The Light of Democracy Cannot Be Obscured
张致君
摘要：近年来，中国官方不断宣传所谓“人民代表大会制度”是“中国特色社会主义民主”的体现，是“最广泛、最真实、最管用的民主”，并在对外宣讲中不遗余力贬低美国等西方国家的民主制度，试图塑造一种“民主并非只有一种模式”的话语框架。中国共产党声称自己开创了“人类民主的新形态”，声称“美国是金主统治”“是虚伪的民主”，并以此为依据强化其一党统治的合法性。然而，这种宣传背后的逻辑极为脆弱，不堪一击。
近年来，中国官方不断宣传所谓“人民代表大会制度”是“中国特色社会主义民主”的体现，是“最广泛、最真实、最管用的民主”，并在对外宣讲中不遗余力贬低美国等西方国家的民主制度，试图塑造一种“民主并非只有一种模式”的话语框架。中国共产党声称自己开创了“人类民主的新形态”，声称“美国是金主统治”“是虚伪的民主”，并以此为依据强化其一党统治的合法性。然而，这种宣传背后的逻辑极为脆弱，不堪一击。
一、“人民代表大会制度”并非民主，而是中共的统治工具
中国的“人民代表大会制度”被宣传为“人民当家作主”的体现，但实际上，它只不过是中共权力合法性的橡皮图章。中国宪法第1条明文规定：“中国共产党是中国社会主义事业的领导核心。”也就是说，所有政治制度必须服从党的领导。
根据《中国全国人民代表大会组织法》及相关法律，县级以上人大代表并不由公民一人一票直接选举产生，而是通过“间接选举”，即由下一级人大代表投票产生。全国人大代表是由省级人大选举产生，而省级人大代表本身就已经是间接产生。这一制度设计已经人为切断了人民与国家最高权力机构之间的直接联结。
更严重的是，所有候选人都必须经过中共组织部门的“考察”与“同意”后方可提名，无党派人士、在野政治力量、异议群体无法参与竞争性选举。代表并不具有独立性，也没有政治多元的可能性，他们事实上只能代表中共的意志。
人大代表没有实权，只能在党指令下被动投票。全国人大从未否决过中共中央提出的任何重大议案，其角色等同于苏联“最高苏维埃”——形式上是“代表人民”，实质上是为极权统治背书的傀儡机构。选举更是徒有其表。即便在所谓“直选”的县级人大代表中，也普遍存在审查、筛选、操控候选人和结果的情况。人大制度从未改变过权力的核心来源“不是人民，而是党”。
根据《宪法》第六十二条，全国人大的权力包括制定法律、监督宪法实施、决定国家重大事务等。但实践中，全国人大一年只开一次会议，会期不过两周。所有议案几乎在开会前就已由中共中央确定草案，会议不过是“形式性审议”。媒体披露，会议期间人大代表“审议”时并无修改、反对权利，多数“举手通过”，从未出现重大议案被否决或实质性修改的情况。
也就是说，人大制度运行的本质是“党委领导、人大举手、政府执行、法院维稳”。所谓的“人民代表”，只不过是为政党意志背书的符号化工具。
反观美国，政府“三权分立”，总统、国会、法院之间相互独立、制衡，防止权力滥用。国会由选民投票产生，法院独立审查政府行为，总统也可以被弹劾。这些制度设计，不完美，但能有效防止独裁、暴政，是民主制度的核心。
二、美国民主虽有问题，但拥有自我纠错机制
中共批判美国民主制度的问题，如政党对立、金钱政治、效率低下等，其实是对民主复杂性的断章取义。民主制度不是完美的制度，而是最不容易滥用权力的制度。确实，美国存在利益集团影响政治、两党之争严重等问题，但这些问题是可以通过选民参与、司法审查、媒体监督不断纠正的。美国人民可以推翻政党，可以弹劾总统，可以通过新闻揭露腐败丑闻。这些制度的开放性正是民主的生命力所在。选票竞争产生权力结构，政党必须回应民意 美国的国会议员与总统均通过公开竞争、直接或间接普选产生。在2020年大选中，特朗普政府因疫情应对不力与种族问题处理不当遭到选民否决，拜登上台。2022年期中选举，拜登政府部分议题失利，共和党重新控制众议院。这种“民意投票-权力更替”的制度，使任何党派都必须回应选民，才能生存。
而在中国，全国人大代表无法通过选票更替，也无法因施政失败被“罢免”，对选民既不负责，也无需回应。这种监督机制根本不存在。政府没有责任媒体，司法不独立，人民不能投票罢免领导人，政治局常委终身不可问责，反腐不过是“党内清洗”而非真正的权力制衡。在中国，批评政府会坐牢，呼吁选票会被消失。一个不容批评的政权，怎么可能是“最广泛的民主”？
最广泛的民主应该听取民众的声音，对重大公共事件做出回应与反应，而人大制度无法回应群众抗议、吸纳民意。2022年白纸运动爆发期间，上海、北京、成都、广州等城市民众走上街头，手举白纸抗议封控政策，喊出“不要核酸要自由”、“不要一言堂”等口号。这一运动因象征性强、参与者广泛而引起世界关注。
然而，在全国范围内，没有一位全国人大代表、地方人大代表站出来对运动作出实质回应或召开听证会，甚至没有对“乌鲁木齐火灾”进行真相调查提案。人大制度完全在抗议者之外运行，无法吸纳他们的诉求、无法传递他们的声音、无法为他们提供合法表达的平台。
这说明，所谓“人民代表”与现实人民之间，并无真正代表关系；而人大制度也缺乏制度化的响应机制，面对社会矛盾，唯一方式是回避，更无法在社会与制度的问题上纠错。
香港反送中运动更加验证人大制度的漠视，2019年香港爆发反对《逃犯条例》修订的抗议行动，数百万市民持续上街，先后提出“撤回条例、释放被捕者、成立独立调查委员会、追究警暴责任、双普选”等五大诉求。中共坚称“香港拥有独立立法权”，但事实上全国人大常委会迅速介入，以“释法”、“决定”的方式终止了香港民主化的可能性。
值得注意的是，在如此大规模的抗议浪潮中，全国人大没有召开一次紧急会议，听取港人意见，也未批准任何特派调查团赴港了解情况，反而不断为警察暴力辩护，为特首林郑月娥站台。其立场不是人民的代表，而是政党的护法。而最终香港反送中在中共的镇压下，使得香港人民失去了他们的政治自由。
三、“无党派人大代表”是假象，实质仍是党控一切
中共宣称“人大代表不分党派、阶层，代表人民广泛利益”。但这是典型的文字游戏。人大代表虽不按党派组团，但其提名、当选和表态行为无一不受中共组织部门掌控。哪一个代表敢在大会上公开质疑中共总书记？哪一个代表提出过对军队、法院、警察进行民主监督的议案？从未有过。中国人大代表高度同质化，男性、中共党员、公务员比例极高。社会边缘群体如访民、维权律师、LGBTQ、民族异见者等几无代表。其所谓“人民代表性”只是形式，缺乏实质。
与此不同，美国国会的参众两院代表不同利益、不同党派。选民可以通过选票选择他们信任的候选人，政客失信即被淘汰。议员在辩论、质询、媒体曝光中的行为可受监督。虽然金钱在选举中起作用，但最终权力仍需通过公开竞选、议会投票、司法仲裁等方式制衡和透明化。而议员多元组成，反映社会多样性 美国国会议员中，既有进步派、保守派，也有女性、移民、LGBTQ、原住民代表，形成多元意见表达。在国会听证会上，各种利益相关者可公开发言，政策制定过程透明。
四、所谓“集中力量办大事”不过是牺牲人权换取效率
中共常以“集中力量办大事”自夸制度优势。但我们必须警惕，这种“高效率”背后往往伴随的是对少数群体、异见人士和边缘群体的压制。计划生育、“清零政策”、强拆工程、户籍限制，这些大事往往都是在没有充分民意表达和保障公民权利的前提下强推的结果。这是“独裁高效”，不是民主效率。
而美国虽然在某些政策执行上缓慢，但那是因为需要倾听不同阶层的声音。一项医疗法案要经历听证、辩论、表决、总统签署、法院审查，这不是低效，而是对人民负责的体现。真正的民主不是效率优先，而是权利优先。
五、中共制度的本质是“党权至上”，不是“人民至上”
习近平反复强调“坚持党的领导”，这恰恰暴露了中共所谓“人民代表大会制度”的最大悖论——人民不是主权者，党才是。
所有制度不过是党控制国家的工具。从政法系统到教育宣传，从人大立法到法院判决，从媒体报道到外交政策，无不体现出党领导一切、人民服从一切的现实。
美国宪法则确立了“人民是主权者”，政府仅是人民赋予的工具。权力的合法性必须经过周期性选举验证，法官不得为党服务，总统不得违宪施政。虽然民主制度也有失误，但它拥有最大限度纠错与改进的空间。
六、经济成就不能为独裁洗白
中国经济增长并不能证明其制度优越。20世纪70年代的智利在皮诺切特独裁下经济繁荣，纳粹德国在短期内也创造了所谓“奇迹”。但没有哪一个民主国家会以此来为独裁背书。经济增长不能替代基本权利、尊严与自由。
中国的“繁荣”建立在言论压制、环境牺牲、劳工剥削、政府债务膨胀和制度不透明之上。而美国的经济即使经历危机，也依靠制度自我修复、选民更换政府实现政策调整。中国所谓的“稳定”，只是权贵的稳定，而不是公民的保障。
七、中国的“制度自信”建立在虚假的舆论和封锁之上
所谓“中国制度优越论”，无法在一个自由辩论的平台上与美国民主制度公平竞争。中共封锁谷歌、推特、Facebook，禁止NGO进入，打压独立记者、监禁维权律师，同时鼓励五毛水军对西方抹黑。如果一个制度自信，需要靠防火墙、宣传片、删除帖子、消除异见才能维持，它注定虚弱。
反观美国，政府可以被民众嘲笑，总统可以被记者追问，法官可以独立裁决。这种制度并不完美，但开放、透明、可批评，是其永葆活力的根基。
中共在北京市人民代表大会常务委员会人大资料存档《人大理论与实践》会刊研讨《真民主？假民主？中国人民代表大会制度VS美国议会制度》鼓吹人大制度是“最优越的民主”，不过是用旧式极权的语言为自己贴金，用“人民”的幌子掩盖“党权至上”的实质。“人民代表大会制度是最能代表人民的制度”，甚至“比美国的三权分立和议会制民主制度更优越”的这种论调看似振奋人心，实则混淆视听，掩盖了中共专政体制下民主的虚伪外壳，更为民众与世界舆论对中国制度下的政治迫害、压制抗议与否定公民权利制造合理性。
而美国的民主，尽管遭遇挑战与困难，但依然是全球最具活力、最能保障个人自由与权利的制度。
自由不是混乱，批评不是颠覆，监督不是对抗。这是民主国家的常态。而中国却将一切批评视为“敌对势力”，将一切监督视为“破坏稳定”。这是一个政党对人民的不信任，是一个制度对自由的恐惧。
在信息逐步开放的时代，在全球对自由、法治的追求日益增长的今天，中共再怎么包装人大制度的“优越性”，也无法掩盖其独裁本质。而美国民主的价值，在多次危机后仍然屹立不倒，正说明其制度设计的伟大与人民力量的坚韧。
中国终将迎来真正的民主，而这条路，必须从对虚假宣传的反驳开始。
The Light of Democracy Cannot Be Obscured
A Rebuttal to the Beijing Municipal People’s Congress Standing Committee’s Journal Article “True Democracy? Fake Democracy? China’s People’s Congress System vs. the U.S. Congressional System” (Published in People’s Congress Theory and Practice, Issue 201801)
By Zhang Zhijun
Abstract:
In recent years, the Chinese government has intensified its propaganda, claiming that the so-called “People’s Congress system” is the embodiment of “socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics.” It promotes this model as the “broadest, most genuine, and most effective form of democracy,” while denigrating the democratic systems of Western nations, particularly that of the United States. This rhetoric aims to construct a discourse framework that “democracy does not have a single model.” The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) proclaims that it has pioneered a “new form of human democracy,” labeling American democracy as plutocratic and hypocritical, thereby attempting to legitimize its one-party rule. However, the logic underlying this narrative is extremely fragile and cannot withstand scrutiny.
I. The “People’s Congress System” Is Not Democracy, but a Tool of CCP Rule
The so-called “People’s Congress system” is portrayed as a mechanism through which the people govern, but in reality, it is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the CCP’s authority. Article 1 of the Chinese Constitution explicitly states: “The leadership of the Communist Party of China is the defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics.” In other words, all political institutions must submit to the Party’s leadership.
According to the Organic Law of the National People’s Congress (NPC) and other relevant laws, delegates to congresses above the county level are not directly elected by citizens through one-person-one-vote. Rather, they are chosen through indirect elections — lower-level congress delegates elect higher-level ones. Thus, national delegates are elected by provincial congresses, which themselves are indirectly elected, effectively severing the link between the people and the state’s highest organ of power.
More critically, all candidates must first pass background checks and receive approval from CCP organizational departments. Opposition parties, independent candidates, and dissenting voices are completely excluded. Delegates lack independence and cannot represent political diversity; they merely reflect the will of the Party.
In practice, delegates possess no real authority. They passively vote under Party directives. The NPC has never rejected a major proposal from the CCP Central Committee. It resembles the Soviet Union’s “Supreme Soviet” — nominally representative of the people but substantively a puppet institution serving authoritarian rule. Even in county-level “direct elections,” candidate vetting, manipulation, and result tampering are widespread. The central principle of political power originating from the people has never existed in the People’s Congress system — only from the Party.
Article 62 of the Constitution grants the NPC powers such as enacting laws, overseeing constitutional implementation, and deciding major national matters. Yet in practice, the NPC meets only once a year for about two weeks. Legislative drafts are determined in advance by the CCP leadership. Deliberations are mere formalities — there is no meaningful debate, opposition, or amendment.
In essence, the People’s Congress system operates under the formula: “Party Committee leads, Congress raises hands, Government executes, Courts maintain stability.” The so-called “people’s representatives” are symbolic instruments used to endorse the Party’s will.
In contrast, the U.S. government is structured around the separation of powers. The executive, legislature, and judiciary are independent and mutually check each other. Congress members are directly elected by citizens. The judiciary can review executive actions. Even the President is subject to impeachment.
While imperfect, these mechanisms prevent dictatorship and form the bedrock of democracy.
II. U.S. Democracy Has Problems, But Possesses a Self-Correcting Mechanism
The CCP often criticizes American democracy, citing partisan conflict, money politics, and inefficiency. But these critiques ignore the complexity of democratic systems. Democracy is not perfect, but it is the least abusable system. Interest group influence and party polarization exist, but voter participation, judicial oversight, and media scrutiny provide continuous corrective mechanisms.
American citizens can vote parties out, impeach presidents, and expose scandals through journalism. This openness is the lifeblood of democracy. Power structures are shaped through electoral competition, and political parties must respond to public opinion to survive.
For example, in the 2020 U.S. election, the Trump administration was voted out due to mishandling of the pandemic and racial tensions. In the 2022 midterms, the Biden administration lost ground, and the Republicans regained control of the House. This cycle of “public opinion–power turnover” ensures that all parties remain accountable to the people.
In China, NPC delegates cannot be replaced via public vote. They are not held accountable for policy failures, nor do they answer to the electorate. There is no real oversight. There is no independent media, no judicial independence, and no voting mechanism to remove leadership. Politburo Standing Committee members are effectively beyond reproach, and “anti-corruption” campaigns are mere political purges.
During the 2022 White Paper Movement, citizens in Shanghai, Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, and other cities protested COVID lockdowns with slogans like “We want freedom, not nucleic acid tests” and “No more one-voice rule.” This movement gained global attention due to its symbolic power and scale.
Yet not a single NPC or local delegate responded with a public hearing, investigation, or proposal for truth-seeking over the Urumqi fire. The People’s Congress was entirely absent from this civic uprising. It could not absorb public demands or provide a legitimate platform for expression.
The 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition protests further revealed the People’s Congress’s detachment. Despite mass demonstrations and demands for universal suffrage and accountability, the NPC Standing Committee quickly intervened to shut down the democratic process under the guise of “interpretation” and “decisions.” No emergency sessions were held, no investigative teams dispatched, only endorsements of state violence and support for Chief Executive Carrie Lam.
III. “Non-Partisan NPC Delegates” Is a Sham – Everything Is Party-Controlled
The CCP claims that NPC delegates transcend party affiliation and represent broad social interests. But in reality, the entire nomination and vetting process is tightly controlled by CCP organizational departments. No delegate has ever publicly questioned the Party leader or proposed meaningful oversight of the military, judiciary, or police.
Delegates are overwhelmingly male, Party members, and government officials. Marginalized groups — petitioners, rights lawyers, LGBTQ individuals, ethnic dissenters — are virtually unrepresented. The so-called “broad representation” is symbolic, not substantive.
By contrast, the U.S. Congress includes both progressives and conservatives, women, immigrants, LGBTQ individuals, and Indigenous people. Hearings are open, and stakeholders can speak publicly. Policy formation is transparent and accountable.
IV. “Concentrating Resources for Big Tasks” Means Sacrificing Rights
The CCP often touts its ability to “concentrate power to get big things done” as a systemic advantage. But this “efficiency” often comes at the expense of human rights. Policies such as the One-Child Policy, COVID lockdowns, forced demolitions, and household registration restrictions have been implemented without adequate public consultation or safeguards.
In the U.S. , policy formation is slower because it requires public hearings, debate, and judicial review — not a flaw, but a safeguard for civil liberties. Real democracy prioritizes rights over efficiency.
V. The Essence of the CCP System Is “Party Supremacy,” Not “People First”
Xi Jinping repeatedly emphasizes “upholding Party leadership,” revealing the core paradox of the People’s Congress system: the people are not sovereign — the Party is.
All state institutions — from law enforcement to education, from legislation to adjudication, from media to diplomacy — serve the Party. The U.S. Constitution, in contrast, declares that sovereignty resides with the people, and the government is but their servant. Democratic legitimacy requires periodic elections and legal accountability.
VI. Economic Growth Cannot Justify Authoritarianism
China’s economic growth does not prove its system’s superiority. Chile under Pinochet and Nazi Germany also achieved short-term prosperity under dictatorship. No democratic country uses economic performance to justify repression.
China’s “prosperity” is built on speech suppression, environmental degradation, labor exploitation, unsustainable debt, and systemic opacity. In contrast, the U.S. has weathered crises through institutional resilience and democratic adjustment. China’s so-called “stability” is the stability of the elite, not the people.
VII. “Institutional Confidence” Based on Censorship Is a Mirage
The CCP’s “confidence” in its system cannot survive open debate. It blocks Google, Twitter, and Facebook, bans NGOs, jails journalists, and floods the internet with pro-regime trolls. A regime that must rely on firewalls, propaganda videos, post deletions, and suppression of dissent is inherently insecure.
In the U.S., presidents can be mocked, journalists can question government, and courts can rule independently. While far from perfect, the American system thrives on openness, transparency, and accountability — the very conditions that nourish democracy’s enduring vitality.
The Chinese Communist Party, in the theoretical discussion article titled “True Democracy? Fake Democracy? The System of People’s Congresses in China vs. the U.S. Congressional System” published in the journal People’s Congress Theory and Practice by the Standing Committee of the Beijing Municipal People’s Congress, promotes the People’s Congress system as “the most superior form of democracy.” In reality, this is nothing more than dressing up old-style authoritarianism in glorified language, using the banner of “the people” to conceal the essence of “Party supremacy.” The claim that “the People’s Congress system best represents the people,” and that it is “even superior to the U.S. system of separation of powers and parliamentary democracy,” may sound inspiring on the surface but in fact serves to mislead the public. It disguises the false democratic shell of the CCP’s authoritarian regime and attempts to provide legitimacy for the political persecution, suppression of protests, and denial of civil rights under China’s system—both to its own citizens and to international opinion.
In contrast, American democracy—despite its challenges and difficulties—remains one of the most vibrant systems in the world and one that best protects individual freedoms and rights.
Freedom is not chaos. Criticism is not subversion. Oversight is not confrontation. These are the norms of a democratic society. Yet in China, all criticism is labeled “hostile activity,” and all oversight is treated as “disrupting stability.” This reflects a ruling party’s distrust of its people and a political system’s fear of freedom.
In an era of increasing information openness and a global surge in the pursuit of liberty and the rule of law, no matter how the CCP attempts to package the “superiority” of the People’s Congress system, it cannot conceal its authoritarian nature. The enduring resilience of American democracy, even in the face of repeated crises, is testament to the brilliance of its institutional design and the strength of its people.
China will eventually usher in genuine democracy—and that path must begin with refuting false propaganda.
