复旦大学中国研究院院长张维为在“中外学者谈民主”高端对话会发表讲话

张维为：

感谢王冠，感谢各位记者出席本次民主问题讨论会。我的演讲题目是《民主：中国与美国的比较》。

我们知道民主在很多方面是具有争议的。如果问美国人“中国是不是民主国家”？大多数人可能会说“不，中国是一个专制国家”。如果问中国人：美国是不是民主国家，今天的多数中国人会说：“美国？民主？不，美国是金钱政治，不是民主，是钱主。”

那么有没有可能搁置争议，就民主问题展开一个有意义的学术讨论呢？或许我们可以尝试用一个暂时的定义。在这里，我想引用美国亚伯拉罕·林肯总统的话，就是“民有、民治、民享”。我将以这三个标准逐项检验，对比中美民主孰优孰劣。

先看“民享”。我们最近看到达利亚研究咨询公司就民主问题发布的调查结果。在中国，13%参与调查的人认为政府是服务于少数人的，也就是说绝大多数、80%以上的人认为政府是为大多数人民服务的。在美国，有52%的人，即超过一半的人，认为政府是服务于少数人的。

我们可以再看一下中国著名的钟南山院士给出的一个研究结果。几天前，他表示，如果你生活在中国，就免于感染新冠病毒而死的自由而言，中国至少比美国安全606倍，就免于感染新冠病毒的自由而言，中国要比美国安全1678倍。这个计算很简单，如果我们看新冠死亡人数，以绝对数值计算，美国的死亡人数大约是中国死亡人数的170倍，但中国人口是美国人口的4.2倍之多。因此，就新冠病毒感染死亡率而言，中国比美国安全600多倍。

中美新冠病毒致死人数对比

接下来看家庭净资产中位数。确实，四十年前中国人生活水平、财富水平比美国要低得多，但是现在我们可以看到一个有趣的对比，这个是有关家庭净资产中位数的数据。我们看家庭平均净资产，美国的数值比中国高，但是看中位数，2019年美国接近10万美元，大约可换算成70万人民币。那么在中国呢？中国比美国的数据要高一倍。当然，这是中国城镇家庭的数据，我们现在还没有中国农村家庭的数据，希望明年能拿到相关数据，我们再进行对比。中国农村生活水平的提升速度也比我们预想中快。

中美家庭净资产对比

接下来，这是著名皮尤研究中心的调查，类似的调查可以追溯到五年、十年前。其中，2019年，中国91%的受访者相信中国走对了路，美国41%的受访者认为美国走对了路，而英国只有21%，法国只有20%，这些国家一定出现了很多人权问题，从民调结果我们就可以看出来，他们对国家的方向不满意。这是国际知名民调机构给出的结果。我可以很确定地说，就“民享”而言，中国模式、中国政治体制、中国民主制度已经比美国模式做得好很多。

认同本国发展方向的情况对比

就“民有”来说，我这里就用一个数据，中国公务员大约90%都来自普通家庭。而美国呢？用诺贝尔奖得主斯蒂格利茨的话说，“美国现在是1%人所有、1%人所治理和1%人所享用的”。大多数人都同意，美国是富人主导的国家。

中国90%的公务员来自普通家庭

“民治”这一点是最具争议性。在当今西方的政治话语体系中，多党体制、普选权这些就等同于“民治”。但是从中国的角度，就像刚才李世默先生提到的，这都是一些程序。程序（民主）与实质（民主）可能是一致的，也可能差之千里。因此中国采取的方法是先探索实质（民主），相应的程序会应运而生。我们自古的传统哲学就是“道”和“术”，“道”指更宏观的目标和原则，“道”在“术“之上，”“道”是管理程序的。这也就是为什么中国能够推行程序的改革，而很多西方所谓自由民主国家却不能，因为他们的程序过于僵化。

对美国“民治”的疑问

如果我们看实质民主，中国可以说是确保良政善治，这十分重要。我大约在十五、二十年前提出一个观点：我们需要一种重大的范式转变，这种转变就是从西方界定的“民主还是专制”范式转到“良政还是劣政”范式，而实质民主就是要确保良好的政治治理。这正是中国在做的，且做的不错。

我们可以接着看一下达利亚研究咨询公司关于“民主赤字”研究结果。在中国，有84%的人认为民主重要，有73%认为中国是民主国家，所以民主赤字为11%。在美国73%的人认为民主很重要，仅有49%认为美国是民主国家，美国的民主赤字率是24%。达利亚研究咨询公司的这个调查是丹麦前首相拉斯穆森委托进行的，在座各位都知道拉斯穆森对中国的政治体系怀有很深的敌意；这个结果体现出，在大多数美国民众的眼中，“民治”并没有在美国得到实现。

中美两国人民对本国民主的看法

从皮尤的另一个调查结果中我们能看出，在美国的民调中，很少有人认为美国对于其他国家而言是一个好的民主典范，这项调查在大概20多个国家进行了民调。51%认为美国曾经是一个民主模范，但是现在已经不是，72%的美国人并不认为美国民主是其他国家的一个良好典范。如同刚才马丁·雅克先生也提到的，美国一定需要很多勇气，好像一切都没有发生过，没有什么“国会山事件”，一切都像没发生。实际上，即使在美国国内，也有很多人在反思美国民主的问题。

如果美国要举办民主峰会，我希望它首先讨论的是：“民主到底出了什么问题？”，这是《经济学人》曾经用过的封面故事，其中引用了我说的一句话，“美国民主有很大的问题，它老是选出二流的领导人”，其实我当时的原话是“它老是选出三流的领导人”。不幸的是，这就是现实。

中国共产党是一个“整体利益党”，而西方政党大都是“部分利益党”。中国公元前221年成为一个统一的国家。这是一个“百国之合”的国家，历史上一直实行“统一的执政集团”，如果不采取这样的制度，那么国家就会四分五裂。

1911年后中国尝试了美国政治模式，结果陷入军阀混战的局面，每个军阀背后都有西方势力的支持。中国共产党是中国“统一执政集团”传统的延续和发展。如果没有中国共产党，中国就会变成一盘散沙。

中国历史上开创了通过科举考试选拔治国人才的传统，现在中国的干部选拔方式是“选拔+选举”。中国共产党中央政治局委员，尤其是常委，大多担任过两个省的一把手，治理过至少一亿人，中国领导层可以说是当今世界上执政能力最强的领导班子。

中国方式：“以民为本”

如果要进行改革，我们的政党必须要代表人民的整体利益。为什么西方很难推行改革或者根本没法改革：谁要改革，就可能要下台。改革的关键就在于克服既有的利益羁绊，只有一个代表着绝大多数人利益的政治力量、政治机构，才有能力突破重重困难推动改革。

中国是改革的“专家”，我们随时都在进行着改革。我认为西方也应该好好地思考一下如何改革自身的政治体制，否则就会江河日下。另外作为人民“整体利益”的代表，它也能够放眼未来，为未来5年、10年、100年、下一代进行规划，这是中国政治体制的优势。

除了“民有、民治、民享”，我还从中国经验中提取了几点经验，这是林肯所不知道的。比方说，“民策”，也就是 “to the people”，或者叫“from the people, to the people”, 即“从群众中来，到群众中去”的民主决策过程。

如果我们对比中美两国政治决策的质量，我认为中国政治决策的质量明显高得多。我们采用民主集中制，这是从苏联学来的，然后结合中国实际进行再创造。举个例子，中国如何制定五年计划？决策过程大体上要花费一年半的时间，这个过程中包含数百轮磋商，智库内智库外、党内党外。在这个全过程民主中，我们不仅制定计划，还要付诸于实践，并通过实践与检验和调整。

在座的大多数人在中国待得有些年头了，一定知道每年春季举行的两会，两会要讨论和审议五年计划和年度计划的落实情况。在每年11月或12月的中共中央经济工作会议中，我们又会对计划的执行情况进行评估。两会中，总理在政府工作报告中都会明确指出每一项工作的落实完成情况。报告很诚恳，中国政府工作报告的质量远高于美国总统的国情咨文。中国政府工作报告中的每一条，都与百姓息息相关。

“民策”：中美决策质量的巨大差异

对于美国，马凯硕刚才也提到普林斯顿大学教授的研究结果，在1981年至2002年的1779个调查结果显示，美国的富豪阶层能够影响公共决策，而普通民众对于决策几乎没有任何影响。这不仅仅涉及每四年选总统，而是你的决策在多大层面上能够反映人民的意愿。

反观中国，我们会“从群众中来，到群众中去”循环往复，进行多轮的磋商，征询意见，从而确保这个政策是成熟的。我经常和英国朋友开玩笑，你们为什么要进行老套的全民公投，我们现在是5G时代，而你们还处在2G时代。投票时，一方仅比另外一方多了3%多一点，但已经给英国带来了巨大的社会分裂。如果你们采取协商民主、采用民主集中制这样的中国模式，即使有30%的差异，我们最后也能达成共识，一起推动国家进步。

最后就是“民依”，也就是“with the people”，即“依靠人民，与人民在一起”。习主席多次强调永远与人民在一起，这不是一句空话，而是要落实在行动上，每一位政治局委员都有自己的联系点，他们需要定期到这些地方去进行考察调研。最终的目的是要保证政治力量、社会力量、资本力量实现一种有利于绝大多数人民的平衡，否则制度就会出问题。

我认为，在美国，这三方力量最终是一种有利于少数富人的平衡，我想中美的政治体制的差别，可以用一句话说清楚，那就是最富的100个中国人不可能左右中共中央政治局，而美国最富有的100个人、甚至不到100人，就可以左右白宫。因此美国需要进行认真的政治体制改革，否则美国将进一步走衰。

“民依”：中国共产党一直走的是“与人民在一起”的道路

我最后想到一个令人不安的案例，就是美国过去20年，在阿富汗战争中挥霍了2.3万亿美元：杀害、损毁、践踏人权。相比之下，中国自习近平主席主政以来，花了约2500亿美元让将近1亿人脱贫。我们仅花费了阿富汗战争十分之一的钱，就消除了中国最后的极端贫困。为什么美国不能把这2.3万亿美元花在消除美国的贫困上？这笔巨款如果结合实际情况采用中国模式的话，理论上，我们可以在全球范围内消灭贫困，但美国却选择将这些钱花在阿富汗战争，花在杀戮、破坏、侵犯人权。为什么？这该如何解释？艾森豪威尔总统在上世纪50年代就提到这一点，那就是美国军工复合体绑架了美国的政治制度，他们通过战争赚得盆满钵满。这样的制度一定要走衰。

所以美国的敌人不是俄罗斯或中国，而是美国自己，西方民主制度的敌人不是俄罗斯或中国，而是西方民主制度本身。

最后，是我的总结和一些回顾。刚才王冠提到10年前的2011年6月，我和福山先生的辩论。当时恰逢阿拉伯之春，穆巴拉克刚下台。福山在辩论中说道，中国可能也会出现类似阿拉伯之春的事件。我说不可能，我当时做了预测：阿拉伯之春将成为阿拉伯之冬。的确，后来也变成了阿拉伯之冬。

张维为与福山对谈

福山表示中国需要政治改革，需要一人一票选举。我说中美都需要政治改革，但是就我对美国体制的研究而言，美国需要更多和更实质性的改革，因为美国的体制是前工业革命时代的产物。在抗击新冠疫情的过程中，我们看到了美国在联邦政府和州政府层面分工迄今还不明确，这对于现代社会来说是一个大问题。

我还提到低智商的民粹主义可能会在美国盛行。当时福山很自信地说，这不大可能在美国发生，因为美国是成熟的民主国家，有言论自由、媒体自由，我说你有点天真了。

中国践行的是人民民主，换言之，从“民有、民治、民享、民策、民依”这五个方面来看，我认为中国的人民民主制度比美国民主制度要好得多。这让我想到了今年初美国国会遭到占领时，一条传播很广的推文：“如果美国看到美国国会山发生的骚乱；美国会入侵美国，将美国从美国的暴政中解救出来”；还有一条推文是：“这是唯一一场在美洲发生的没有没有美国大使馆参与的政变”。这些推文也在中国社交媒体上迅速走红。

我想对中国人，尤其是对年轻一代而言，美国民主已经成为了笑话，而台湾的民主则是一个更大的笑话。这次美国举行民主峰会，会成为中国互联网上调侃和挖苦的对象，会成为中国年轻人的快乐源泉之一。

我在十年前跟福山辩论时就说过，就政治体制而言，中国的视野已经越过了美国模式。做一个可能不太恰当的类比，美国的民主峰会是一种过时的老式游戏。“自由之家”组织衡量各国的所谓民主状况，哪些国家进步了，哪些国家倒退了等等。美国就像生活在彩色胶片时代，经历着富士和柯达之间的激烈竞争，而相比之下中国模式则适用于数字时代，我们放眼未来。

如果一些国家倾向于西方民主模式、倾向于美国民主模式，我们尊重你们的选择，但是我们一点都不羡慕，我们倒是感到同情。西方模式必须进行改革，否则只会江河日下。所以我们看到的不是“历史的终结“，而是“历史的终结”的终结。这是我当时给福山的忠告，这个忠告现在依然成立。

谢谢大家！

（翻译：程泽笠、汤卓筠，校对：由冠群、沈玉萌）

Zhang Weiwei:

Thank you, Wang Guan. And thank you for the press corp for coming to this fascinating discussion on the issue of democracy. So, I will make a short presentation with my PowerPoints. My topic  is “Democracy: China versus United States”. As we all know, democracy is controversial in many ways. If you ask Americans whether China is democracy, many of them will say “No, it's autocracy”. If you ask Chinese, most Chinese today will tell you: “America’s democracy? No, it’s a Moneytocracy.

“Money determines everything”. So, whether given this kind of controversy, we can have a kind of a meaningful intellectual discussion on the issue of democracy.  I’m thinking of whether we can use a kind of working definition. I’d like to quote, the famous line from Abraham Lincoln “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” And, then I tried to compare China and United States, item by item, to see which democracy is the genuine democracy, which democracy is better.

Now, interestingly, we have just received this fascinating result, conducted by Dalia Research concerning the issue of democracy. In case of China, 13 % people surveyed say their government serves a minority. In other words, more than 80 % believe their government works for vast majority of Chinese population. In the United States, 52 % say their government serves a minority. Most people, more than half, believe their government serves minority.

And then, this is the study by Dr. Zhong Nanshan, very famous in China. He said, just a few days ago, if you live in China today, in terms of freedom from contracting the COVID-19 or from the COVID-related deaths, China today is at least 606 times safer and freer from COVID-related deaths and 1,678 times safer from contracting the disease. The calculation is very simple. If you look at the figure for the death toll of the COVID-19. United States is roughly 170 times of China'sin terms of absolute figure, and the China's population is 4.2 times that of United States. So Chinese more than 600 times safer and freer from death relating to COVID-19.

And then look at this median net household assets. Indeed, you know, four decades ago, China was way behind the United States in terms of the personal well-being, wealth, et cetera. But today we can make a very interesting comparison. This is about net household assets. There are two columns for the average family level. In that case, the United States is higher than the China.

But at the median level, the figure is totally different. If you look at the United States in 2019, it's closer to one thousand USD per household at the median level. So, in Chinese yuan, it's close to seven thousand. Now, in the case of China, it's slightly more than double that of the United States. Of course, the figure I used is for urban households. We don't have figures for rural families, so far, we haven’t got that statistics  yet. Hopefully, by next year we're going to have one and we can make comparisons. BIf you look at the rising living standard in the countryside, it's also rising faster than we expected.

And then, of course, this famous Pew survey, which you can check back 5 years ago, 10 years ago and today. So, in that case, 91 % Chinese surveyed believe China is on the right track, 41 % believe the United States is on the right track. For the UK, I’m sorry, 21 %, for France, 20 %. There must be a lot of violation of human rights in these countries given so many people are not happy with direction of their country. So, these are figures, survey conducted by reputable international institutions. So, I’ll say with certainty, concerning “for the people”. The Chinese model, Chinese political system or Chinese democracy have delivered and much, much better than the US model.

Consider the “of the people”, I just give you one figure, 90% of Chinese civil servants come to form ordinary background, if you look at remake by Joseph Stiglitz said that, “The US is noew of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%.” As most people read this country, most of them are for the rich.  

And then, “by the people”, that’s where most controversy occurs. In the western political discourse today. Indeed, multi-party system, universal suffrage, itself would mean “government by people”. Yet, from Chinese point of view, this is, as Eric just mentioned, it's about institutional procedures, and saidthat it is the bestprocedures ofdemocracy.Procedures and the substance, may be same, may be very different.

So the Chinese approach is always first focus on explore substance. And then, procedures will take shape. We have a traditional philosophy since ancient time, it's called the “Dao” and the “Shu”. “Dao” means overall objective, overall purpose, overall principles that govern“Shu”, govern procedures. That's also one way why China can carry out reforms while many so-called liberal democracies cannot. Because they are very rigid with procedures.

And then if you look at the substantial democracy, the Chinese approach can be called “to ensure good governance for the people”. That's very important. So I submit this thesis a long time ago, I think 15 or 20 years ago, I said we need to have a  paradigm shift, a shift from what's called the "democracy versus autocracy" and "democracy", "autocracy" are defined by the West and the West only, to "good governance versus bad governance". What’s substantial democracy? It means to ensure and achieve good governance as its primary objective. And China has been doing that and rather successful.

Again, if you look at the same research from Dalia Research, interesting, it's the issue of so-called democracy deficits. In the case of China, 84 % people surveyed think democracy is important, 73 % view their country, China, as democracy. So, the democracy deficit 11 %. In the United States, 73% think democracy is important and 49% view their country as democracy. So, democracy deficit is 24 %. And this is done by Dalia Research commissioned by  ex-prime minister of Denmark, Mr. Rasmussen, and he is of course as you all know, quite hostile to the Chinese political system. So that result shows a lot about how “by the people” had not been really achieved even in the eyes of most Americans.

Then that is more interesting. It's again a study by PEW survey. Very few in anypublic survey think American democracy is a good example for other countries to follow. This is a study of major countries, about 20 or so. And 57% said US democracy used to be a good example, but has not been in recent years. And slightly, surprisingly, 72 % Americans don't think that US is a good model of democracy for other countries. I think, just as professor Martin Jacques mentioned, United States must need a lot of courage, you know, as if nothing has happened, without this storming of the Congress, theCapitol hill, and things are as usual. Actually, even within the United States, many people are thinking of the problems with democracy.

If this summit were to be held, seems it will be held. I hope the number one item or the topic will be, (just as)a few years ago, the Economist have a cover story, it's called "What's Gone Wrong With Democracy?" And which quotes me as Professor Zhang Weiwei claims: “US democracy is deeply flawed. Itelects second-rate leaders”. Actually, my original remark was  “it produces third-rate leaders”. Unfortunately, that happened.

And “by the people” the Chinese way, I would describe the Chinese Communist Party as a "holistic interest" party. It differs tremendously from the Western political parties, I would call them "partial interest" parties. And this "holistic interest" party actually is a part of China's own tradition. China was first unified in 221 BC.

China is a civilizational state, in the sense that it's an amalgamation of hundreds of states into one, over its long history. So, since China's first unification in 221 BC, China has been practicing what we may call a unified ruling entity. Otherwise, the country became ungovernable and broken apart. China practiced American model of democracy after the Republican Revolution in 1911, and then the country degenerated into civil wars and fighting between warlords, each warlordsupported by certain western powers. So, this is indeed a common sense in Chinese political culture, governing a country of amalgamation of hundreds of states into one, you follow this principle of a unified ruling entity. If you prefer, China being on the oneparty system for more than 2,000 years, yeah. So, the Communist Party is a continuation,evolution,and development of that tradition. Otherwise, it will have problems of country’s disintegration.

Now behind this, again, since China's long tradition of meritocracy. China invented Public Civil Servant Examination System, the “Ke Ju System”. So today the way China elected leaders is a system, which I call “Selection+Election”, if the US model is about "Election". Which model is better? I would say, you know, Chinese model slightly better, if not much better, because we elect competent leaders.

If you look at the members of the political bureau, especially standing committee, most of them have already governed over 100 million people before they came to their present positions. It's vigorous process, selecting competent leaders. Most of them work twice as number one of Chinese province as party secretay or governor, et cetera.

So arguably, the Chinese leadership today is the most competent in the world. And then, it’s about competence, it’s about ability for reform. You know, in order to carry out reforms, I think you need to have a "holistic interest" party. Why? In so many liberal democracies, there are no way to reform. Whoever makes reform will step down, you know. The point is that you need to overcome vested interests. Only a political institution, political force, which can represent the vast majority, holistic interest of your people, you can push for reform, and China is the expert on reforms, we are conducting reforms every day, every month, every year. And I think it's time for the West to think hard on how to reform its political system, otherwise, the system will go way down. And also, because you are a holistic institution, you can plan for the future for next year, next 5 years, next 10 years, next 100 years, for next generation. That’s definitely advantage of Chinese political system.

Now, having said “of the people, by the people, for the people”, now I draw something from Chinese experience, which Abraham Lincoln did not know much about. I call it “to the people” and “with the people”. Now let's discuss “to the people”. It's mainly about decision-making process. If you compare the quality of decision-making between China (and) United States, I would say Chinese decision quality is much better, because we practice this democratic centralism, which we borrowed from Soviet Union, but reinvented, according to Chinese practice.

Like, for example, how China makes its 5-year plan. Roughly, it takes 1 year and a half in the making. In the process, you have hundreds of rounds of consultations, with think tanks, with experts, with general public, within the party, outside the party. And then if you look at this, what we call whole-process democracy, not only you produce a plan, but also you have the review of the implementation of the plan, and in the end, the execution of the plan.

Many of you are here for many years. We have, for instance,“Liang Hui”, the two sessions in March and then we review the 5-year plan and annual plan. And then, at the end of the year, usually in December or November, we have the CPC Central Committee Conference on Economic Affairs, again we reviewed that. And in each and every “Liang Hui”, Chinese prime minister and his work report exactly tell you a to-do list to what extent we have finished that and we have not finished that. It's very earnest. You compare the quality of the work report of Chinese government and the State of the Union Address of the American presidency. The Chinese quality is much, much higher. Each line and every line relates to people's daily life and people appreciate that.

And for the United States, just now, Kishore mentioned this case, a study by Martin Gillen and Benjamin Page, basically the wealthy few move policy, while the average America has little power, after their reviewing answers to 1779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002. So, I think it's a matter of, not just electing a leader every 4 years, it is about decision-making process, to what extent your decision reflect the will of the people. So that's “to the people”. We adopt principle of “from the people, to the people” one round, “to the people, from the people” another round. So, we go several rounds of consultation democracy, then reach mature decision.

I always joke with my British friends. I said why bothering with the referendum, it’s very old-fashioned. If you compare this with smartphones, it's like 2G, you know. We are now in the age of 5G. We are to really move with changing times, only 3 %, some difference, the country becomes divided and becomes a huge problem.  If adoptting a consultative democracy, and democratic centralism, I can assure you with the Chinese model, even with 30 % difference, we can reach consensus and move the nation forward.

Lastly, “with the people” that's famous line from Xi Jinping, we should stay forever with the people. That's we mean it, it's not just words, it's practice. Each party leader, political bureau member, has what's called “contact points” with different parts of the country, provinces. You go there regularly, you  review their situation, et cetera.

At the end of the day, i we have to ensure a balance between political power, social power and power of the capital, to ensure that this balance of the three powers will be in favor of the vast majority of the population. Otherwise, the system will be in trouble. From my point of view, in the United States, it is a balance of the three powers in favor of the super rich. I've got one line to say, difference between Chinese political system and American political system. The Chinese system is very clear, the richest 100 individuals cannot dictate the Political Bureau. In the United States, the 100 rich individuals most likely can dictate the White House or even less than 100 individuals.

As a result, you have all the problems, you know. So, I think United States system needs serious reforms. I'm thinking of this example. You know I really feel deeply upset. The United States spent $2.3 trillion on the Afghan war. It's killing, destruction, gross violation of human rights. $2.3 trillion, in the past 20 years. In the case of China, since General Secretary Xi Jinping came to power, we eradicated the last batch of poverty, extreme poverty, closer to 100 million people.

We spent $250 billion. So, it's roughly 10 times less money than US spend on Afghan war. We completely finished this task of ending poverty. Why the United States could not use the  $2.3 trillion on ending the poverty in the United States? Indeed, with this money, again, in theory, a hypothesis, with Chinese model adapted to different situations, we can wipe out global policy, in theory, at least. But this money, huge amount, spent on war, on destruction, on killing, on violation of human rights.

Why so? One interpretation which many peopleknows, actually, the media should expose that, the interest, vast interest of the military industrial complex as already mentioned in 1950s by President Eisenhower. So, the enimy of the United States is not Russia, not China, but the United States itself. Same with the West, the enimy of the West, not China, Russia, or other country, but the West itself. The end of democracy is the particular system of democracy as it is practiced now.

Lastly, my conclusion and a bit of memory. Just now Wang Guan mentioned my debate with professor Fukuyama exactly 10 years ago, in June 2011. It almost coincided with this Arab Spring, and Mubarak was toppled. And he said in this debate, China may also have a kind of Arab Spring and I said no chance. And I made the forecast, I said, on the contrary, Arab Spring itself will become Arab Winter.

In the end, it became Arab Winter, most people agreed today. And then he said China needs a political reform for multi-party system, one person one vote. I said both China and United States need political reforms, but from my study of the American political system, the US political model, I insisted, needs more reform, substantial reforms. Why? I said because your system is a product of the pre-industrial era. From this process of fighting COVID-19, we saw there is no clear responsibility, division of labor between the federal government and states government.

That's a huge problem for modern society. And then I also said simple-minded populism may eventually prevail in the United States. And Fukuyama was confident it will not happen in American society, and because it's a mature democracy with free media, free press. I said you are slightly a bit naive.

And well, on all this, I would say, you know, China has practiced people's democracy. In other words, “of the people, by the people, for the people, to the people, with the people” on all five fronts. In my humble view, the Chinese model and system works better and much better than the American system. For this summit for democracy, I am pretty sure that as a media people, I assume you can feel the power of the Chinese providing, we wish to report or not. Indeed, I can assume that is a source of tremendous joy for many Chinese, especially the younger generation.

It reminds me about the famous tweet, when this storming of the capitol hill occurred “If United States saw what has happened on the capitol hill, the United States would invade the United States, to liberate the United States from the tyranny of the United States” or another tweet, you know, “that's the first quote that  took place in Americas without the participation of the US embassy” these kinds of tweets will go around in Chinese internet, social media. I'm pretty sure about that. Because indeed, for especially Chinese young generation, American democracy is increasingly a joke. As for Taiwan’s democracy, it's a greater joke.

And Now, from my study of the political system, actually, my debate with professor Fukuyama, I said this already, 10 years ago, as in the political system, Chinese vision is already way beyond the American model. Maybe I can draw an analogy, which may not be very appropriate.

This kind of summit for democracy is a kind of old game. Where freedom house will measure, which countries is making progress, which countries moving backwards et cetera. It's almost like the competition, in the color film industry, between Fuji and Kodak. In that era,they compete fiercely with each other. But the Chinese model is more or less for the digital age. So we are really looking beyond, moving beyond, we are not bothered with that.

If many countries, people in the world prefer the western model, Americans prefer the American model. We respect your choice, but we do not envy you. To be honest, people like us and Eric, we have some sympathy for you. You have to improve otherwise, without reform, it will be going way down. So, it's not "the end of history", it’s the end of "the end of history". That's all the remark I offered to professor Fukuyama 10 years ago. So, my conclusion remains valid. Thank you very much!

本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。