(四)政治参与意识
作者：祝正明
公民是否有政治参与意识,是民主政治能否建立并长期维持下去的关键。民主社会政府的构成与行为完全取决于大多数公民的观点与信念。具体包括:政府机构应该如何设置?政治家应起何作用?政府应该如何运作?
民主得以实现,社会的政治活动必须具备两个基本条件:第一,必须使反对派有机会建立自己的组织,表达不同的政治见解; 第二,必须有明文条例使公众能通过周期性的选举控制官员,当选民选择其他领导人后,原政治领导人必须自觉下台。
民主政治若要成功,民众必须有两种普遍的素质:第一, 关心政治,坚信自己的判断,容忍各种内容背道而驰的政治宣传; 第二,当多数人的意志与他们的意见相反时,必须乐意服从。如果各党派团体固执己见,势必使国家陷入无休止的纷争之中。
例如按照宪法的规定,某位总统候选人获得了竞选的胜利, 应替换原总统,如果只有宪法的规定,这件事并不会发生,之所以会发生,是由于全体人民对竞选规则已有了事先的了解,都一致认为必须去遵守,包括落选者的支持者们在内,他们事先就有思想准备,尊重选举结果,如果是对方获胜,就接受对方的领导。 同足球比赛一样,大家按规定的方式往对方球门踢球,时间一到, 进球少的一方就要自动认输。
公民持有何种政治观点与政治期望是决定与控制政府行为和官员作风的根本因素。如果公民根本就不指望政府官员会考虑自己的意见，不指望决策者对自己负责，对官员的武断与反复无常不闻不问，认为贪污腐败是正常现象，就会给独裁专制创造天然条件，独裁专制就会自然衍生并发展壮大。许多国家尽管有良好的宪法，但却仍转变成为一党制或军事独裁，其原因就在于社会大众没有民主的信念，没有联合起来采取主权人的行动，使国家只有民主的形式，没有民主的实质，民主成了统治者骗人的招牌。
因此，公民必须坚定地期望政府能按公众的意志办事，官员能做到真正有效地为自己服务，公民对政府所抱的高度期望是民主社会的政治能按照民意长期运作的唯一保证。民主社会的公民绝非是麻木的、绵羊式的，而是睿智的，活跃的。
一项国际性民意调查表明，不同国家的普通公民对自己的政治影响能力具有的感觉是不一样的，参见下表。调查提问的内容为：对一条不公正的法令，你认为你能对它的修改发挥影响吗？
表中数据为回答“是”的人所占的百分比。
| 美国 | 英国 | 西德 | 意大利 | 墨西哥 | |
| 全国政府的法令 | 75% | 62% | 38% | 28% | 38% |
| 地方政府的法令 | 77% | 78% | 62% | 51% | 52% |
一个国家的百分数高，并不能说明这个国家的社会就是最民主的社会，它只能说明这个国家的民主气氛更活跃，民主的理论更深入人心，民主政治的信念得到了百姓和官员的更多认同。这些基本的信念是：
政府的统治必须建立在人民的同意之上；
政治必须按照人民的意志办事，对人民负责任，人民为国家政治权力的来源；
人人参加政治活动的权利和机会平等；
多数人统治；
法律面前人人平等；
保护公民中少数人的利益；
言论自由；
新闻出版自由；
信仰自由；
结社自由；
选举是选择领导人的最好办法；
落选者必须主动地，安静地交出领导权；
不负责任的、不正派的、品德低下的人必须马上离开政府领导岗位；
| 美国 | 英国 | 德国 | 意大利 | 墨西哥 | |
| 认为自己能受到政府官员的平等对待 | 83% | 83% | 65% | 53% | 42% |
| 认为普通人在社团中很活跃 | 51% | 39% | 22% | 10% | 26% |
政府官员只是行政权的受托人，他们不是人民的主人，只是人民利益的代理人。只要人民高兴，随时可以把他们抬起来，也可以把他们拉下去，他们只有服从的义务，无权争论条件，讨价还价。他们的任务是去做人民要求他们做的事情，不要少做，也不要多做，因为多做时常也会是一种侵权行为。
注：表中数据为一些国家的公民在接受一项民意调查时对所提问题持肯定观点的人所占的百分数。
人并非是完美无缺的动物，再聪明仔细的人也可能犯错误，达官贵人在传统上有轻视平民的习惯，懒惰与自信的本能时常使官僚们忽视了百姓的利益还常常毫无察觉。因此，民众必须警惕政府官员的行为，监督他们，评论他们，通过集体的力量撤换他们。
民众可以非常关心政治领导人的产生，但他们并不能告诉领导人如何去制定政策，他们只能对政策作出评价，当政策对他们的利益产生影响时作出反应，并在下届选举时决定是否投该领导人的票。民意可以告诉领导人往什么方向去做，但并不能告诉领导人怎样去做。
民主制度实际上就是一种社会意识。而社会意识类似于一种民族语言，是一个民族通用的思维和交流方式，人们掌握一种新的语言需要一个艰难的过程，但当人们一旦掌握和习惯了它，要人们不再使用它，就不再可能。
第六章 民主政体的形成
人类社会有史以来，几乎实行的都是专制统治，一部分人总是控制着另一部分人，要他们缴纳劳动所得，甚至掌握着他们生杀大权。但是，这并不符合人类自由的天性。只要一有机会，被控制压迫的一方就会起来反抗，改变控制关系，使自己成为新的控制者。人类社会的权利斗争从来就没有停止过，这种斗争有时是如此惨烈，以至于不仅摧毁掉经过数十代人才创造出来的文化和物质财富，甚至使千千万人自己也在搏杀中丧命。这种以强权进行统治的模式严重阻碍着人类社会的良性发展，与人类已有的文明、理性和智商不相容，文明社会必须及早摒弃。
（一）民主政治的起源
人类对自由和和平生活的向往从来就没有停止过，对理想美好政治制度与社会模式的探索也从未中断过。早在两千四百年前，古希腊哲学家柏拉图在他的《理想国》一书中，就设想了一个政治平等、个人自由的国度。他的学生亚里士多德在《政治学》一书中，提出对君主的权力应有所限制，主张公众参与国家事务的管理、财产公有、发展教育，这一理论对促进当时古希腊模式选举制度的建立并带动社会经济文化的繁荣作出了贡献。与柏拉图年代相当的东方的孔夫子，则提出“仁、义、礼、智、信”的儒家哲学思想，其用意亦在于劝告社会中的强者适当地克制自己的欲望，约束自己的行为，缓和社会矛盾。这对中国保持数千年的相对繁荣与东方强国地位也起到一定作用。他们从不同角度对人类社会的稳定与和睦共处作出了贡献。四百八十多年前，英国思想家托马斯·莫尔认为：私有制是一切罪恶的根源，只要财产属于私人所有，就不可能根除贪婪、纷争、掠夺、战争以及一切社会不安定因素。莫尔在他 1516 年出版的《乌托邦》——书名含义为“最完美的国家制度”——一书中，描绘了一个世外桃源般的国家。在这个国家，实行财产公有制，不管什么产品，吃的还是用的，都汇集到每座城市的指定市场，家家户户到市场取用东西，不付钱，也不付任何其它代价，数量不受限制。因为该国物资充裕，取之不尽，在自己家里积存物资完全是多此一举；他们不生产工艺品、美术用品以及其它只能供奢侈享受而无益于国计民生的物品；以农为本、重视教育、医疗免费、每天工作六小时；由于彻底废除了私有制，因此住宅任何人都可以自由出入，无需门锁，并可以随意调换住宅。整个国家就是一个其乐融融的共产主义大家庭。
但是，莫尔并未构想出实现这一理想的手段，因此，他只能算是一个共产主义的空想家。
一百二十年前，真正的无产者马克思将实现这一空想的方法具体化。即由无产者联合起来，以暴力手段没收有产者的财产，来实现这一伟大理想。第一个以此方式成立的政权——巴黎公社——不久成立，但是，在其短暂的七十二天生命中，领导人之间的意见分歧及不可妥协性成了其过早夭折的重要原因。这也是马克思理论的重要缺陷之一：它无力解决领导人之间的内部矛盾分歧，这种矛盾时常严重到使其行政组织陷于瘫痪的地步。
巴黎公社尽管失败了，但是对理想国的坚定信念，最终还是使地球上成立了许多类似模式的国家。然而，几十年的实践表明，公有制并未能改变老百姓的地位。消灭了私有制，并不能消灭掉人的私心。在公有制社会，仍然需要管理者，而这些管理者很快就会变成特权阶级，演变成新的贵族。而且，由于所有生活资料的分配使用权都掌握在少数官员手中，百姓被剥夺了一切个人财产，很快就使百姓陷入了更加险恶的境地，被任意调拨驱使，出现新的剥削与压迫。而获得政权的工具——军队，成为了新的统治者维持自己统治的暴力机器。“公有制”与“人民当家作主”并无因果关系，一种是经济制度，一种是政治制度，经济改革并不能解决政治问题。可以说，实现财产的公有制在人类社会的进化过程中并非是成功的尝试。同莫尔一样，马克思只是一个哲学家、思想家，或许可以被称为是经济学家和历史学家，但绝不是一个政治家和政治学家。
相反，在政治制度上进行的反独裁专制的变革尝试，都获得了巨大的成功。纵观历史，古希腊实行民主选举执政官的制度，曾使其强盛一时，成为爱琴海地区的霸主，并带来了文化、艺术、哲学的繁荣，成为今日欧洲文化的发源地。古罗马实行的政治民主也有同样的效果，由贵族组成的元老院百人大会每年选举一次国家的执政官，并以选举产生权力相对独立的大法官、检察官，实行了一定程度的民主决策，促进了国家有序合理的管理，给整个社会带来了繁荣，使罗马帝国空前强大，在其短暂的五十三年历史中，征服了包括西班牙、大不列颠、土耳其在内的几乎整个欧洲，以及北部非洲的广大地区。
古罗马之所以强盛是由于有良好的政治制度，使罗马内部的各种势力得到协调和平衡，避免了权贵之间的内部斗争，一致对外。元老院组织健全，执政官忠于职守，法律开明，检察官廉洁奉公，社会民风朴实，思想自由。元老院是国家兼有立法和管理权的机关；执政官是最高行政长官，每年由百人团会议选出两人，任期一年，享有最高指挥权；检察官是大罗马权力独立的高级长官，选举产生，任期五年，主要负责户口调查，财产登记和征集壮丁，后兼管财政事宜，监督风纪。只是后来由于国家扩张的速度过快，导致执政官的权力膨胀，掌握了全部立法、司法大权，少数贵族重新独揽了军事、宗教、政治及其它一切职位，恢复了专权，废弃了选举制度，最终使国家走向衰败。
在十六世纪的英国，一部分有团体意识、有社会地位的人逐渐结成同盟，他们怀有敌意地与王权相抗争，最终推动社会走向了议会制民主政治道路。十七世纪中叶，英国首先发生资产阶级大革命，限制了国王的权力，开辟了民选议院参政议政的先例，首先带来了产业革命，国力大增，使其在其后的两百年里，势力迅速扩展到全世界，在大于其本土一百四十倍的土地上建立了殖民地。美国民主制度的确立，使北美从一个荒无人烟、土地板结的原始未垦地，迅速发展成为世界最富裕最强大的国家之一，汲取各国之精华，在工业、农业、科技发展上独领风骚。而日本 1868 年的明治维新，引进西方民主模式，使其从一个以农业为主、工业资源极其匮乏，在文化、艺术上经常派人向中国学习的儒教岛国，迅速崛起成为世界一流的经济军事大国。
民主政治制度的成功及其所制订的政策的合理、明智、人道，极大地理鼓舞了全世界人民的信心与志气。它给社会带来的自由平等，为全世界人民带来了希望。成为全世界人民人心所向的一种政治制度，以至于许多大独裁者也念念不忘对民主的敬意。希特勒曾公然宣称他所建立的制度是“更高意义上的民主制度”；墨索里尼 1937 年 9 月在柏林的一次演讲中吹嘘：“在世界上今天存在的最伟大而健全的民主国家就是意大利和德国”。这些民主的敌人亦迷惑性地表示忠于民主，正表明民主的理想对现代人具有的巨大吸引力和普遍的感召力。恩格斯也曾说：“民主在今天就是共产主义”❶ 。列宁则表示：“无产阶级民主要比任何资产阶级民主要民主百万倍”❷。
民主化进程是一个逐渐发展演变，逐步完善的过程。在大多数已经实现政治决策民主化的国家历史中，有权参与政治决策的公民的数量都有一个逐渐递增普及的过程。在古希腊和古罗马，有权参政议政的只限于自由人；在英国，早期的民主只限于
❶ 《马克思恩格斯全集》第 2 卷，第 664 页。
❷ 《列宁选集》第 3 卷，第 634 页。
贵族，后来延伸到资产阶级和中产阶级；在美国、法国、日本的民主政体建立的初期，拥有选举权的人曾被限定为有文化、有财产的纳税人，随着社会的发展与公民文化水平的普及提高，纳税限制与性别限制被逐渐取消，选举权扩展到全社会所有的成年人。实际上，在当时的社会背景下，限制选举权也许并非毫无道理，因为，对于一个存在大量的，几乎没有任何文化知识，没有阅读能力的文盲的社会，实行广泛的民主，也许不会带来明显的好处。但是，遗憾的是，这在当时被少数贫困的文人作为政治不平等的实例，成为无产者以暴力夺取和没收有产者财产的借口。
可以说，西方民主革命最初是一场中产阶级的革命，受益者主要是中产阶级，其领导者有许多是贵族阶级，支持者主要是工薪阶级，而工薪阶级最终成为永久的受益者。因为民主政治是多数人的政治，工薪阶级在任何社会都占据多数。
在当今世界，民主政治经过长期的实践与改进，已经摸索发展出一套完整的理论模式。同任何其它自然科学和工程科学的理论一样，民主政治理论也是人类共同创造、积累的财富，而不是任何个人的发明，对其学习与使用并不会受到任何出于自私心态的限制。因此，因种种原因尚未能实现民主而欲实现民主的国家，已用不着从头摸索民主制度的建立，只要对已有的大量的理论与经验，进行学习与吸收即可。就像在自然科学领域一样，对前人作出的发明创造，不需要再化巨大的时间、精力、经费去研究开发，要做的是，只是派人去学习借鉴。实际上，已经生活在民主制度下的人们，通常都很乐意帮助生活在专制制度下的人民实现民主。在民主化社会，社会科学、政治科学同自然科学、工程科学一样，向任何人敞开着大门，接受任何人的求学，也接受任何人的贡献。它们本身就是全人类智慧的财富，为全人类的共同利益服务。
编辑：赵杰 校对：孔祥庆 翻译：沈美花
Chapter 5 – Chapter 6: The Formation of Democratic Polity
(IV) Consciousness of Political Participation
Author: Zhu Zhengming
Whether citizens possess a consciousness of political participation is the key to whether democratic politics can be established and maintained in the long run. The composition and behavior of a government in a democratic society depend entirely on the views and beliefs of the majority of its citizens. Specifically, these include: How should government institutions be established? What role should politicians play? How should the government operate?
For democracy to be realized, a society’s political activities must possess two fundamental conditions: First, opposition parties must be given the opportunity to establish their own organizations and express differing political views; Second, there must be explicit regulations enabling the public to control officials through periodic elections, and when voters choose other leaders, the original political leaders must step down voluntarily.
For democratic politics to succeed, the general public must possess two universal qualities: First, they must care about politics, firmly believe in their own judgment, and tolerate political propaganda with opposing contents; Second, when the will of the majority goes against their own opinions, they must be willing to comply. If various political parties and groups stubbornly adhere to their own opinions, the nation will inevitably fall into endless disputes.
For example, according to constitutional provisions, if a presidential candidate wins an election and is supposed to replace the incumbent president, this event will not happen merely because of constitutional rules. It happens because all the people have a prior understanding of the rules of the election and unanimously agree that they must abide by them. This includes the supporters of the losing candidate, who were mentally prepared in advance to respect the election results and accept the leadership of the opponent if the opponent wins. Just like a football match, everyone kicks the ball toward the opponent’s goal according to the prescribed rules, and when time is up, the side with fewer goals automatically admits defeat.
The political views and political expectations held by citizens are the fundamental factors that determine and control government behavior and official conduct. If citizens do not expect government officials to consider their opinions at all, do not expect decision-makers to be accountable to them, remain indifferent to officials’ arbitrariness and volatility, and regard corruption as a normal phenomenon, natural conditions will be created for authoritarian dictatorship, allowing dictatorial autocracy to naturally emerge, develop, and grow strong. Although many countries have good constitutions, they nevertheless transform into one-party systems or military dictatorships. The reason lies in the fact that the general public lacks democratic convictions and fails to unite to act as sovereigns. As a result, the nation possesses only the form of democracy without its substance, and democracy becomes a deceptive banner for rulers.
Therefore, citizens must firmly expect the government to act according to the public will and expect officials to truly and effectively serve them. The high expectations held by citizens toward the government are the sole guarantee that politics in a democratic society can operate according to the will of the people over the long term. Citizens in a democratic society are by no means numb or sheep-like; rather, they are wise and active.
An international public opinion survey shows that ordinary citizens in different countries have different feelings regarding their own ability to exert political influence, as shown in the table below. The question asked in the survey was: “Regarding an unjust law/decree, do you believe you can exert influence on its modification?”
(Note: The data in the table represents the percentage of people who answered “Yes”.)
| United States | United Kingdom | West Germany | Italy | Mexico | |
| National Government Laws/Decrees | 75% | 62% | 38% | 28% | 38% |
| Local Government Laws/Decrees | 77% | 78% | 62% | 51% | 52% |
A high percentage in a country does not necessarily mean that its society is the most democratic; it merely indicates that the democratic atmosphere in that country is more vibrant, democratic theories are more deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, and beliefs in democratic politics are more widely recognized by both the populace and officials. These basic beliefs are:
The rule of government must be founded upon the consent of the people;
Politics must act according to the will of the people and be responsible to the people; the people are the source of national political power;
Everyone has equal rights and opportunities to participate in political activities;
Majority rule;
Everyone is equal before the law;
Protecting the interests of minorities among citizens;
Freedom of speech;
Freedom of the press and publication;
Freedom of belief;
Freedom of association;
Elections are the best way to choose leaders;
Losers must step down from leadership actively and quietly;
Irresponsible, unprincipled, and morally degraded individuals must immediately leave government leadership positions;
Government officials are merely trustees of administrative power; they are not the masters of the people, but agents of the people’s interests. As long as the people are pleased, they can elevate them at any time, or pull them down at any time. Officials have only the obligation to obey and have no right to argue conditions or bargain. Their task is to do what the people require them to do—neither less nor more, because doing more often constitutes an act of infringement.
| United States | United Kingdom | Germany | Italy | Mexico | |
| Believe they can receive equal treatment from government officials | 83% | 83% | 65% | 53% | 42% |
| Believe ordinary people are active in community groups | 51% | 39% | 22% | 10% | 26% |
(Note: The data in the table represents the percentage of citizens in certain countries who held an affirmative view toward the question asked during a public opinion survey.)
Human beings are not flawless creatures; even the smartest and most meticulous person can make mistakes. High-ranking officials traditionally have the habit of despising commoners, and the instincts of laziness and self-confidence often cause bureaucrats to overlook the interests of the public without even realizing it. Therefore, the public must remain vigilant regarding the behavior of government officials, monitor them, critique them, and replace them through collective power.
The public can care very much about the selection of political leaders, but they cannot tell leaders how to formulate policies. They can only evaluate policies, react when policies affect their interests, and decide whether to vote for those leaders in the next election. Public opinion can tell leaders in what direction to go, but it cannot tell leaders how to get there.
The democratic system is, in essence, a form of social consciousness. Social consciousness is akin to a national language—it is a nation’s common way of thinking and communicating. Mastering a new language is a arduous process for people, but once they have mastered and grown accustomed to it, it is no longer possible to make them cease using it.
Chapter 6: The Formation of Democratic Polity
Throughout human history, almost all governance was autocratic rule. One segment of people always controlled another segment, demanding their labor fruits and even holding power over their life and death. However, this contradicts the free nature of humanity. Whenever an opportunity arises, the controlled and oppressed party will rise up in resistance to change the control relationship and make themselves the new controllers. The power struggles in human society have never ceased; sometimes these struggles are so tragic that they not only destroy cultural and material wealth created over dozens of generations, but even cause tens of millions of people to lose their lives in the slaughter. This mode of ruling by brute force severely hinders the healthy development of human society and is incompatible with existing human civilization, rationality, and intelligence. Civilized society must abandon it as early as possible.
(I) The Origins of Democratic Politics
Humanity’s yearning for freedom and a peaceful life has never ceased, nor has the exploration of ideal, wonderful political systems and social models ever been interrupted. As early as 2,400 years ago, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato conceived a nation of political equality and personal freedom in his book The Republic. His student Aristotle, in his book Politics, proposed that the power of monarchs should be restricted, advocating for public participation in the management of state affairs, public ownership of property, and the development of education. This theory contributed to promoting the establishment of the ancient Greek electoral system at that time and driving social, economic, and cultural prosperity.
Confucius in the East, contemporary with Plato, proposed the Confucian philosophy of “Benevolence, Righteousness, Propriety, Wisdom, and Trustworthiness” (Ren, Yi, Li, Zhi, Xin). His intention was also to advise the strong in society to appropriately restrain their desires, regulate their behavior, and ease social contradictions. This also played a role in maintaining China’s relative prosperity and status as an Eastern power for thousands of years. From different perspectives, they contributed to the stability and harmonious coexistence of human society.
More than 480 years ago, the British thinker Thomas More believed that private ownership was the root cause of all evil; as long as property belonged to private individuals, it would be impossible to eradicate greed, disputes, plundering, war, and all factors of social instability. In his book Utopia published in 1516—a title meaning “the most perfect state system”—More depicted a paradise-like nation. In this country, public ownership of property was practiced; regardless of the product, whether for consumption or use, everything was gathered in designated markets in every city. Families went to the market to take what they needed without paying money or any other price, and without limit on quantity. Because the country was rich in goods and resources were inexhaustible, hoarding goods in one’s own home was completely superfluous. They did not produce handicrafts, art supplies, or other items that served only luxurious enjoyment without benefiting the national economy and people’s livelihood. The nation was based on agriculture, attached importance to education, provided free medical care, and worked six hours a day. Because private property was thoroughly abolished, anyone could freely enter and leave any residence without door locks, and residences could be swapped at will. The entire country was a harmonious utopian big family.
However, More did not conceive the means to achieve this ideal; therefore, he can only be regarded as a utopian communist.
One hundred and twenty years ago, Karl Marx, a true proletarian, concrete-ized the method to achieve this ideal: namely, proletarians uniting to confiscate the property of property owners through violent means to realize this grand ideal. The first regime established in this manner—the Paris Commune—was founded shortly thereafter. However, during its brief 72-day existence, differences of opinion and the irreconcilability among its leaders became an important reason for its premature demise. This was also one of the major flaws in Marx’s theory: it was powerless to resolve internal conflicts and disagreements among leaders, conflicts that were often so severe as to paralyze its administrative organization.
Although the Paris Commune failed, firm belief in the ideal state ultimately led to the establishment of many nations with similar models across the globe. However, decades of practice have shown that public ownership failed to change the status of ordinary people. Eliminating private ownership does not eliminate human selfishness. In a society of public ownership, managers are still needed, and these managers quickly turn into a privileged class, evolving into a new aristocracy. Moreover, because the right to distribute and use all means of living is concentrated in the hands of a few officials, and ordinary citizens are deprived of all personal property, citizens are swiftly plunged into an even more perilous situation—arbitrarily dispatched and driven, giving rise to new forms of exploitation and oppression. The military, as a tool for gaining political power, became a violent machine for the new rulers to maintain their rule. “Public ownership” and “the people being masters of the country” have no causal relationship; one is an economic system, while the other is a political system. Economic reform cannot solve political problems. It can be said that realizing the public ownership of property was not a successful attempt in the evolutionary process of human society. Like More, Marx was merely a philosopher and thinker—perhaps he could be called an economist and historian—but by no means a politician or political scientist.
On the contrary, attempts at anti-autocratic political system reforms have achieved immense success. Looking back at history, ancient Greece’s system of democratically electing chief magistrates once made it strong and powerful for a time, becoming the hegemon of the Aegean Sea region and bringing about the prosperity of culture, art, and philosophy, thus becoming the birthplace of modern European culture.
The political democracy practiced in ancient Rome had a similar effect. The Centuriate Assembly, composed of aristocrats, annually elected the nation’s Consuls and elected relatively independent Chief Justices (Praetors) and Censors. Implementing a certain degree of democratic decision-making facilitated the orderly and reasonable management of the state, brought prosperity to the entire society, and made the Roman Empire unprecedentedly powerful. In its brief 53-year history [of rapid expansion], it conquered almost the whole of Europe—including Spain, Great Britain, and Turkey—as well as vast regions of Northern Africa.
The reason ancient Rome was strong was its sound political system, which coordinated and balanced various internal forces within Rome, avoided internal struggles among the powerful, and presented a united front to the outside world. The Senate was well-organized, Consuls were faithful to their duties, laws were enlightened, Censors were clean and honest, social customs were simple and honest, and thought was free. The Senate was the organ possessing both legislative and managerial powers in the state; Consuls were the highest executive officers, two of whom were elected annually by the Centuriate Assembly for a one-year term, holding supreme command power; Censors were senior officials with independent power in Great Rome, elected for a five-year term, primarily responsible for household registration, property registration, and conscripting young men, and later concurrently managing financial affairs and supervising public morals. It was only later, because the pace of national expansion was too rapid, that the power of Consuls expanded excessively, seizing all legislative and judicial powers. A small number of aristocrats once again monopolized all military, religious, political, and other positions, restoring autocratic rule and abandoning the electoral system, which ultimately led the nation toward decline.
In 16th-century England, a group of people with collective consciousness and social status gradually formed an alliance, opposing royal power with hostility and ultimately driving society toward the path of parliamentary democracy. In the mid-17th century, the bourgeois revolution first broke out in England, restricting the King’s power and creating a precedent for a democratically elected parliament to participate in and discuss state affairs. This first brought about the Industrial Revolution and greatly increased national strength, enabling its influence to expand rapidly across the world over the next two centuries, establishing colonies on land 140 times larger than its home territory.
The establishment of the American democratic system enabled North America to rapidly develop from an uninhabited, uncultivated wilderness into one of the richest and most powerful nations in the world, absorbing the essence of various countries and leading the way in industrial, agricultural, and technological development.
Japan’s Meiji Restoration in 1868 introduced the Western democratic model, enabling it to rapidly rise from a Confucian island nation dominated by agriculture with extremely scarce industrial resources—which frequently sent envoys to learn from China in terms of culture and art—into a world-class economic and military power.
The success of democratic political systems and the rationality, wisdom, and humanity of the policies they formulated greatly inspired the confidence and morale of people around the world. The freedom and equality it brought to society brought hope to people worldwide. It became a political system desired by people globally, to the extent that even great dictators never forgot to pay respect to democracy. Hitler once publicly declared that the system he established was a “democracy in a higher sense”; Mussolini, in a speech in Berlin in September 1937, boasted: “Today, the greatest and healthiest democracies existing in the world are Italy and Germany.” That these enemies of democracy also deceptively professed loyalty to democracy precisely demonstrates the immense attraction and universal appeal that the ideal of democracy holds for modern humans. Engels also once said, “Democracy nowadays is communism.” Lenin stated, “Proletarian democracy is a million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy.”
The process of democratization is a gradual process of development, evolution, and continuous refinement. In the history of most countries that have achieved democratized political decision-making, the number of citizens entitled to participate in political decision-making has experienced a gradual increase and popularization. In ancient Greece and ancient Rome, those entitled to participate in and discuss state affairs were limited to freemen; in England, early democracy was limited to aristocrats, and later extended to the bourgeoisie and middle class; in the early stages of democratic polities in the United States, France, and Japan, people with voting rights were restricted to educated, property-owning taxpayers. With the development of society and the popularization and improvement of citizens’ cultural levels, tax restrictions and gender restrictions were gradually lifted, and voting rights were extended to all adults in society. In fact, under the social background of that time, restricting voting rights might not have been completely unreasonable, because in a society with a large number of illiterate people with almost no cultural knowledge or reading ability, practicing widespread democracy might not bring obvious benefits. Regrettably, however, this was used at the time by a few impoverished intellectuals as an instance of political inequality, serving as a pretext for proletarians to seize and confiscate the property of property owners by violence.
It can be said that the Western democratic revolution was initially a middle-class revolution, with the middle class as the primary beneficiaries, many of its leaders coming from the aristocratic class, and its supporters mainly coming from the wage-earning class. The wage-earning class ultimately became permanent beneficiaries, because democratic politics is the politics of the majority, and the wage-earning class constitutes the majority in any society.
In today’s world, through long-term practice and improvement, democratic politics has explored and developed a complete set of theoretical models. Like theories in any other natural science or engineering science, democratic political theory is also a shared wealth created and accumulated by humanity, rather than the invention of any single individual; learning and using it will not be restricted by any selfish mindset. Therefore, countries that have not yet realized democracy due to various reasons do not need to explore the establishment of a democratic system from scratch; they only need to learn from and absorb the vast amount of existing theories and experiences. Just like in the field of natural science, regarding inventions and creations made by predecessors, there is no need to spend huge amounts of time, energy, and funds to research and develop them again; all that needs to be done is to send people to learn and draw reference from them. In fact, people already living under democratic systems are usually very willing to help people living under autocratic systems achieve democracy. In a democratized society, social sciences and political sciences, like natural sciences and engineering sciences, open their doors to everyone, accepting anyone’s pursuit of knowledge, as well as anyone’s contribution. They are themselves the wealth of all human wisdom, serving the common interests of all humanity.
Editors: Zhao Jie
Proofreader:Kong Xiangqing
Translator: Shen Meihua
