According to Professor Donglin Han of Renmin University of China’s School of International Studies, China’s whole-process people’s democracy extends democratic participation beyond regular elections by engaging citizens in consultation, policymaking, governance and public oversight.
The presentation, titled “China’s Whole-Process People’s Democracy: Theory and Practice,” examines the historical foundations, institutional practices and future prospects of China’s democratic system. It argues that democratic systems should be understood within their particular historical, cultural and social contexts rather than measured exclusively against a single political model.
Professor Han delivered this lecture to an international media delegation under the CIPCC program, organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, offering foreign journalists a firsthand academic perspective on the theory and real-world operation of China’s democratic governance.
Democracy originally referred to a system in which political power belonged to the people, with the term originating in ancient Greece. In modern political discourse, however, democracy has often become closely associated with liberal democracy, whose commonly recognised elements include competitive elections, universal suffrage, multiparty politics, civil liberties and the separation of powers.
The presentation refers to political theorist Robert Alan Dahl’s understanding of liberal democracy, which emphasises both elections and political freedoms. These include citizens’ rights to vote, contest elections, criticise political leaders, access alternative sources of information and form independent associations.
However, the presentation maintains that China’s approach to democracy has developed under different historical and cultural conditions. Just as liberal democracy reflects Western political traditions, Chinese democracy is said to have been shaped by China’s people-centred political philosophy, its historical preference for national unity, its culture of harmony and consultation, and its emphasis on practical outcomes.
Traditional Chinese political thought regarded the people as the foundation of the state. The well-known expression that “the water supporting a ship can also upset it” was used to illustrate the belief that a government’s stability depends on popular support. The Communist Party of China, according to the presentation, inherited and transformed this people-based tradition through its stated commitment to serving the people.
China’s long historical experience of centralised government and national unification has also influenced its contemporary political system. The presentation argues that China places importance on both public participation and unified political leadership. Under this approach, democracy is not viewed as a justification for political fragmentation or the division of the country.
The Chinese tradition of harmony is another factor shaping the country’s democratic practices. Rather than emphasising confrontation between competing political forces, China’s system focuses on consultation, consensus-building and the accommodation of different views. This approach is presented as an alternative to highly competitive forms of party politics.
The presentation also highlights what it describes as China’s preference for substance over procedure. It argues that many Chinese citizens assess democracy according to whether it improves living conditions, promotes national development, responds to public needs and produces effective governance. From this perspective, democratic institutions are evaluated not only by their formal procedures but also by their practical results.
Whole-process people’s democracy is therefore described as a system in which citizens participate not only during elections but throughout the political process. Public participation may take place during agenda-setting, policy consultation, decision-making, implementation and supervision.
Elections nevertheless remain an important component of China’s political system. The presentation identifies grassroots elections, elections to people’s congresses and local democratic experiments as major areas of electoral participation.
At the grassroots level, rural villagers elect villagers’ committees, while urban residents elect residents’ committees. China’s rural electoral practices expanded following the country’s reform and opening-up. Hezhai Village, which became known as the “First Village of Chinese Villagers’ Autonomy,” is cited as an early example. In 1979, residents reportedly elected a new villagers’ committee director and formulated community rules to resolve local disputes and manage village affairs.
The legal position of villagers’ committees was recognised in China’s 1982 Constitution. The Organic Law of Villagers’ Committees, introduced on a trial basis in 1987, established that the directors, deputy directors and members of villagers’ committees should be directly elected by villagers.
Under the law, villagers above the age of 18 possess the right to vote and stand for election regardless of ethnicity, race, gender, occupation, family background, religious belief, education, property ownership or length of residence. The presentation states that most rural villages have held more than seven rounds of villagers’ committee elections since the system was introduced.
Rural communities have also experimented with different participatory mechanisms, including villagers’ representative meetings, nomination procedures, joint election systems and political participation groups. These mechanisms are credited with expanding grassroots involvement, although the presentation acknowledges challenges such as excessive intervention by higher-level authorities, occasional vote-buying and limited participation among villagers who have migrated to cities for employment.
In urban areas, residents’ committees function as self-governing community organisations. The Organic Law of Urban Residents’ Committees, adopted in 1989, provides for committee members to be elected by residents, household representatives or representatives of residents’ groups.
Urban democratic participation developed further during the 1990s as China’s market economy expanded. The presentation identifies Qingdao’s 1998 direct election of an urban residents’ committee as an early experiment that was subsequently followed by similar initiatives in other parts of the country.
Local authorities have also conducted limited electoral innovations. Examples presented include a 1999 pilot project in Yuhang District for the direct election of trade union leaders in private enterprises and an electoral experiment in Buyun Township, Sichuan Province, in 2001 involving public participation in the selection of a township chief candidate.
At the national level, the National People’s Congress is described as China’s highest organ of state power. Its deputies are elected from provinces, autonomous regions, centrally administered municipalities, special administrative regions and the military for five-year terms.
China began electing deputies to people’s congresses at different levels in 1953. According to the presentation, approximately 5.669 million grassroots deputies and 1,226 National People’s Congress deputies were elected during the first nationwide process. The First National People’s Congress was subsequently convened in September 1954.
The presentation also highlights the social composition of the 13th National People’s Congress. It states that the body included 438 ethnic minority deputies, representing 14.7 percent of the total, with all 55 officially recognised ethnic minority groups represented. Women accounted for 742 deputies, or 24.9 percent, while 468 deputies were identified as frontline workers and farmers.
Alongside elections, deliberative democracy is presented as one of the distinguishing features of China’s political system. Deliberative democracy generally refers to a decision-making process in which citizens, representatives and institutions discuss public issues before policies are adopted.
At the central level, consultation takes place through institutions such as the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, dialogue between the Communist Party of China and other political parties, and forums involving representatives from different social groups.
At the local level, participatory meetings and public consultations have been organised to discuss budgets, community development and local policies. The Wenling democratic consultation process in Zhejiang Province is presented as an example of grassroots deliberation. Online platforms have also increasingly been used to collect public opinions and facilitate communication between officials and citizens.
The presentation further argues that the development of political and social rights is not necessarily linear. It describes rights as developing progressively in accordance with a country’s economic conditions, institutional capacity and social foundations. Under this approach, collective and individual interests are expected to be coordinated, while long-term democratic objectives are pursued through different stages of development.
China’s democratic achievements are linked in the presentation to economic growth, poverty reduction, improved material conditions, political stability and increased national capacity. It also claims that China’s government has maintained a high level of responsiveness and public satisfaction.
At the same time, the presentation acknowledges that China’s democratic system remains imperfect and requires further development. It identifies the expansion and institutionalisation of deliberative democracy as a major priority. Consultation mechanisms, it argues, should be extended more broadly across political and social life.
Improving the quality of consultation will also require accurate and comprehensive systems for collecting public opinion. Professional institutions capable of conducting surveys, identifying public concerns and communicating them to decision-makers are presented as essential for the future development of democratic consultation.
Democratic oversight is another area identified for improvement. The presentation stresses that political authority should operate within institutional boundaries and that officials and representatives must remain subject to public supervision. Mechanisms such as public hearings are presented as possible ways of strengthening accountability and restraining the misuse of power.
Overall, China’s whole-process people’s democracy is presented as a system combining electoral participation, political consultation, grassroots self-governance, policy involvement and public oversight. Its supporters argue that democracy should be judged not solely by the existence of competitive elections but also by the extent to which citizens can participate throughout the governing process and whether political institutions effectively respond to public needs.
The model remains the subject of international debate, particularly regarding political competition, civil liberties and institutional accountability. Nevertheless, the presentation maintains that China’s democratic practices must be understood in relation to the country’s historical development, cultural traditions and governance priorities rather than evaluated exclusively through the standards of Western liberal democracy.
