Films That Instill Hatred Are Not Good Films

作者：华语

编辑：李聪玲 责任编辑：罗志飞 翻译：鲁慧文

一部宣扬仇恨、扩大分裂的电影，绝不是一部好电影。电影作为一种强大的艺术媒介，承载着传递情感、启发思考、塑造价值观的使命。一部好的电影，应该让人们感受到人性的光辉，促进理解与包容，而不是挑起对立、煽动仇恨。

以仇恨为卖点的电影，或许能在短时间内搏得眼球，但对社会的影响却是深远而负面的。扩散仇恨的电影往往通过刻画刻板印象、妖魔化特定群体来制造冲突。这种做法不仅缺乏艺术深度，还会加深社会偏见。

《南京照相馆》将日本民族描绘成“反派” “坏人”，这种单维的叙述方式不仅扭曲事实，还会潜移默化地影响观众的认知，激化矛盾。试问，一部让观众带着偏见离开影院的电影，怎能称之为“优秀”？好的电影应该激发观众的共情与反思，而不是煽动对立。经典影片如《阿甘正传》或《辛德勒的名单》，通过展现人性的复杂与美好，让观众感受到希望与团结的力量。而那些宣扬仇恨的电影，却往往利用恐惧和愤怒来操纵观众情绪，忽视了艺术应有的治愈与启迪功能。这样的作品，或许能带来票房，但却失去了电影作为文化载体的真正价值。

作为观众，我们也有责任选择支持那些传递普世价值观的电影。让我们用观影的选择，告诉创作者：我们需要的不是分裂与仇恨，而是理解与希望。一部好电影，应该让世界变得更美好，而不是更糟。让我们远离那些宣扬仇恨的电影，拥抱那些温暖人心、启迪思想的佳作！

Films That Instill Hatred Are Not Good Films

By Huayu | Edited by Li Congling | Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei | Translated by Huiwen Lu

Summary: A good film should evoke empathy and reflection, not incite division. By portraying the complexity and beauty of human nature, films can inspire hope and unity. In contrast, films that promote hatred often manipulate audiences through fear and anger, ignoring the healing and enlightening power that art should possess. Through our viewing choices, we can send a clear message to creators: what we need is not division and hatred, but understanding and hope.

A film that spreads hatred and deepens division is by no means a good film.

As a powerful medium of art, cinema carries the mission of conveying emotions, inspiring thought, and shaping values. A good film should highlight the brilliance of humanity and promote understanding and inclusiveness—not provoke confrontation or stir up hatred.

Films that rely on hatred as a selling point may attract attention in the short term, but their impact on society is long-lasting and negative. These types of films often manufacture conflict by portraying stereotypes and demonizing specific groups. This approach lacks artistic depth and only serves to deepen societal prejudice.

For instance, The Nanjing Photo Studio portrays the Japanese as the “villains” and “bad guys.” Such one-dimensional storytelling not only distorts the truth but also subtly shapes the audience’s perception and intensifies hostility. How can a film that sends viewers home more biased than when they arrived be considered “outstanding”?

A truly great film should inspire empathy and introspection, not hostility. Classic works like Forrest Gump or Schindler’s List showcase the complexity and beauty of humanity, allowing audiences to feel the power of hope and unity. In contrast, films that promote hatred often manipulate emotions by exploiting fear and anger, neglecting the role of art as a force for healing and inspiration. Such works may achieve commercial success, but they forfeit the true cultural value that cinema is meant to embody.

As audiences, we also bear responsibility. We must choose to support films that convey universal human values. Let us use our viewing choices to tell filmmakers: what we need is not hatred and division, but understanding and hope.

A good film should make the world a better place—not a worse one.

Let us turn away from films that promote hatred, and instead embrace those works that warm the heart and enlighten the mind.

Why Do We All Live in Constant Anxiety?

作者：华语

编辑：周志刚 责任编辑：罗志飞

高层的互斗、中产的焦虑、底层的绝望，从高高在上的掌权者到挣扎求生的普通人，安全感的缺失如同一把无形的刀，割裂了社会，刺痛了我们的灵魂。

一、最高层的噩梦，忠诚还是背叛

让我们先看看那些站在权力巅峰的人。他们，表面上掌控一切，风光无限，但他们的内心却被恐惧紧紧攫住。他们害怕什么？害怕“忠诚”的盟友在暗处磨刀，害怕一夜之间被推翻，害怕今日的荣华富贵化为明日的历史尘埃。忠诚？在这个权力至上的国家，忠诚不过是权谋博弈的筹码。他们日夜提防，步步为营，甚至不敢相信身边最亲近的人。历史上的刀光剑影，权力场上的尔虞我诈，无时无刻不在提醒他们：权力越高，背叛的阴影就越深。这种不安全感，如同寒风刺骨，让他们即便身处高位，也无法安然入睡。

二、中层的挣扎，跌落深渊的恐惧

再看看我们身边的中坚力量——那些忠诚于体制、埋头苦干的所谓的中产阶级和精英们。他们是社会的脊梁，是无数个日夜加班的写字楼灯光，是为了孩子教育咬牙攒钱的父母。他们努力、他们忠诚、他们相信只要奋斗就能守住来之不易的一切。然而，他们的内心深处，却有一个挥之不去的梦魇：一旦失足，便跌落深渊。体制内的害怕被反腐，体制外的害怕被裁员，有钱的害怕被政府盯上被围猎，一个意外就能让他们从云端坠入谷底。他们的安全感，脆弱得像一张薄纸，随时可能被生活的风暴撕得粉碎。这种不安全感，像毒药一样，侵蚀着他们的希望，让他们活得战战兢兢。

三、底层的呐喊，生存的绝境

对于社会底层的普通人，安全感的缺失更是一场赤裸裸的生存危机。他们是城市的清洁工，是工厂流水线上的工人，是为了一日三餐奔波的快递员。他们没有选择的余地，只有活下去的执念。房价像脱缰的野马，医疗费用像无底的黑洞，教育资源像遥不可及的星光，养老保障更是镜花水月。这些对他们来说，不是权利，而是遥不可及的奢侈品。一场大病，就能让一个家庭倾家荡产；一套房子，可能是几代人攒下的血汗钱；孩子的教育，是他们咬紧牙关的坚持；老无所依，是他们深夜辗转反侧的恐惧。他们在生存的边缘挣扎，社会的冷漠像一把刀，割得他们遍体鳞伤。这种不安全感，不是抽象的焦虑，而是每一天都真真切切压在心头的巨石。

让资源不再是少数人的特权，而是每个人的权利。不安全的感觉，不是某一个人的失败，而是整个社会的权利结构的失衡、资源分配的失衡。安全感，不是一个人能给自己的礼物，而是整个社会共同编织的温暖。我们需要一个让底层有希望、中层有保障、高层有约束且民主自由的、有社会安全网的社会。这样的社会需要民主与法治，需要宪政与自由。

Why Do We All Live in Constant Anxiety?

By Hua YuEdited by Zhou Zhigang | Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei

Abstract:From infighting among the elite to the anxiety of the middle class and the despair of the lower class, the lack of security has become an invisible blade—splitting society and wounding our collective soul.

I. The Nightmare at the Top: Loyalty or Betrayal?

Let us begin with those perched atop the hierarchy of power. On the surface, they appear to control everything—drenched in glory and influence. Yet beneath that facade lies a core gripped by fear.What are they afraid of?They fear that “loyal” allies may be sharpening knives behind their backs.They fear being overthrown overnight.They fear that today’s power and luxury may turn into tomorrow’s dust.

In a system where power is absolute, loyalty is nothing more than a bargaining chip in games of manipulation.They are constantly on guard, taking every step with paranoia, unable even to trust those closest to them.The palace intrigues of history and the constant scheming of the present remind them:The higher the position, the deeper the shadow of betrayal.

Their lack of security is like a cold wind cutting through the skin—so sharp and relentless that even the most powerful cannot sleep soundly at night.

II. The Struggles of the Middle: The Fear of Falling

Now let’s turn to society’s so-called “pillars”—the middle class and professionals who loyally serve the system and grind tirelessly each day.They are the backbone of the economy:—the ones keeping office lights burning late into the night,—the parents saving every penny for their children’s education,—the workers who still believe that hard work can preserve the modest comfort they’ve achieved.

But deep down, they live with a gnawing fear:One misstep could lead to total ruin.For those inside the system, it’s the fear of being purged in anti-corruption campaigns;for those outside, it’s the fear of sudden layoffs.The wealthy live in dread of government targeting and asset seizures.

In such a climate, a single misfortune can plunge them from the clouds into the abyss.

Their sense of security is as fragile as thin paper—easily torn apart by life’s next storm.This anxiety is like poison, corroding their dreams and forcing them to live in constant unease.

III. The Cry of the Bottom: The Desperation of Survival

For the working class at the bottom of the social ladder, the absence of security is not just a psychological burden—it is a daily, raw struggle for survival.

They are the street cleaners, the factory workers, the food couriers rushing through the city just to earn enough for one more day.

They have no choices—only the will to survive.

Housing prices are like runaway horses;healthcare costs are bottomless pits;quality education is a distant, unreachable star;retirement support is an illusion.

To them, these are not rights—they are unattainable luxuries.

A serious illness can bankrupt an entire family.A single apartment may consume generations of savings.Their children’s education is a commitment born of clenched teeth and sleepless nights.Growing old without support is a fear that haunts them in the dark.

They live on the edge, while society’s indifference cuts them open again and again.

This is not some abstract anxiety—this is a real, daily weight pressing on their hearts.

We must end the monopoly of resources by a privileged few and restore them as the rightful inheritance of all.

This pervasive insecurity is not a personal failure—it is a symptom of a broken system, of a society misaligned in its power structures and distribution of resources.

A true sense of security cannot be self-made—it must be woven collectively by society.

We need a system where:

the underprivileged can still hope,

the middle class can be protected,

and those in power are held accountable.We need a society built on freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and constitutional governance—with a real social safety net for all.

Only such a society can heal the wound that this invisible knife has carved into our collective spirit.

“On Your Own Land, You Are Only ‘Temporarily Allowed to Exist’”

— The Brutal Truth of Institutionalized Enslavement in China, As Revealed by the “Temporary Residence Permit”

作者：周君红

编辑：周志刚 责任编辑：罗志飞 翻译：鲁慧文

在这个世界上，几乎没有哪个国家像中国那样，对自己的人民说出这样的话：“你虽然是国民，但你在这片土地上，仅仅是暂时被允许存在。”

它不是对外国人说的，不是对非法移民说的，而是对——在同一个国家出生、长大、纳税、打工的中国人说的。这个扭曲的逻辑，通过一种几乎所有普通人都耳熟能详的制度传递出来：暂住证。

一：“暂住”这两个字，本身就是羞辱

当你听到“暂住”这两个字时，请暂停几秒钟，认真咀嚼它的含义—— 它意味着你不属于这里。你是外来者，你没有扎根的资格，你只是“暂时允许住在这里”的人。哪怕这块土地是你的祖国，哪怕你只是从贵州搬到广州，从河南来到北京，在制度眼中，你依然是“外地人”，你必须被登记、被限制、被区别对待。

这个赤裸裸的公民等级制度告诉你：不是每一个中国人都被平等对待的。

二、从“暂住证”到“城市边缘人”：制度制造的漂泊身份

暂住证制度始于上世纪90年代，伴随着城镇化进程兴起而来。本意是为了“管理流动人口”，但真正的效应却是：将成百万上千万进城务工的农民工、基层劳工、异地工作者打上了“非法居住”的烙印。

一个人在祖国的大地上打工、生活、纳税，却要被贴上“暂住”标签，不仅需要花钱办理证明，而且面临种种限制：

—— 没有暂住证，不能租房、不能找工作；

—— 孩子无法就近上学、无法参加高考；

—— 医疗、社保等城市公共服务统统无权享用；

—— 随时可能被清查、被驱赶、被遣返。

这不是制度设计上的疏漏，这是刻意制造的身份降格机制。一个“暂”字，不仅让无数人活成了城市的边缘人，也让他们对“安家落户”这四个字彻底失望。

三、这是中国式种姓制度，不输印度

如果你以为“暂住证”只是个旧政策，那么不妨看看它的演化：“暂住证”虽然名义上在一些城市被废除，但它换了名字，变成了“居住证”、“积分落户制”、“外来人口管理档案”。换汤不换药，它的本质依然是：用户籍和行政壁垒把一个国家的人民人为分为不同等级的人群。

户籍制度，是这套歧视结构的基础，而“暂住证”制度，则是它的延伸和暴力执行机制。它们共同组成了一个现代版的种姓体制：

—— 农村户口与城市户口天差地别；

—— 本地人与外地人资源悬殊；

—— 户口成了孩子的命运起点，也成了你是否有资格“做市民”的通行证。

你不是“暂住”的，你是“被隔离”的；你不是“管理对象”，你是被标记的廉价劳动力。

四、你为什么不能自由迁徙？因为政权不信任你

在世界上大多数国家，公民拥有最基本的权利之一：自由迁徙。你想从德州搬到纽约，从巴黎搬到里昂，只要能自食其力，没人会拦你。但在中国，“你搬到哪”不是你的自由，而是权力能否“批准你存在”。这种不信任体现在每一层制度中：

—— 你没有本地户口？抱歉，孩子不能入学。

—— 你没有办居住证？对不起，这里不接诊你。

—— 你没积分？那你永远别想“落户”，你就是漂泊者。

在中共眼中，人民不是国民，而是可以调配的生产资源。 迁徙、安居、扎根，不是你的权利，而是政权“发给你”的恩典。

五、这不是现代国家，这是殖民式管理

在你自己的国家、自己的语言、自己的文化中生活，却要“申请是否可以留下”——这不是现代国家的公民待遇，而是殖民地对被管理者的态度。

更讽刺的是，在某些城市里，一个白人留学生可以轻松居住、领补贴、上大学；而一个在工地上辛苦三十年的中国农民工，却要三代积分才能换来一张落户证。

当一个国家对自己的人民都不信任、不接纳、不平等，却对外国人毕恭毕敬时，我们必须正视：这不是开放，这是身份歧视的制度性黑洞。

六、从灵魂层面看：这是对人类存在权的否定

从高维角度看，每个生命来到世界，都拥有天赋的居住权、行动权、表达权。“国民”不是一种行政身份，而是灵魂在这片土地上应被尊重的存在形式。

但“暂住证”的逻辑却是：你必须先证明你配得上活在这里，配得上生活，配得上扎根。你必须忍辱负重，努力“积分”，努力成为“可以留下的那类人”。

这不是人类文明，这是对生命本质的践踏。

七、终结这种羞辱，不是换名字，而是解体整个体制

别再说“暂住证早取消了”，因为它没有真的消失，只是伪装得更好。只要你还必须“靠积分落户”， 只要孩子还因为户口被排斥在学校门外，只要有无数人被清理、被驱赶、被赶回原籍，这套羞辱制度就还在运行。

我们要的不是名义上的废除，不是换个词就叫“改革”。 我们要的，是对“公民权”最基本的尊重，是对“自由迁徙”的恢复，是对“平等居住”的承认。 你不是“暂时活在中国”的人， 你是这片土地的天然主人。你不需要一张许可证来证明你存在，你的存在，本身就是最高的合法性。

尾声：

当一个国家用“暂住证”羞辱自己的人民，它已经不再是一个人民的国家。当人民失去了自由迁徙与归属的权利，它也终将失去人民的心。我们终有一日，要亲手撕掉这张制度的铁牌， 让每一个人都能理直气壮地站在自己的土地上，不再是“暂住”，而是——真正地活着。

“On Your Own Land, You Are Only ‘Temporarily Allowed to Exist’”

— The Brutal Truth of Institutionalized Enslavement in China, As Revealed by the “Temporary Residence Permit”

By Zhou Junhong

Editor: Zhou Zhigang | Chief Editor: Luo Zhifei | Translated by: Lu Huiwen

Abstract:

This article examines how the Chinese government exploits its population—particularly migrant workers and laborers from remote areas—through the household registration system (referred to by terms like temporary residence permit, residence permit, point-based household registration, and migrant population management files). The “hukou” system denies rural migrants basic social benefits and charges them extra administrative fees, all to control population movement, restrict peasants to rural areas, and manipulate grain prices—thereby systematically depriving them of basic survival rights.

In this world, there is almost no other country like China—where the state dares to tell its own people:

“You may be a citizen, but on this land, you are only temporarily allowed to exist.”

This statement is not aimed at foreigners, nor illegal immigrants, but at Chinese citizens who are born, raised, taxed, and employed within the same country. This distorted logic is conveyed through a system every ordinary person is familiar with: the temporary residence permit.

I. The Words “Temporary Residence” Are an Insult in Themselves

When you hear the term “temporary residence,” pause and consider its meaning—it implies you don’t belong. You are an outsider, undeserving of taking root. You are merely someone “temporarily allowed to live here.”

Even if this land is your motherland, even if you simply moved from Guizhou to Guangzhou or from Henan to Beijing, the system sees you as an “outsider.” You must be registered, restricted, and treated differently.

This naked hierarchy tells you: not all Chinese citizens are treated equally.

II. From “Temporary Residence” to “Urban Marginalization”: A Manufactured Identity of Displacement

The temporary residence permit system began in the 1990s, alongside China’s urbanization. Its stated purpose was to “manage the floating population,” but its real effect was to brand tens of millions of rural migrant workers and grassroots laborers as “illegally residing” in cities.

A person who works, lives, and pays taxes in their own country is labeled as a “temporary resident.” They must pay for permits and face restrictions:

• No permit? You can’t rent housing or get a job.

• Your child can’t attend local school or take the college entrance exam.

• You’re barred from urban healthcare, social insurance, and public services.

• You may be subject to random checks, eviction, or deportation.

This is not an oversight in policy—it is a deliberately crafted system to downgrade human status. That single word “temporary” has forced millions to live as urban fringe dwellers, extinguishing their hope of ever truly settling.

III. A Chinese Caste System No Less Than India’s

If you think the “temporary residence permit” is an obsolete policy, think again. Though the term has been officially phased out in some cities, it has simply been rebranded as “residence permit,” “point-based hukou system,” or “migrant population file.” The essence remains unchanged: to divide citizens into rigid classes through household registration and administrative barriers.

The hukou system forms the foundation of this discriminatory structure, and the temporary residence permit serves as its violent enforcement mechanism. Together, they create a modern caste system:

• Rural and urban hukou holders live worlds apart.

• Locals and outsiders face immense resource disparities.

• Hukou determines your child’s future and your eligibility to be a “real citizen.”

You are not temporarily residing—you are being segregated. You are not being managed—you are being labeled as cheap labor.

IV. Why Can’t You Move Freely? Because the State Doesn’t Trust You

In most countries, one of the most basic civil rights is the freedom of movement. Move from Texas to New York? From Paris to Lyon? As long as you’re self-reliant, no one stops you.

But in China, where you move is not your decision—it’s whether the state approves your existence. This mistrust permeates every level of governance:

• No local hukou? Sorry, your child can’t go to school.

• No residence permit? You’re not eligible for medical treatment.

• No “points”? You’ll never be allowed to “settle”—you are destined to drift.

In the eyes of the CCP, people are not citizens—they are deployable production units. Migration, settlement, and rootedness are not your rights; they are “favors” granted by the regime.

V. This Is Not a Modern State—It’s Colonial Management

Living in your own country, speaking your own language, practicing your own culture—yet needing to apply for the right to stay?

That’s not the treatment of citizens in a modern state. That’s how a colony manages its subjects.

What’s even more absurd is that in certain cities, a white foreign student can easily reside, receive subsidies, and attend university—while a Chinese migrant worker who has toiled on construction sites for thirty years must accumulate three generations’ worth of “points” just to get a residence permit.

When a country mistrusts, excludes, and discriminates against its own people—but bows to foreigners—what we’re seeing is not openness, but a systemic black hole of identity-based discrimination.

VI. On a Deeper Level: A Denial of the Right to Exist

From a higher perspective, every human being is born with the right to reside, to move, to express. “Citizen” is not merely an administrative label—it’s a form of existential dignity tied to one’s land.

But the logic of the temporary residence permit is this:

You must first prove you are worthy of living here—worthy of existing, of settling, of putting down roots. You must endure humiliation, earn “points,” and strive to become one of the “acceptable residents.”

This is not human civilization—it is a violation of the essence of life.

VII. Ending This Humiliation Requires Dismantling the Entire System

Stop saying “the temporary residence permit has been abolished.” It hasn’t disappeared—it’s just better disguised. As long as you must “earn points to settle,” as long as children are excluded from school due to hukou, as long as people are still being evicted and forcibly returned to their place of origin, this humiliating system is still in place.

What we need is not a name change, not a cosmetic reform. What we need is the fundamental recognition of citizenship, the restoration of freedom of movement, and the affirmation of equal right to reside.

You are not “temporarily living in China.”

You are the rightful owner of this land.

You do not need a permit to justify your existence.

Your existence is your highest legitimacy.

Epilogue:

When a nation uses a “temporary residence permit” to humiliate its own people, it is no longer a nation of the people.

When citizens lose their right to migrate and to belong, the state will eventually lose the hearts of its people.

One day, we will tear down this iron plaque of a system—

So that every person can stand with dignity on their own soil,

No longer “temporarily residing”—but truly living.

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.