12月6日，由中國人民大學(xué)重陽金融研究院（人大重陽）主辦、中國人民大學(xué)中美人文交流研究中心承辦的《十問美國民主》研究報(bào)告發(fā)布暨研討會(huì) 在京舉行，會(huì)上發(fā)布了《十問美國民主》研究報(bào)告 。前英國倫敦經(jīng)濟(jì)與商業(yè)政策署署長、人大重陽高級(jí)研究員羅思義（John Ross）以線上方式發(fā)言，以下為發(fā)言視頻及中英文實(shí)錄：

視頻時(shí)長約5分鐘，以下為發(fā)言中文版：

謝謝主辦方邀請(qǐng)我發(fā)言！

歐洲語言中的“民主”一詞源自 “demos（people）”和“kratos（rule）” 兩個(gè)希臘單詞。因此，“民主”一詞的字面意思是“民治”。

民主問題與人權(quán)問題，即“人民的權(quán)利”息息相關(guān)。下文基于這一正確框架作出的分析顯示，中國在人權(quán)和民主方面的理念和表現(xiàn)遠(yuǎn)優(yōu)于西方。

與“民治”這一理念相反的是，西方（確切地說資本主義國家）是以是否擁有議會(huì)制和所謂的“分權(quán)制”等來定義民主。但這種做法是錯(cuò)誤的。民主應(yīng)是讓“民治”落到實(shí)處。

這種注重形式而非結(jié)果的做法，很容易被證明是完全錯(cuò)誤的。對(duì)于人類來說，最重要的以及最能證明“民治”是否落到實(shí)處的，是人民生活品質(zhì)是否真正得到了提升。

為印證這一點(diǎn)，下面將以占世界人口五分之一的中國婦女和印度婦女的地位舉例說明。那么事實(shí)究竟是怎樣的呢?

印度女性預(yù)期壽命為71歲，中國女性為79.2歲——中國女性壽命比印度女性長8年。

中國女性識(shí)字率為95%，印度女性則為65%。

印度婦女死于分娩的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是中國的8倍。

對(duì)任何正常人而言，在現(xiàn)實(shí)世界中，中國婦女的人權(quán)遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)優(yōu)于印度婦女——這對(duì)印度婦女來說非常不幸。

但美國依據(jù)自身的“民主”理念荒謬地宣稱，印度婦女的人權(quán)遠(yuǎn)優(yōu)于中國婦女,因?yàn)槠渖钤凇白h會(huì)制共和國”國家。

再以新冠疫情為例。在中國大陸，不到5000人死于新冠疫情；在美國，77.8萬人死于新冠疫情。但中國人口是美國的四倍多。如果中國的人均死亡人數(shù)與美國相同，那么中國的死亡人數(shù)將是339萬，而非不到5000。但美國宣稱，美國的人權(quán)和民主好于中國。是誰給美國自信用一個(gè)不知所謂的推理，來證明這樣一個(gè)違背所有事實(shí)的結(jié)論是正確的？

總之，自由民主制理論對(duì)民主的定義本末倒置。形式民主——刻板的、實(shí)際上并不存在的平等是最重要的，實(shí)質(zhì)民主——現(xiàn)實(shí)生活則不那么重要，正如西方國家對(duì)印度婦女的生活品質(zhì)劣于中國婦女視而不見，宣稱印度婦女的人權(quán)優(yōu)于中國婦女一樣。

恰恰相反，奉行社會(huì)主義的中國懂得分清主次。所以，中國認(rèn)為，最重要的是中國婦女應(yīng)該多活8年，應(yīng)該識(shí)字，在分娩時(shí)死亡的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)應(yīng)該大大降低。也即是說，中國最在意的是中國民眾是否得到了真正的實(shí)惠，生活品質(zhì)是否真正得到了提升。而這正是“民治”和“人權(quán)”理念得到實(shí)踐的體現(xiàn)。

中國將適用于中國婦女的同樣原則推廣到社會(huì)的各個(gè)方面。

中國已經(jīng)使8.5億人脫離了國際貧困線——中國減貧人口占同期全球減貧人口70%以上。

1949年的中國幾乎是世界上最貧窮的國家，現(xiàn)在的中國按照本國標(biāo)準(zhǔn)已進(jìn)入小康社會(huì)。此外，按照世界銀行標(biāo)準(zhǔn),中國將在兩到三年內(nèi)躋身高收入經(jīng)濟(jì)體。

次于實(shí)際結(jié)果——人民生活品質(zhì)的改善程度的具體政治制度，是由各國的歷史決定。正如習(xí)近平所說，鞋子合不合腳，自己穿了才知道。比如，中國當(dāng)前的政治制度立足于中國共產(chǎn)黨的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用和中國共產(chǎn)黨全面領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的多黨合作，而這種制度是中國所特有的。中國不會(huì)建議任何其他國家照搬這套制度。但實(shí)踐證明，這雙“鞋”很合中國的“腳”。

但中國所在意的是實(shí)現(xiàn)人民對(duì)美好生活的向往。也即是說，中國對(duì)民主的定義是人民當(dāng)家作主，而人民當(dāng)家作主才是人權(quán)得到進(jìn)步的體現(xiàn)。中國的歷史和現(xiàn)實(shí)社會(huì)政治發(fā)展印證了這一點(diǎn)。在關(guān)于民主的討論當(dāng)中,應(yīng)注重實(shí)際結(jié)果——人民生活品質(zhì)的改善程度，因?yàn)槊裰魇菫榱俗屓嗣裆畹酶有腋?、更有尊?yán)。

謝謝大家！

以下為發(fā)言英文版

羅思義（John Ross）

It is highly ironic that the Biden Administration would choose this particular time in history to gather together the “Western democracies” when almost all of those countries face serious crises placing into question the effectiveness of their own form of governance.All of these nations are facing serious questions of trust by their populations. Here in the United States, a large portion of the electorate is even convinced that the last presidential election was a total fraud.

Never before have these nations faced such a crisis of confidence among their own people. While the Covid epidemic and the measures required to deal with it have aggravated the situation, that crisis had been brewing for a very long time.The fundamental problem is that the political elites controlling the governments of the “Western democracies” have largely distanced themselves from the needs of the people. The growing disparity between rich and poor, continued racial discrimination, the neglect of the great pockets of poverty in the inner cities and in the countryside, have led to the sense among a large portion of the population that government has completely forgotten them. The great mass of people that violently broke into the U.S. Congress on January 6 was simply a reflection of the mood throughout the nation.

But the real objective of this gathering is to rally the forces of the Western alliance, the NATO countries, and their satraps to follow the US in a show of force in opposition to Russia and China, whom the Biden Administration have labeled “autocracies.” Yet both these countries are democracies, each with their own particular brand of democracy, which is largely determined by different historical and cultural circumstances than in the West.

China in particular has proven to have developed a particularly effective system of governance, one in which the people in the grass roots have the ability to raise issues which, if important, can then be then taken into the legislative discussion through their representatives on the NPC or the CPPCC, and much of this will be improved with the new Whole-Process People’s Democracy proposed by Xi Jinping. The workings of this particular system of governance has pulled over 800 million people out of poverty and helped to raise the nation to a position of moderate prosperity.

While the ruling Communist Party is directly focused on meeting the changing needs of the Chinese population, most Western parties, such as here in the United States, are more interested in meeting the needs of the corporations and the moneyed interests, including the military-industrial complex, who have helped finance the campaigns that brought them into power.If an “independent” were elected in the United States who really wanted to do some good for the people, but who opposed some of the prerogatives of the powers that be, that person would soon be branded, slandered, and perhaps thrown into jail on trumped-up charges, or worse. And I have friends who have personal experience in this respect. That’s not how the system was intended to operate by the Founding Fathers, but it is largely the way it now works with the growing powers of the financial and banking oligarchy.

Whether a particular form of governance or democracy is good or bad has to be decided on the sole criteria of the benefit it has provided for the common man. Were we to use that criteria, we would surely find that the popular support engendered by the policies of the Communist Party of China is far greater than the support engendered for either of our political parties, or for both of them together. But no one dares make that comparison, since the policy coming out of Washington today has little to do with “democracy” vs. “autocracy”, but is rather a raw political attempt to assert the continued domination of the ruling financial oligarchy centered in the major banks of London and New York, and backed up by the military alliance led by the United States. Any attempt by “developing countries” like China to call for a new, just, and equitable world order will be deemed by them to be a threat to their system and they will do whatever they can to prevent that from taking shape. And they foolishly believe that the rest of the world, or at least a large part of it, will support them in that endeavor.

But given the record of the “Western democracies” in places like Africa and Latin America as opposed to the record of China, it is doubtful that the “alliance of democracies” will become a rallying cry for any but those totally wedded to this failed system, or blackmailed by economic or military pressure from Washington to follow their lead. For most of the world, particularly in Africa, the record of China is already very clear, and the countries there and elsewhere are only waiting for the smoke from this obvious diversion to settle in order to continue along the path of development on which they have embarked upon together with the People’s Republic of China.