link a concrete process in which the "whole people" can participate and master, we "form a complete set of institutional procedures and participatory practices to ensure that the people have the right to extensive, continuous, and in-depth participation in daily political life." Using this way of thinking, we can see that democracy is not a ready-made arrangement, but a process-oriented and constantly improving institutional system. Genuine democratic innovation must be rooted in a systematic, historical, and dialectical grasp of the movement of social contradictions.
The democratic view of Chinese-path modernization follows the scientific worldview and methodology of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. It establishes a systematic outlook and holistic thinking, clarifying that democracy is an institutional system that ensures the people are the masters of the country. It clarifies that democracy has not only the method of elections but also the method of political consultation; democracy involves not only electing representatives of public opinion but also participating in decision-making, management, oversight, legislation, administration, and justice. It clarifies that democracy develops not only in the political field but also includes democratic requirements in the economic, social, and cultural fields. It holds that democratic procedures are not a one-time election process; rather, democratic elections, democratic consultation, democratic decision-making, democratic management, and democratic oversight are all important links in the democratic process, achieving a seamless, full-chain connection where each part is interlinked.
The practical innovation of Chinese democracy is reflected in the full-chain connection of institutional construction, expanding democracy from the single dimension of "competitive elections" to the systematic project of "the people being masters of the country." In terms of specific democratic links, it has created a closed-loop design of five major links—"election, consultation, decision-making, management, and oversight"—upgrading democracy from a "momentary transfer of power" to a complete institutional chain of "continuous exercise of power." The "full chain" corresponds to the indivisibility of the social reproduction process; "all-dimensional" reflects the interaction between the economic base and the superstructure; and "full coverage" embodies the ultimate concern for the subject of democracy found in the historical materialist view of the masses. In the vertical dimension, it has formed a dual-track channel for institutional innovation involving bottom-up and top-down interaction between "top-level design and grassroots exploration." In the horizontal dimension, seven major consultative channels—party consultation, people's congress consultation, government consultation, CPPCC [18] consultation, people's organization consultation, grassroots consultation, and social organization consultation—operate in coordination.
Capitalist democratic systems simplify citizen participation to elections; democracy becomes merely allowing the people to choose between several competing elite groups. The role of public participation in politics is thus limited to electing a government once every four or five years, resulting in the narrowing and alienation of democracy—where democratic politics is alienated into electoral politics. Currently, Western democracy focuses only on the election link, creating a "segmentation of the political field," severing the organic connection between "will formation, decision-making, and implementation oversight." In practice, the "whole process" of democracy is abandoned, and democratic political principles are violently partitioned by the state apparatus into separated units such as the separation of powers, one-person-one-vote competitive elections, and party politics with rotating governance. In each unit, democratic principles are used only in a fragmented manner to present a minimum level of formal democracy. While Western political scholars are still questioning whether "deliberative mini-publics" can improve the quality of democracy, China has already fully realized this consensus-seeking democratic spirit in its practical layers of grassroots democracy, party consultation, and government consultation.
(2) Adhering to holistic thinking and developing all-dimensional and full-coverage democracy that unites form and content
Marx once criticized the "political isolation" of bourgeois democracy, arguing that although the bourgeois political revolution achieved the separation of the "political state" from religion, it created a new split at the social level—splitting man into the "abstract citizen" and the "real private individual," leading to a fundamental isolation between the political sphere and socio-economic life. This critique not only dismantled the legitimacy of bourgeois political philosophy but also provided the key to understanding the contemporary crisis of democracy: genuine democracy must break the dualistic isolation of politics and economics and achieve the comprehensive freedom of man within social liberation.
Modern Western representative democracy still follows the logic of "political isolation": citizens are "equal" when voting, but in policy-making, they are controlled by capital interest groups, such as the lobbying politics in the United States. At the same time, the rise of identity politics issues such as race and gender masks the fundamental issue of class contradiction; for instance, the "Black Lives Matter" movement did not touch the racialized exploitative structure of capitalism. Mao Zedong once proposed: "Democracy must be in all aspects—political, military, economic, cultural, in party affairs, and in international relations; all these require democracy." It can be seen that all-dimensional democracy within the Marxist perspective must penetrate the fields of economy, society, culture, and ecology, implementing democratic principles and logic throughout the entirety of social life to promote the free and comprehensive development of human beings.
The view of democracy inherent in Chinese-path modernization adheres to holistic thinking, emphasizing the overall coordination and developmental consistency between the modernization process and democratic development. Democratic politics is both a requirement for modernization and a concomitant product of the modernization process. Under the guidance of holistic thinking, there is no one-sided emphasis on the institutional forms of democracy, no pursuit of democracy for democracy’s sake, and no reckless pursuit of rapid democratic construction that exceeds the current stage of development. Instead, democratic institutions are endowed with solid substantive support, treating the human being as the ultimate goal of modernization. This perspective holds that democracy is not merely a demand for rights in the political sphere, but also a fundamental demand for material prosperity in the economic sphere, and the fulfillment of equal rights and spiritual enjoyment in the social and cultural spheres. Democracy within the modernization process aims to satisfy people’s inner needs for self-improvement and self-development.
This all-dimensional and all-encompassing democracy is profoundly connected to the free and well-rounded development of the individual and is deeply aligned with the holistic and systemic requirements of modernization. It permeates every field—economic construction, political construction, cultural construction, social construction, and ecological civilization construction—and covers every link of national political and social life. Democratic construction does not only satisfy the people's needs and aspirations to become prosperous in the economic field; it must also meet their demands for the rights to survival and development, social fairness and justice, rich spiritual, cultural, and social lives, and a beautiful and clean ecological environment, thereby developing an all-dimensional and all-encompassing democracy.
In terms of democratic forms and channels, the process of Chinese-path modernization develops various democratic forms and paths. Here, direct democracy and indirect democracy coexist. There is elective democracy, as well as various levels of party consultation, People’s Congress consultation, government consultation, CPPCC [19] consultation, people’s organization consultation, grassroots consultation, and social organization consultation. There are channels and methods for participation in physical space as well as the "online mass line" [20] and online political participation in virtual space. This is an all-temporal and all-dimensional democracy, allowing for the full exercise of democratic rights across longitudinal time and multi-dimensional space, and full participation in the process of modernization. By constructing all-dimensional and all-encompassing channels for expression and participation, as well as institutional frameworks and operational mechanisms for the fair distribution of public interests, the fundamental interests of the broadest possible masses of the people are realized, maintained, and developed, truly achieving a people-centered modernization.
Liberal democratic theories within the process of Western modernization emphasize political democracy and political equality while neglecting economic democracy and economic equality. In subsequent theoretical innovations, whether in participatory democracy or deliberative democracy, the focus has remained effectively confined to the political field. These theories consistently fail to employ holistic thinking and systemic concepts to view the integrity and comprehensiveness of democratic development, or its profound correlation with the economic base. Lenin once profoundly critiqued this: "Democracy in capitalist society is a restricted, shaky, misleading, and hypocritical democracy, a democracy for the rich, for the minority." Today, this situation has not improved but worsened; some countries have become societies "of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%." Democracy has transformed from a mechanism for guaranteeing economic rights and mediating class contradictions in the modernization process into a voting game for big capital and its agents.
Conclusion
The unique view of democracy inherent in Chinese-path modernization transcends "capital-centrism" with "people’s subjectivity," breaks through the epistemological trap of "democratic fundamentalism" [21], and develops a systemic practical paradigm of "full-chain, all-dimensional, and all-encompassing." This elevates democracy from a procedural arrangement in the political field to a holistic reconstruction of the form of civilization. China’s innovation in democratic practice, driven by the methods of historical materialism and dialectical materialism, is providing humanity with a new scheme for exploring "high-quality democracy" that transcends adversarial thinking and balances order with vitality. It offers a new option for the development of political civilization in the human modernization process. The value of this exploration lies not in exporting a replacement model, but in proving a truth characterized by greater civilizational inclusiveness: the vitality of democracy does not lie in imitating a fixed pattern, but in whether a nation can grow institutional forms from its own soil that guarantee the people’s principal status and fundamental interests. True democratic progress must be a pluralistic narrative written independently by the people of all countries under the guidance of historical dialectics.