Democracy and People’s All-Round Development

论民主与人的全面发展

The word democracy in European languages, derives from two Greek words “demos (people)” and “kratos (rule)”. So, the term “democracy” means literally rule by the people”.

欧洲语言中的“民主”一词源自 “demos（people）”和“kratos（rule）”两个希腊单词。因此，“民主”一词的字面意思是“民治”。

This concept in Europe, of course, overlaps with the concept of “people centred development” used in China. indeed, so related are these concepts that they may be considered as similar conclusions arrived at by analysing society based on the different historical experiences of Europe and China.

当然，欧洲的这一理念与中国当前所坚持的“以人民为中心”的发展思想有异曲同工之妙。事实上，欧洲和中国的理念不谋而合，可能是两者基于欧洲和中国不同的历史经验进行社会分析而得出类似的结论。

But contrary to this concept of “rule by the people” an attempt is made in the West, more accurately by capitalist countries, to claim that democracy is defined purely in terms of certain formal and official structures which they possess – for example Parliament, so called “division of powers” etc. But this is false. The issue of democracy is about how much in reality “rule by the people” exists.

但与“民治”这一理念相反的是，西方资本主义国家是以是否拥有某些正式和官方的架构，如议会制和所谓的“分权制”等，来定义民主。但这种做法是错误的。民主应是让“民治”落到实处。

Analysing this in more detail, the question of democracy is also presented as integrally linked to the question of human rights. This is a correct framework, which will be used here. It will show that China’s, and socialism’s, framework and delivery on human rights and democracy is far superior to the “West’s” – that is the capitalist conception.

对此进行更详细的分析，就会发现民主问题与人权问题息息相关。下文基于这一正确框架作出的分析显示，中国和社会主义在人权和民主方面的理念远优于西方资本主义国家。

The issues involved, indeed, go right back to the theoretical origins of socialism – which was developed precisely as a critique of the theory and limits of liberal/parliamentary democracy.

事实上，其中所涉及的问题可以追溯到社会主义的理论起源，而社会主义正是对自由/议会民主制理论及其局限性进行批判而发展起来的。

The work in which Marx became a socialist, making his transition from a liberal democrat, is his   Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right of 1843. The key step in this was Marx showed that the real role of the state was to defend the existing property relations – which at that time in Germany were, of course, approaching capitalist relations. This theoretical analysis has been fully factually confirmed by innumerable practical examples since that time.

马克思从自由民主主义者转变为社会主义者的思想进程,是从1843年撰写《黑格尔法哲学批判》时开始的。这其中的关键点在于马克思发现，国家的真正作用是捍卫现有的财产关系——当然，在当时的德国，财产关系与资本主义关系较为接近。从那时起，这一理论分析得到了无数实例的充分印证。

The next year, in his work On the Jewish Question, Marx demonstrated, via analysis of the position of Jews in Germany, the difference between the “official” and “formal” claims of liberal/parliamentary democracy and actual reality. He showed that removal of formal and legal restrictions on Jews in Germany, which originated in the Middle Ages, did not lead to their real equality.

第二年，马克思在其著作《论犹太人问题》中对德国的犹太人地位进行分析时发现，自由/议会民主制理论与实践之间存在差异。他认为，从中世纪起对德国的犹太人的正式限制和法律限制的取消，并没有带给他们真正的平等。

Marx analysed the difference between what he termed “political emancipation” and “human emancipation” – between purely formal equality and rights in politics and the fundamental inequality and lack of rights in the real world. This work so classically sets out the reality of Western parliamentary democracy that it is worth quoting in detail – any other words would simply summarise an analysis that could not be put more clearly.

马克思围绕“政治解放”与“人类解放”——政治中纯粹形式上的平等和权利与现实世界中的极度不平等和权利缺失之间的区别，进行了分析。这部作品准确地描述了西方议会民主制的现实，是一部值得详细引用的作品，因为其他任何话语可能仅仅只能总结马克思的分析，且不及他的话语准确。

Marx put it regarding the difference between formal and real human freedom, and the real “rule of the people” that in parliamentary/liberal democracy: “man liberates himself from a restriction… in an abstract and restricted manner”. This was because of the reality that while liberal/parliamentary democracy proclaimed “equality” this was a fiction in the real world in which human beings lived.

马克思就自由/议会民主制理论和实践之间的区别指出：“人从某种限制中解放出来……以抽象的、有限的、局部的方式超越了这一限制。”这是因为自由/议会民主制所宣扬的“平等”在现实世界并不存在。

As Marx put it regarding the purely formal statements of capitalist/parliamentary democracy: “The state abolishes, in its own way, distinctions of birth, social rank, education, occupation, when it declares that birth, social rank, education, occupation, are non-political distinctions, when it proclaims, without regard to these distinction, that every member of the nation is an equal participant in national sovereignty, when it treats all elements of the real life of the nation from the standpoint of the state.” But in reality, none of these real distinctions were removed: “Nevertheless, the state allows private property, education, occupation, to act in their way – i.e., as private property, as education, as occupation, and to exert the influence of their special nature. Far from abolishing these real distinctions, the state only exists on the presupposition of their existence.”

正如马克思就资本主义/议会民主制理论指出：“当国家宣布出身、等级、文化程度、职业为非政治的差别，当它不考虑这些差别而宣告人民的每一位成员都是人民主权的平等享有者，当它从国家的观点来观察人民现实生活的一切要素的时候，国家是以自己的方式废除了出身、等级、文化程度、职业的差别。”但实际上，这些真正的差别都没有废除：“尽管如此，国家还是让私有财产、文化程度、职业以它们固有的方式，即作为私有财产、作为文化程度、作为职业来发挥作用并表现出它们的特殊本质。国家根本没有废除这些实际差别，相反，只有以这些差别为前提，它才存在。”

Therefore, there was a complete distinction between the myths of liberal democracy and the reality of life: “The perfect political state is, by its nature… opposed to his [humanity’s] material life. All the preconditions of this egoistic life continue to exist in civil society outside the sphere of the state, but as qualities of civil society.”

因此，自由民主制的神话和现实之间有着天壤之别：“发展完备的政治国家，按其本质来说，是人的同自己物质生活相对立的类生活。这种利己生活的一切前提继续存在于国家范围以外，存在于市民社会之中，然而是作为市民社会的特性存在的。”

Therefore, in a classic passage which goes right to the core of the myths of liberal democracy: “Where the political state has attained its true development, man – not only in thought, in consciousness, but in reality, in life – leads a twofold life, a heavenly and an earthly life: life in the political community, in which he considers himself a communal being, and life in civil society, in which he acts as a private individual, regards other men as a means…

关于自由民主制神话的核心，马克思有一段经典论述：“在政治国家真正形成的地方，人不仅在思想中，在意识中，而且在现实中，在生活中，都过着双重的生活——天国的生活和尘世的生活。前一种是政治共同体中的生活，在这个共同体中，人把自己看作社会存在物；后一种是市民社会中的生活，在这个社会中，人作为私人进行活动，把他人看作工具……

He went on: “The relation of the political state to civil society is just as spiritual as the relations of heaven to earth. The political state stands in the same opposition to civil society, and it prevails over the latter in the same way as religion prevails over the narrowness of the secular world… In his most immediate reality, in civil society, man is a secular being…. In the state, on the other hand… he is the imaginary member of an illusory sovereignty, is deprived of his real individual life and endowed with an unreal universality.”

他接着说：“政治国家对市民社会的关系，正像天国对尘世的关系一样，也是唯灵论的。政治国家与市民社会也处于同样的对立之中……人在其最直接的现实中，在市民社会中，是尘世存在物……相反，在国家中，即在人被看作是类存在物的地方，人是想象的主权中虚构的成员；在这里，他被剥夺了自己现实的个人生活，却充满了非现实的普遍性。”

Marx showed that there was a move towards a purely formal equality of Jews in German society, but this concealed the real existing inequality. Liberal/parliamentary democracy obscured reality by defining “equality” and “democracy” in only a narrow artificial and formal way while ignoring the real inequalities, and the discriminations, that existed.

马克思认为，在德国社会中，犹太人一度走向纯粹形式上的平等，但这掩盖了真正存在的不平等。自由/议会民主制仅以狭隘、人为和刻板的方式定义“平等”和“民主”，掩盖了真相，同时忽视了存在的真正的不平等和歧视。

This situation, and Marx’s analysis of it, later, of course, culminated in one of the greatest crimes in human history - in the development of German antisemitism into the Nazi holocaust.

后来，马克思所分析的这种形势一发不可收拾，最终导致人类历史上最深重的罪行之一——德国的反犹主义演变为纳粹大屠杀。

This analysis of the position of the Jews in Germany provided a model for the analysis of the real situation in capitalism. To illustrate this let us turn to contemporary example, and one that affects almost one fifth of humanity – the position of women in China and India.

这种对德国的犹太人地位的分析，为分析资本主义的真实情况提供了一种模式。为印证这一点，我们将以占世界人口五分之一的中国妇女和印度妇女的地位举例说明。

The formal claim by Western capitalist theory is that women in India enjoy better human rights than women in China because of the existence of Parliamentary democracy. But this precisely shows the difference between what Marx termed the “heavenly” rights, that is non-existent ones, and “earthly life” – that is the real one.

西方资本主义理论认为，印度妇女的人权优于中国妇女，因为其生活在拥有议会民主制的国家。但这恰恰体现了马克思所称的“天国”权利（不存在的权利）与“尘世生活”（真正的权利）之间的区别。

The life expectancy of a woman in India is 71, in China 79.2 – that is live 8 years longer.

印度女性预期寿命为71岁，中国女性为79.2岁——中国女性寿命比印度女性长8年。

In China female literacy is 95%, in India it is 65%.

中国女性识字率为95%，印度女性则为65%。

The risk of a woman dying in childbirth is 8 times higher in India than in China.

印度妇女死于分娩的风险是中国的8倍。

It is obvious that the real human rights of a Chinese woman are far superior to those of an Indian woman – that is her real “earthly life”. But the theory of liberal democracy ridiculously claims that the human rights of an Indian woman are superior to those of a Chinese woman because of her “heavenly life” in a purely formal equality in Parliamentary Democracy – which in reality does not exist.

显然，中国妇女的人权远远优于印度妇女。但自由民主制理论荒谬地宣称，印度妇女的人权优于中国妇女，因为议会民主制赋予她们纯粹形式上的平等的“天国的生活”——这在现实中并不存在。

In summary, in the theory of liberal democracy everything is “standing on it head”. The least important, a formal and in reality non-existent equality, is declared to be the most important while the “earthly life” is declared to be less important – precisely as the difference in real life conditions between a Chinese woman and an Indian woman.

总之，自由民主制理论对民主的定义本末倒置。形式民主——刻板的、实际上并不存在的平等是最重要的，实质民主——尘世的生活则不那么重要，正如西方国家对印度妇女的生活品质劣于中国妇女视而不见，宣称印度妇女的人权优于中国妇女一样。

Socialism, and China, on the contrary puts everything the right way up. It says that it is the most fundamental that a Chinese women should live 8 years longer, that she should be literate, that she should have a hugely lower risk of dying in childbirth. And then it starts from what system actually delivers this improvement in the real life of human beings. That is its conception of “rule by the people” and “human rights” is strictly practical.

恰恰相反，奉行社会主义的中国懂得分清主次。所以，中国认为，最重要的是中国妇女应该多活8年，应该识字，在分娩时死亡的风险应该大大降低。也即是说，中国最在意的是中国民众是否得到了真正的实惠，生活品质是否真正得到了提升。而这正是“民治”和“人权”理念得到实践的体现。

China extends the same principle as applies to Chinese women to all aspects of society.

中国将适用于中国妇女的同样原则推广到社会的各个方面。

China has lifted 850 million people out of internationally defined poverty – more than 70% of all the people lifted out of poverty in the world.

中国已经使8.5亿人脱离了国际贫困线——中国减贫人口占同期全球减贫人口70%以上。

It has raised China from almost the world’s poorest country in 1949 to “moderate prosperity” by its national standards and is within two to three years of being a “high income” economy by World Bank standards.

1949年的中国几乎是世界上最贫穷的国家，而现在的中国按照本国标准已进入小康社会。此外，按照世界银行标准，中国将在两到三年内跻身高收入经济体。

That is China has produced in the “earthly life” of real human beings, the greatest improvement in the conditions of life of the greatest number of people in human history.

也即是说，中国对人类的“尘世生活”做出了巨大的贡献，实现了人类历史上最多数量人口生活条件的最大改善。

That is, China has a political system which is determined by real results, that is improvement in the real lives of people, not by formal processes.

换言之，中国的政治制度是由实际结果——人民实际生活的改善程度决定，而非由刻板的程序决定。

Because it is a socialist country, China’s economy can be brought under “rule by the people” – which is excluded by the capitalist system of rule of the economy by private property.

因为中国是一个社会主义国家，所以可以将其经济置于“民治”之下，而“民治”则被资本主义私有财产经济统治体系所排斥。

Naturally the specific political form, which is secondary in the framework above, is determined by China’s history. As Xi Jinping put it, the person wearing the shoe knows whether it fits or not. China’s present political system is based on the leading role of the CPC, with other political parties which are in alliance with the overall lead of the CPC, is specific to China. It does not propose it for any other country.

当然，在上述框架中处于次要地位的具体政治形式是由中国的历史决定的。正如习近平所说，鞋子合不合脚，自己穿了才知道。中国当前的政治制度立足于中国共产党的领导作用和中国共产党全面领导的多党合作，而这种制度是中国所特有的。中国不会建议任何其他国家照搬这套制度。

But what China has defined is the real improvement of the real conditions of humanity. That is the real improvement of the “rule by the people”. That is what has been demonstrated by China’s history and real social and political development.

但中国所在意的是人民对美好生活的向往，并将之作为奋斗目标。也即是说，中国对民主的定义是人民当家作主，而人民当家作主才是人权得到进步的体现。中国的历史和现实社会政治发展印证了这一点。