羅思義：中國在人權和民主方面的理念和表現遠優於西方

12月6日，由中國人民大學重陽金融研究院（人大重陽）主辦、中國人民大學中美人文交流研究中心承辦的《十問美國民主》研究報告發布暨研討會在京舉行，會上發佈了《十問美國民主》研究報告。前英國倫敦經濟與商業政策署署長、人大重陽高級研究員羅思義（John Ross）以線上方式發言，以下為發言視頻及中英文實錄：

視頻時長約5分鐘，以下為發言中文版：

謝謝主辦方邀請我發言！

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

民主問題與人權問題，即“人民的權利”息息相關。下文基於這一正確框架作出的分析顯示，中國在人權和民主方面的理念和表現遠優於**西方。

與“民治”這一理念相反的是，西方（確切地説資本主義國家）是以是否擁有議會制和所謂的“分權制”等來定義民主。但這種做法是錯誤的。民主應是讓“民治”落到實處。

這種注重形式而非結果的做法，很容易被證明是完全錯誤的。對於人類來説，最重要的以及最能證明“民治”是否落到實處的，是人民生活品質是否真正得到了提升。

為印證這一點，下面將以佔世界人口五分之一的中國婦女和印度婦女的地位舉例説明。那麼事實究竟是怎樣的呢?

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

中國女性識字率為95%，印度女性則為65%。

印度婦女死於分娩的風險是中國的8倍。

對任何正常人而言，在現實世界中，中國婦女的人權遠遠優於印度婦女——這對印度婦女來説非常不幸。

但美國依據自身的“民主”理念荒謬地宣稱，印度婦女的人權遠優於中國婦女,因為其生活在“議會制共和國”國家。

再以新冠疫情為例。在中國大陸，不到5000人死於新冠疫情；在美國，77.8萬人死於新冠疫情。但中國人口是美國的四倍多。如果中國的人均死亡人數與美國相同，那麼中國的死亡人數將是339萬，而非不到5000。但美國宣稱，美國的人權和民主好於中國。是誰給美國自信用一個不知所謂的推理，來證明這樣一個違背所有事實的結論是正確的？

總之，自由民主制理論對民主的定義本末倒置。形式民主——刻板的、實際上並不存在的平等是最重要的，實質民主——現實生活則不那麼重要，正如西方國家對印度婦女的生活品質劣於中國婦女視而不見，宣稱印度婦女的人權優於中國婦女一樣。

恰恰相反，奉行社會主義的中國懂得分清主次。所以，中國認為，最重要的是中國婦女應該多活8年，應該識字，在分娩時死亡的風險應該大大降低。也即是説，中國最在意的是中國民眾是否得到了真正的實惠，生活品質是否真正得到了提升。而這正是“民治”和“人權”理念得到實踐的體現。

中國將適用於中國婦女的同樣原則推廣到社會的各個方面。

中國已經使8.5億人脱離了國際貧困線——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，現在的中國按照本國標準已進入小康社會。此外，按照世界銀行標準,中國將在兩到三年內躋身高收入經濟體。

次於實際結果——人民生活品質的改善程度的具體政治制度，是由各國的歷史決定。正如習近平所説，鞋子合不合腳，自己穿了才知道。比如，中國當前的政治制度立足於中國共產黨的領導作用和中國共產黨全面領導的多黨合作，而這種制度是中國所特有的。中國不會建議任何其他國家照搬這套制度。但實踐證明，這雙“鞋”很閤中國的“腳”。

但中國所在意的是實現人民對美好生活的嚮往。也即是説，中國對民主的定義是人民當家作主，而人民當家作主才是人權得到進步的體現。中國的歷史和現實社會政治發展印證了這一點。在關於民主的討論當中,應注重實際結果——人民生活品質的改善程度，因為民主是為了讓人民生活得更加幸福、更有尊嚴。

謝謝大家！

以下為發言英文版

Thank you for this invitation to speak.

The word democracy in European languages, derives from two Greek words “demos (people)” and “kratos (rule)”. So, “democracy” means literally “the people rule”.

Democracy is presented as integrally linked to human rights, that is “people’s rights”. This is correct and will be used here. Analysing this real situation shows that China’s framework and delivery on human rights and democracy is far superior to the “West’s”.

But, contrary to this fundamental concept of “rule by the people” an attempt is made in the West, more accurately by liberal capitalist countries, to claim that democracy is instead defined purely in terms of certain formal and official structures which they possess – for example Parliament, so called “division of powers” etc. This is false. The issue of democracy is about how much in reality “rule by the people” exists.

This concentration on certain specific official procedures rather than outcomes can easily be shown to be  completely false. What is important for real human beings, and what best demonstrates whether “rule by the people” exists, is the outcome in the conditions of life for real human beings.

To illustrate the real issues involved let us start with a gigantic practical example affecting almost one fifth of humanity – the position of women in China and India. What are the facts on this?

An Indian woman’s life expectancy is 71, in China it is 79.2 – a Chinese woman lives 8 years longer than an Indian woman.

In China female literacy is 95%, in India it is 65%.

The risk of a woman dying in childbirth is 8 times higher in India than in China.

In the real world, for the thinking of any normal human being, the real human rights of a Chinese woman are therefore obviously far superior to those of an Indian woman – very unfortunately for Indian women.

Yet according to the US concept of “democracy” the nonsensical claim is made that the rights of an Indian woman are superior to those of a Chinese woman – because an Indian woman lives in a “Parliamentary Republic”.

Or take Covid. Less than 5,000 people in Mainland China have died from Covid. In the US 778,000 people have died from Covid. But China’s population is more than four times that of the US. If the same number of people per capita had died in China as in US there would be 3,390,000 Chinese people dead instead of less than 5,000. But the US claims human rights and democracy are better in the US than China! What type of absurd reasoning can try to justify such a conclusion which in violation of all the facts on literal matters of life and death – the most fundamental of all human rights?

In summary, in the theory of liberal democracy everything is “standing on it head”. The least important, a formal and in reality non-existent equality, is declared to be the most important while the reality of life is declared to be less important – precisely as the difference in real life conditions between a Chinese woman and an Indian woman.

Socialism, and China, puts everything the right way up. It says that it is the most fundamental that a Chinese women should live 8 years longer, that she should be literate, that she should have a hugely lower risk of dying in childbirth. And then China and socialism starts from what system actually delivers this improvement in the real life of human beings. That is its conception of “rule by the people” and “human rights” is strictly practical.

China extends the same principle as applies to Chinese women to all aspects of society.

China has lifted 850 million people out of internationally defined poverty – that is more than 70% of all those who have been lifted out of poverty in the world.

China has raised itself from almost the world’s poorest country in 1949 to “moderate prosperity” by its national standards and to within two to three years of being a “high income” economy by World Bank standards.

Specific political forms, which is entirely secondary to the real outcomes outlined above, is determined by each country’s history. As Xi Jinping put it, the person wearing the shoe knows whether it fits or not. For example, China’s present political system based on the leading role of the CPC, with other political parties in alliance with the CPC, is specific to China. China does not propose other countries to adopt it. But it notes in the outcomes this shoe has fitted with China’s foot.

But what China has defined as decisive is the real improvement of the real conditions of humanity. That is the real improvement of the “rule by the people”. That is what has been demonstrated by China’s history and real social and political development. These outcomes are what has to be concentrated on in any real discussion of democracy for the life of real human beings.

Thank you very much.