A Beautiful China – Twenty One – Beautiful Politics
Xu Zhiyong, translated by Elizabeth Lindley, January 9, 2025
Note From the Editor
Born in 1973, Dr. Xu Zhiyong (许志永) is a legal scholar, pioneer of China’s rights defense movement, and a founder of the New Citizens Movement. On April 10, 2023, he was sentenced to 14 years in prison on charges of “subverting state power.” Before this, he had served a separate prison term from 2013 to 2017 for his Citizens Movement activities during Xi Jinping’s first wave of crackdowns on civil society after coming to power in late 2012. Between the two prison stints from 2017 to the end of 2019, Dr. Xu wrote A Beautiful China (《美好中国》), a collection of 24 essays. It is a review of his journey and that of his generation’s struggle for a better China in what often appeared to be a hopeful era of rapid economic development and political awakening; it is also a vision for a China free of the totalitarian yoke. Dr. Xu Zhiyong’s imprisonment is a textbook example of how the paranoid Communist leadership deploys its rubber-stamp judiciary to imprison China’s brightest and bravest. Dr. Xu has since early this year been sent to Lunan Prison (鲁南监狱) in Shandong province to serve the remaining 10 years of his sentence – if the communist regime in China will last that long. Late last year, from the detention center in Linyi, Shandong, Dr. Xu wrote to China Change via his lawyers to express his wish that A Beautiful China be translated and published on this website. Honoring Dr. Xu’s work and his sacrifices for the sake of his country, today we begin serializing a translation of his 24 essays.
Yaxue Cao
February 12, 2024
Twenty One
Beautiful Politics
Democracy
Who holds the highest authority in a nation? Of course, it is the people. The people are the masters of the country. “The people” is not an abstract concept, but rather it is the collective of all citizens. Being “masters of the country” is not an empty slogan; it requires constitutional safeguards, including free elections, checks and balances, judicial independence, and multi-party competition.
Democracy is not “winning power and keeping it,” treating the country as personal property — that is the logic of bandits. It is not some inevitable outcome of history where ordinary people suffer silently amidst chaos. Democracy does not entail presiding over the people from up on high, demanding their praise and loyalty. It cannot coexist with one-party rule: “the Party’s leadership” and “people as masters of their own affairs” are mutually irreconcilable concepts.
A nation is the sum of its people, territory, government, and history and culture — both materially and spiritually. The government should act as a public servant, entrusted by the people to manage and serve. Political parties should promote ideals and serve peoples’ needs, with competition among parties and regular elections allowing the people to choose their government, just as homeowners choose a property manager — the best candidate assumes power. Loving one’s country is not the same as loving the government, and certainly not the same as loving any particular party. When autocrats usurp the people’s sovereignty, the people resist authoritarianism precisely because they love their country.
Direct democracy, where everyone participates directly in decision-making on public matters, represents the ideal model of democracy. However, participation comes at a cost, just as each area requires specialized expertise. Electing professional politicians to represent oneself in governing the country — representative democracy — is a rationally designed institutional arrangement. Regular elections are an essential process for upholding popular sovereignty and the legitimacy of power in modern states.
Democratic models vary: the American presidential system, the German parliamentary cabinet system, and the British constitutional monarchy each reflect their country’s cultural traditions and paths of political transformation. However, the fundamental rules of democracy—free elections, checks and balances, judicial independence, multi-party competition, and local autonomy—are universal. They transcend the East-West or capitalist-socialist divide; they instead distinguish between genuine and false democracy. With these institutions, democracy is real. Without them, it is fake.
Democracy is not merely rule by the majority. While the majority opinion guides governance, the rights of minorities must also be respected and safeguarded. Constitutions enshrine certain fundamental rights and freedoms that cannot be arbitrarily infringed upon, even in the name of the majority. Modern democratic systems encompass a comprehensive framework of constitutional mechanisms, including elections, the separation of powers, and the rule of law, designed to prevent the “tyranny of the majority” which Socrates once suffered.
What is often referred to as “elite democracy” is, in truth, merely a facade for the rule of a minority. When factors such as status, wealth, or gender are used as thresholds for participation in democracy — for instance, restricting voting rights to men of certain property holdings — this belongs to the cradle stage of democracy. In modern society, equality of status, gender equality, and the equality of human dignity are foundational principles. The most crucial hallmark of a nation truly belonging to its people is universal suffrage.
There is no such thing as “consultative democracy.” Emperors consult with their ministers, and fathers consult with their sons—this is not democracy. At its core, democracy is about decision-making power: whether decisions are made by the majority or by a minority. Merely consulting without voting, or consulting only to have a minority make the final decision, is not true democracy. Consultation is an essential element of democracy. Even in the United States, where partisan competition is fierce, consultation remains a norm. However, democracy and consultation are like eating a meal and drinking water: one might drink water before, during, or after a meal, but that does not make the meal a “water meal.”
The so-called “eight democratic parties” in China cannot even be said to engage in consultation; at best, they amount to ministers offering advice to the throne. True consultation requires equality of status, yet these parties hold a position even lower than concubines. A concubine might occasionally lose her temper with the master of the house, but these eight parties wouldn’t dare. They wouldn’t even venture to make suggestions on significant national affairs, limiting themselves instead to trivial matters. They are nothing more than eight decorative vases, arranged and manipulated at will.
There is no such thing as “whole-process democracy.” Democracy, by its very nature, is a whole process—from elections to checks and balances, to citizens’ daily participation. Democracy is a way of life in modern civilization. Without the right to vote, without freedom of speech, and without space for genuine civic engagement, so-called “public hearings” on price hikes—where officials handpick a few “citizen representatives”—are no different from arranging eight decorative vases. This is merely a facade of post-totalitarian rule.
Democracy cannot be eaten as food. Yet without democracy, some would really starve: hungry people were not allowed to go elsewhere begging for food, as happened when tens of millions starved to death during the so-called “three years of famine.” Democracy is not bread itself, but a system for the fair distribution of bread. It is the spiritual sustenance that ensures freedom and dignity for all. Distribution is as important as production. In an age of agricultural surpluses, spiritual nourishment becomes even more precious.
Democracy is not perfect. Elections require funding, they may bring to power silver-tongued deceivers, and legislators may argue endlessly or even resort to physical altercations. Yet none of these imperfections is reason to reject democracy. Election funding is primarily driven by donations; it turns campaigns into a nationwide celebration, and it’s not a waste. In an open society, fraudsters are quickly exposed. Democracy determines a nation’s direction. While it may be less efficient, this trade-off ensures greater safety and long-term stability. Over a hundred countries have chosen democracy, representing a sweeping tide of historical progress.
The most direct way to realize democracy is through elections. The only true proof of the legitimacy of power lies in elections. The electoral system, based on its own inherent logic, adheres to the following principles:
Equality. Citizens, regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion, education level, or place of residence, enjoy equal voting rights and the right to stand for election. One person, one vote, with each vote carrying equal weight. Measures are in place to limit the corrosive influence of money, ensuring campaign funding is open and transparent, capping donation limits, and eliminating vote-buying.
Directness. From mayors to presidents, from city councils to national parliaments, government leaders and legislators should be elected directly. The more layers of indirect elections, the greater the risk of vote-buying and corruption, and the more representation is eroded. Modern nations possess both the means and the technology to implement direct elections.
Competition. Genuine elections feature passionate competition between candidates and the free choice of the people. In contrast, sham elections feature lifeless candidates resembling zombie portraits, where citizens are mobilized to vote and outcomes are manipulated. Without competition, there can be no real election. Free competition allows individuals and parties, regardless of affiliation, to participate openly, providing voters with real choices. Peaceful competition prohibits the use of violence and requires strict adherence to the rule of law.
Rule of Law
At its core, the rule of law signifies the “rule of laws.” Yet laws cannot enforce themselves; in practice, it is the governance of rules through professional legal practitioners. Under the law, everyone is equal. From civil disputes to presidential elections, all conflicts are ultimately adjudicated by legal professionals based on defined rights, obligations, and procedures. This ensures that society operates as a whole under the governance of rules.
The foundation of the rule of law is the law itself. Constitutional and legal frameworks represent the will of the people and hold supreme authority. The enforcers of the law are not any individual or group but legal professionals — judges, prosecutors, and lawyers — each fulfilling their respective roles. Through mutual checks and balances, they collectively uphold and shape the order of the rule of law.
Under authoritarian regimes, the so-called “rule by law” or “governance according to the law” centers on the leader, the ruling party, or a privileged family. In such systems, the law becomes a tool of the ruling class — a “blade in the party’s hand” to strike at whomever they wish. This is not the rule of law.
The fundamental distinction between the rule of law and rule by man does not lie in the mere existence of laws or the resolution of disputes according to legal procedures. Rather, it hinges on whether everyone — without exception — is subject to the law, especially in the resolution of political disputes. Dictators, too, can draft laws and require citizens to obey them, and everyday disputes may well be handled according to legal provisions. Yet the moment politics is involved, the law vanishes.
The core of modern rule of law lies in governing power — bringing authority under the framework of legal governance.
The rule of law is a dynamic process of governance through laws, reflecting the condition of a society governed by legal principles. In contrast, “legal systems” refer to the static framework of laws and regulations. While a legal system is a component of the rule of law, having a legal system does not guarantee the existence of the rule of law. Laws can be good or bad, alive or dead. True rule of law, however, always includes a legal system, and regardless of the legal tradition, it must be founded on a coherent set of rules.
Human society predates the existence of the state. Freedom and rights are inherent, bestowed by nature. Governments are granted power as a necessary evil and must be approached with great vigilance. A fundamental principle of the rule of law is this: for private rights, what is not prohibited by law is permitted; for public authority, what is not authorized by law is forbidden.
The rule of law provides balance to democracy. Modern democracy is governance by rules and reason. It allows for the expression of public opinion, but always within a framework of rules and rationality. While the law ultimately reflects public opinion, it also serves as a stabilizing buffer, cushioning its impact.
The essentials of the rule of law are as follows:
First, good laws. Laws can be distinguished as good or bad. Bad laws represent the privileges of a few and serve as tools for authoritarian rule. Good laws, on the other hand, are enacted through democratic procedures by legislative bodies, embodying the will of the majority. They reflect the common conscience and moral consensus of the people. Only good laws are worthy of respect and obedience.
Second, judicial independence. At its core, this means the independence of judges. Judges should answer to no one but the law and their conscience. When the public security organs, the prosecution, and the courts become mere “blades” wielded by those in power, the people are reduced to helpless prey. To declare, as some textbooks in China do, that the law is merely a tool of class rule is to insult the very essence of law. Should the law itself be demeaned and debased simply because it has been abused by despots?
Third, a professional and mature legal community. This encompasses various roles — judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and others involved in the legal process. These practitioners must possess not only a foundation of legal knowledge and rational training, but also a shared belief in the rule of law.
Fourth, a robust culture of the rule of law. The rule of law requires faith. In a nation governed by the rule of law, people believe in the law, trust in their judges, and have confidence in justice. A judge wields no weapons, yet their rulings must be upheld even by armed governments. Culture is burdened with a powerful inertia, but it is not immutable. Change demands institutional improvement and steadfast leadership from legal professionals.
The rule of law is not perfect. Laws are always reactive, judicial processes can be slow, and sometimes the system may inadvertently protect wrongdoers. These, however, are necessary trade-offs for achieving stability and fairness.
Between efficiency and justice, justice must take precedence. The greatest legitimacy of a verdict lies in its fairness, not its speed. Calls for swift and heavy-handed punishment are the language of autocracy, not the principles of the rule of law.
Between procedural justice and substantive justice, procedural justice takes precedence. For social facts that cannot be proven or observed, the rule of law must treat them as if they do not exist. The fruits of the poisonous tree are forbidden; evidence obtained through illegal procedures is itself illegal.
Between wrongful conviction and wrongful acquittal, avoiding wrongful punishment must take precedence. The damage done to faith in the rule of law when one innocent person is wrongly convicted far outweighs that of a hundred guilty individuals going free. At times, allowing the guilty to escape punishment is an unavoidable cost of upholding the rule of law.
Separation of Powers
The pursuit of the infinite is inherent to human nature, and the desire for dominance is one of humanity’s core instincts. Everyone craves power, whether it might manifest in politics, economics, ideology, or culture. We yearn for our ideas and beliefs to be recognized, supported, and implemented. Without constraints, power inevitably grows.
Political power, backed by force, poses an even greater danger when left unchecked. Confining power to a cage does not mean locking up a single tiger, but rather separating a whole group of tigers into individual cages. It involves dividing political elites into factions, assigning them distinct roles, and allowing them to contend with one another. In this contest, the people stand to benefit from their rivalry.
Separation of powers is not the same as division of labor. Even authoritarian systems may separate power into legislative, executive, and judicial functions, but above this division is a single party which leads without accountability. In such a system, political elites form a privileged interest group, and it is not power that is caged, but the people. True separation of powers ensures that each form of power remains independent and provides checks and balances on the others.
Horizontally, power is divided into three categories based on its nature: legislative, executive, and judicial. These branches are responsible for creating rules, enforcing rules, and adjudicating disputes, respectively. Rule-making must be democratic; rule enforcement must be strict, and dispute resolution must be impartial.
Vertically, the boundaries between central and local powers must be clearly defined. The cornerstone of democracy is self-governance, with power flowing from the bottom up. The central government’s powers should be enumerated by the constitution, while all remaining powers are reserved for local governments. Respect for individuals and allowing local issues to be resolved locally is the fundamental principle of self-governance.
The concepts of federalism and unitary systems are academic constructs — abstract models that derived from reality but are purified reality. In practice, most countries operate with a central-local power dynamic that falls somewhere between pure federalism and a pure unitary system. In democratic countries of a large size, a completely unitary system is impractical; local governments inevitably require some degree of autonomy. Likewise, large nations need not rigidly adopt the American model of federalism, which includes dual judicial systems. Even the United States, after two centuries, has gradually moved toward greater centralization of power. There is no need to fixate rigidly on the binary concepts of federalism and unitarism. Instead, the key is to implement a proper division of powers.
Does the separation of powers lead to an irreconcilable “three-way standoff”? It is true that the division of powers can affect decision-making efficiency, as seen in cases of gridlock between the U.S. government and Congress. However, the essence of politics is the distribution of power, and the core of distribution is fairness. Disputes and extended debates may slow decision-making, but they ensure more thorough deliberation and fairness. A slower process often results in greater stability and durability.
As long as all powers originate from the people and remain accountable to the people, political deadlocks are unlikely to cause significant harm to the nation. If disputes seriously undermine national interests, the people possess the ultimate power to force compromise. Separation of powers under a constitutional system is a division of labor, not a zero-sum struggle akin to a “three-way battle to kill rivals.” Checks and balances are not about a life-or-death class struggle.
While political parties may have disagreements, there is often strong consensus on matters of major national interest. In times of true crisis, such as foreign invasion, decision-making remains efficient and effective.
Freedom
Authoritarian politics operates through secrecy and manipulation, with no connection to the will of the people. In contrast, democratic politics is open and free, prioritizing public opinion. Freedom of expression, competition, elections, and participation — all these processes unfold transparently under the light of scrutiny.
Everyone has the right to free expression. Freedom of speech is intrinsic to each person’s value and dignity, representing one of the most fundamental human rights.
Shouting “fire” in a crowded cinema, which could cause a stampede, poses an immediate threat to public order and harms others, and therefore carries legal consequences. Political speech, however, regardless of how extreme — whether advocating violent revolution, class struggle, or even terrorism — holds its own value. As long as it does not pose an immediate threat to social order, it falls under the protection of free speech. Authorities cannot resort to deleting information or denying freedom of speech simply because those in power disagree with it, dislike it, or deem it “harmful.”
The right to reputation belongs solely to individuals; governments do not possess such a right. Citizens are free to criticize the government, and no matter how “vicious the attack,” it does not carry legal liability. The reputation rights of public officials are strictly limited — criticizing or condemning a president, mayor, or legislator is an act of public expression. Patience and humility are the duties of politicians.
Well grounded theories do not fear challenge, true authority does not fear criticism, and great politicians do not fear satire or mockery. Nations with freedom of speech enjoy stability and prosperity, while regimes which suppress dissent and create a climate of fear and silence invariably meet their end.
Everyone has the freedom to publish and establish media outlets. Publishing is an extension of free expression, and the government has no right to censor publications. Media is a natural extension of the space for free speech. Governments have no authority to dictate what the media can or cannot say. Media should remain privately owned, and public discourse subject to free competition in the marketplace of ideas. Apart from representing the nation abroad, governments must not own or operate their own media outlets.
Everyone has the freedom to form political parties and associations. A political party is a community of shared ideals, not a privileged group engaging in violent power struggles or dividing spoils after seizing control. Everyone has the right to form teams to express their vision and participate in elections. Any group that meets the legal requirements may register as a political party. Ideologies are not judged as right or wrong — even those advocating for racism or class dictatorship are permitted to exist, so long as they do not translate into actions that harm others.
Everyone has the right to know. Political decision-making processes are not state secrets. Aside from instances where the law explicitly authorizes certain departments to maintain necessary confidentiality, government actions must be transparent and open. In domestic and foreign affairs, it should be clear who makes decisions, and where power and responsibility lie. Legislative processes, budgets, officials’ appointments, and the voting records of legislators must be publicly accessible. The positions of politicians — whether hard-line or moderate, conservative or radical — along with their positions on each decision, must be made clear and transparent.
Safeguarding state secrets is an obligation only for certain government officials in designated departments; it is not the responsibility of ordinary citizens. When ordinary citizens or the media disclose state secrets they have learned, it falls under freedom of speech.
Everyone has the freedom to participate in politics, including the rights to vote and to stand for election. Politics is not a monopoly of a privileged few; it is not the domain of hereditary aristocrats, “second-generation reds,” or “second-generation criminals.” Nor should membership in a specific political party or organization be a prerequisite for holding office. Public positions must be open to all citizens, regardless of race, belief, or party affiliation, with selection based on free competition. Elected politicians may not always be the most capable, but they are the ones most satisfactory to the people.
Politics is not just about voting; it permeates daily life. Every citizen has the right to participate and to influence decisions — whether through the media, their representatives, or legal procedures.
Justice
Politics is not about seizing power and holding it, with victors becoming kings and losers branded as villains. Politics is public service. It is based on a social contract among the people, who establish public authority, pay taxes to fund public expenses, and elect officials to govern in the interests of their freedom, security, and welfare.
Politics is not governed by the logic of brute force, where might makes right. It is about ideological factions, not criminal cliques. The “barrel of the gun” belongs to the people. The military obeys the democratically elected president, and the police answer to the democratically elected mayor. Even the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, must comply with rulings written by judges in court. Moral authority resides in the hearts of the people, and power obeys the people.
Politics is not a system of privileges or hierarchical rankings where power is determined by seniority. Whether president, legislator, judge, or town mayor, all politicians are bound equally to the law and all serve the people. Although the president wields significant power, they cannot issue orders to mayors outside the bounds of the law. If the president visits a city, the mayor continues their normal work without needing to fawn or serve them deferentially.
Politics is not a game of money, where the wealthy conspire to exchange donations for privileges. Barack Obama’s election as president was not due to personal wealth or financial support from capitalists — over 90 percent of his campaign funds came from small donations of $200 or less. Regardless of wealth, each individual has one vote, and every vote carries equal weight. Campaign financing must be open and transparent, with legal limits on donations. Government power does not belong to any class or elite; it originates from the people, belongs to the people, and serves the people. Class analysis is unsuitable for modern democracies — a president does not represent any single class but rather the people as a whole.
Politics is not about treating the nation as private property or turning the state treasury into a personal piggy bank. Where the law does not authorize, it prohibits. Those in power must not abuse their authority, infringe on private rights, exploit their position for personal gain, use public resources for personal or party purposes, or wield public power to suppress competitors.
The powerful must be constrained. Power should be confined within cages. Responsibility is proportional to authority — the greater the power, the greater the responsibility. Legal accountability is enforced by independent institutions acting in accordance with the law. Political accountability comes from the people, through their votes or the process of impeachment. In an open society, truth prevails, and justice is upheld.
The weak must have protection. Opponents must have space to exist freely. Ideas, even if they are nascent or heretical, must have the freedom to be expressed and disseminated. Political parties, no matter how small, must have the right to participate and compete freely. Even those born into poverty must have the opportunity to run for president.
No one is above the law. The president is bound by the law, the ruling party is bound by the law, and the same is true for the rich and the poor: everyone is subject to the law.
Human beings are all born different, yet they stand as equals before God. The differences in this life are merely variations in roles, and these do not denote a hierarchy of worth or dignity. Every individual has boundaries, and their rights and freedoms are inviolable. Within these different roles, freedom and harmony coexist, together comprising a beautiful tapestry of life in this world.
Love
Barbaric politics amplifies fear and hatred, while benevolent politics exemplifies compassion and tolerance. Differences in thought and societal disagreements are inevitable, but they should not lead to hatred or division.
Love is a faith. Our souls originate from the same home; we are all children of the Creator, experiencing this world through different roles — poor or rich, left or right. Like Jesus, we are called to love our enemies. To love those you despise or dislike is an act of faith and a form of spiritual cultivation.
Different natures, educations, and environments shape varied political views. These differences, inherent in the human world, form the diverse roles that collectively create a vibrant and colorful society. All things are interconnected and interdependent, giving rise to one another.
Each person sees the world differently. George Bush believed in his own righteousness, fighting terrorism for the freedom and safety of the majority. Osama bin Laden also believed he was righteous, seeking revenge against what he saw as the evils of capitalism. Both opponents were sincere, not deceivers, shaped by inherent differences in their missions and roles.
This is not an attempt to muddy the lines between right and wrong, good and evil. The world has its moral compass, its sense of justice, and the shared values of the majority. We stand on the side of justice, condemning violence, denouncing terrorism, and mourning the victims. This is the justice that reflects the consensus of most people. At the same time, we sometimes rise to a higher vantage point, observing humanity’s roles in this earthly drama, understanding the meaning of suffering, and using it to make society more united, stronger, and to find happiness even against the backdrop of hardship.
Why are they so foolish? Theists and atheists, left-wing and right-wing, argue endlessly. Humans are small and narrow-minded, like blind men touching an elephant where each person grasps only a tiny part. The world in our opponent’s mind may not simply be the result of foolishness but rather a reality shaped by different logic, beliefs, and even innate characteristics.
Love is tolerance. There are no devils — human nature is inherently good, and within every person lies the seed of love. Opponents are not demons, and even harmful acts may stem from well-meaning intentions. Ignorance is the root of evil, and every person’s knowledge is limited.
In this world, people play different roles, bound by a fundamental consensus: respect others’ beliefs, their freedom of expression, and the boundaries of their rights.
No one is omniscient. You yourself may not be the sole possessor of truth, and dissenting views often contain valid reasoning. Tolerance means accepting extreme or erroneous beliefs and speech, for those are the roles others play. Tolerance also means accepting criticism from opponents, recognizing that everyone has their own beliefs. The diverse roles within a society, when pieced together, form a beautiful mosaic.
A politician must remain true to their conscience, loyal to their role, and committed to doing what is right. Sometimes, this means transcending their own position to understand and respect the beliefs and roles of their opponents. The victorious must not look down on the defeated, nor should they scorn them. The defeated must not complain or harbor resentment.
Political Parties
Those in power are public servants, selected into their positions through competition, with the people periodically voting to choose the most satisfactory candidates.
Those who provide public service form teams united by shared visions of governance — for example, this might be about greater welfare versus greater freedom, or whether railways should be state-owned or privatized. They offer commitments, such as pledges to govern with discipline, reduce taxes, or cut unnecessary spending if elected. They showcase their platforms, moral character, and abilities, and nominate candidates to run for public office.
These teams are political parties. In modern societies, the primary function of political parties is to organize participation in elections and promote their ideals and services.
In authoritarian states, however, the ruling party controls everything — military, police, government, universities, businesses, and communities. “East, west, south, north, center, the Party leads everything,” as the Communist Party stresses. The party stands above the state, above the law, and the people are relegated to the role of the “masses” to be led. Dictators frequently claim to have won 100 percent of the vote. Without competition and without genuine elections, the claim that “the people are the masters of their country” is nothing more than a blatant lie.
In democratic nations, the state belongs to all its people, as do the constitution and laws, public authority, the military and the police, and public infrastructure. Political parties function as service providers, while citizens, like property owners hiring a management company, invite proposals and choose through elections.
Political parties promote their policies, which, if approved by the legislature, become law. They endorse candidates who, if elected, become presidents or members of parliament. When a party secures a majority in the legislature, it becomes the ruling party.
Some parties, through effective policies and services, achieve long-term governance in a country like Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party. The United States appears to have two major teams who alternate in power, but in reality, numerous smaller groups compete within the system. History has shaped the dominance of two major parties. As long as political parties compete freely, it is not a one-party dictatorship.
Political parties must compete peacefully and never resort to violence. Whether in power or in opposition, political parties are prohibited from maintaining armies or private armed forces. All competition must be lawful, and party activities — including gatherings, election campaigns, and fundraising — must comply with the law. In cases of disputes, parties must abide by the ruling of the court. Regardless of whether a party is in power or in opposition, it must operate under the constitution and the law.
Membership in a political party does not equate to a life-or-death allegiance. Only criminal organizations insist on vows of “eternal loyalty.” Political parties are open for registration: anyone may join a party when they wish, and leave when they wish. A person might join one party today and another tomorrow. As long as a group of individuals meets certain conditions — such as sufficient members and an established office — they can register and form a political party.
Participation in a political party is driven by ideals, not the pursuit of spoils. Political party activities primarily rely on volunteers, with very few full-time party workers. The salaries of full-time staff are funded by membership fees. There must be a clear separation between party and state, between party finances and the national treasury, between political parties and government, and between party positions and government positions.
Just as competition among service providers ensures high-quality and affordable services, competition among political parties ensures the existence of true public servants. In a democratic system governed by the rule of law and characterised by multi-party competition, political parties are not gangs exploiting the state and its people. Instead, they are humble promoters and service providers vying to earn the people’s favor.
This logic is neither Western nor Eastern — it belongs to all of humanity.
Judges
Human beings need justice. When faced with injustice, people need a place to “appeal to reason.” The ideal arbiters of justice should be impartial and detached from all interests — ideally this state of being is akin to being untouched by worldly concerns. In ancient times, people often turned to mythical beings or prayed to deities to render judgment.
Since we cannot summon divine beings from the Beyond, we must instead strive to cultivate such arbiters in this world. Through rigorous selection processes, individuals of virtuous character and deep legal expertise are chosen, provided with generous remuneration, and entrusted with a sacred duty — to uphold justice. These individuals are modern judges.
Throughout a long history of despotism, the judiciary was tainted by the abuse of power and reduced to a tool of class rule. This was a tragedy of the judiciary. In a civilized political system, the law sheds the imprint of class oppression and represents universal justice. Judges then in turn gain public trust and command the respect they deserve.
The judiciary must be independent. Courts must operate independently from other branches of power, with their financial resources guaranteed by law and personnel arrangements subject to scientifically designed constraints. Courts are not subordinate to any higher authority, much less to any political party organisation. The relationship between higher and lower courts is one of oversight, not leadership, and certainly not subordination.
Judges, too, must be independent. The facts and details of a case are uncovered during the process of adjudication. Only the judge who personally examines the case, sees the parties involved with their own eyes, directly hears the testimony and arguments of witnesses, and earnestly seeks the truth can render a just verdict. The person who can be accountable to the law and their conscience, must be the judge who directly tries the case, not an external manipulator behind the scenes. A judge should have no superiors when adjudicating cases.
Judges must be loyal to the law. Whether it is statutory law or case law, a judge has the responsibility to identify the most just legal framework and apply it to resolve real-world problems.
Judges must be loyal to their conscience. While the law is abstract, each judgment is concrete. A just ruling relies on the judge’s detailed insight into specific facts and their conscientious deliberation. The same action can be driven by different motives and subjective good or evil intentions; ultimately, justice aligns with the judge’s moral conscience.
Judicial conscience is the judge’s innate sense of right and wrong, akin to what is described in the Chinese saying, “heaven, earth, and conscience.” Unlike the general public, a judge’s perspective is informed by extensive experience and privileged access to case-specific information. Thus, a judge’s intuition is not just instinct but an elevated intuition, grounded in rich information and professional reasoning. It represents the distillation and refinement of “public sentiment” through judicial expertise and rational analysis.
The jury system allows a group of citizens without legal expertise to engage in thorough deliberation, applying their common sense and conscience to make judgments about a case. The judge, drawing on precedent and guidelines for sentencing, determines the appropriate sentence. This system balances the intuitive conscience of ordinary people with the professional rationality of the judiciary.
Judges are guardians of justice.They must not be the tools of class dictatorship, nor the “blades” wielded by privileged groups. They have a solemn responsibility to use their professional knowledge, reason, and moral conscience to uncover the truth and apply the law impartially.
The authority of a judge does not come from security forces, organizations, party leadership, or instruments of force. Instead, it stems from the constitution, the law, fairness, justice, and the universal conscience of humanity.
Servicemen
“Nationalizing the military is a fundamental policy of the new China. A ‘party army’ is a despicable tool of deception used by fascists and Chiang Kai-shek.”
— Editorial, Xinhua Daily, February 14, 1944
“Without the nationalization of the military, political forces would resort to fists, guns, and cannons to ‘negotiate.’ This would result in an armed group against the people — a political bandit masquerading as a ‘state.’”
— Speech by Zhou Enlai on the Issue of Military Nationalization, January 16, 1946
What the Communists advocated at that time was a fundamental principle of civilized society: the military must never become the private property of a single individual or party. The military belongs to the state.
In a democratic system, the state belongs to the people, and the military and police, as public institutions, are owned collectively by the people. The military must remain politically neutral, with a clear separation from political parties. Political parties must not establish offices within the military or recruit party members from its ranks. No political party or individual may use armed forces as a tool for political struggle. Soldiers are loyal to the state and its constitution, under the command of democratically elected officials. When a ruling party assumes power through elections, its authority to lead the military stems not from its status as a party, but as a public institution of the state.
Only when the military is nationalized can a state be truly modern and civilized. Only then does the state genuinely belong to the people, can the government become a government of the people, and the military become the people’s military. Only then can political transitions move away from the law of the jungle, beyond flashing of swords and the raining of blood, and instead become celebratory events for the entire nation. This transformation is one of the greatest achievements of human civilization over the past centuries.
To openly oppose the nationalization of the military is a rare and absurd argument in contemporary society. If the military does not belong to the state, then to whom does it belong? If the military does not belong to the state, on what grounds should its expenses be borne by the national treasury? If the military does not belong to the state, should the people then establish a separate national military? If the military does not belong to the state, what legitimacy does a ruling authority have to claim that it is a people’s republic? How could it possibly face the heroes who sacrificed their lives over the past century for the ideals of national independence, freedom, and democracy?
For over a century, countless Chinese sons and daughters have sacrificed their lives for the ideals of democracy, freedom, and republicanism. The nationalization of the military was once a rallying cry passionately championed by the Communist Party. Why is it, then, that seventy years later, this principle has not been realized, but it has instead been labelled as “erroneous speech”?
As a serviceman, if you truly love China, please reflect deeply on what China actually is. China is not the private property of a privileged elite, nor is it anyone’s “kingdom.” China is not a party-state; the party will eventually become a thing of the past. China is the vast expanse of this land, the lifeblood of 5,000 years of history, and its 1.4 billion hardworking, kind-hearted people. To love China is not to love a particular party.
Making our country better is the responsibility of every citizen. China is not just the world’s second-largest economy or the home of skyscrapers soaring dramatically from the ground. It is also a country of arrogant authoritarianism, rampant corruption, the blood and tears of countless victims of violent forced demolitions buried beneath almost every skyscraper, and countless wronged citizens suppressed in the name of “stability maintenance.”
These pains and anxieties are deeply connected to every one of us — and especially to you, people who serve in the armed forces, for you are the pillars of this authoritarian power.
The cost of China’s political transformation will depend on your choice: whether to align with or resist the tide of history.
Your responsibility is to defend the homeland: to ensure our territory is not ceded to great powers through the stroke of a pen; to protect our hometowns from being trampled upon by invaders, to safeguard our islands from covert occupation by the greedy, and to shield our fishermen from being driven away by foreign gunboats. Wherever in the world a Chinese citizen faces mistreatment, you should be there, ready to stand by their side.
Your honor lies in preventing aggression and tyranny, and in defending freedom and justice on a global scale. The Chinese military should be a force for justice, a source of honor, and a defender of human civilization. In any corner of this planet where tyranny and injustice arise, you should be the ones who step forward to confront oppressors, punish wrongdoers, and rescue the innocent.
Always remember: the Chinese military is not the private property of any political party. Your duty is not to participate in political power struggles, but to safeguard the freedom, security, and honor of this great nation. The Chinese Communist Party will one day fade into history, but China will remain China. No political party is that important; what truly matters is our country, the land where our ancestors lived, our historical civilization, and our brothers, sisters, and fellow citizens.
You are the national army, not a party militia, and certainly not a private guard. Your mission and honor lie in defending freedom and justice. Under no circumstances should you become a tool of dictators or despots. Your hands must never be stained with the blood of the people.
Politicians
In Chinese, political figures are described with two distinct terms. The first, zhengzhijia (政治家), refers to statespeople — outstanding individuals known for their foresight, resolute will, and significant contributions to society. The second, zhengke (政客), carries a pejorative connotation, referring to self-serving, unscrupulous characters.
In many democratic countries, there is a single term for politicians, rendered in English as politician. It encompasses those who pursue politics as a profession — from community leaders and city mayors, to governors and presidents. This group includes both extraordinary leaders and ordinary individuals. Their defining characteristic is a dedication to public service and representation of public interests.
Heaven bestows upon each person unique roles and missions in life. For those who choose politics as a career, being elected to public office aligns their interests and talents with serving the public good, fulfilling their personal aspirations and contributing to society. Aspiring politicians compete fairly for these roles, and the people select the most capable candidates, making them true “public servants.”
Politicians must possess three essential qualities. The first is judgment. This includes a keen sense of historical direction, an ability to rationally analyze major events, and an intuitive grasp of societal trends and public opinion. At different levels — from national affairs to community disputes — politicians are called upon to make informed decisions. Accurate judgment is the prerequisite of correct action.
Second, a sense of responsibility. Politicians are more concerned with public affairs, social justice and the rights and dignity of strangers than ordinary people. They are honest and trustworthy, always standing by and fulfilling their promises. Politicians should not not shy away from responsibility. Even if individuals within a social movement they initiated behave inappropriately, they shoulder the moral responsibility.
The third is passion. The realization of freedom requires stirring, heartfelt cries. Elections demand widespread mobilization, and social movements need peoples’ enthusiasm to be ignited. Politicians are those who light the spark; they are the leaders who inspire and drive collective action.
Politicians differ from bureaucrats. Politicians answer to the people. They lead bureaucrats and ensure civil servants perform their duties with conscience and enthusiasm. Politicians perceive, articulate, and fulfil the public’s wishes. While they may guide the people, more importantly, they understand and align themselves with the people’s will. They possess integrity, credibility, and a positive personal image. In reality, absolute fairness does not exist; but when someone credible speaks, people are more inclined to defer to them. Their personal charisma ought to inspire and guide society towards betterment.
Political decisions go beyond merely responding to the voices of the majority—they also safeguard the rights of minorities. Politicians do not simply cater to public passion; they consider long-term public interests. They are not deterred by the loud demands of a few. Politicians must be loyal to their conscience and resolute when decisive action is required.
Honesty must be the foundation for politicians. In an era of freedom and transparency, lying is both shameful and naive. All lies are inevitably recorded and will be exposed repeatedly.
Politicians must practise humility as a form of self-cultivation. In front of the public, they remain grounded and humble, understanding their role as servants of the people. With volunteers, colleagues, and subordinates, they show gratitude for the trust and support these individuals offer in the pursuit of shared ideals.
At the same time, politicians regard tolerance as a virtue. While standing firm in their beliefs and fighting for the justice they hold dear, they also respect the roles their opponents play in the larger picture. Politics is not a life-or-death struggle, but rather different roles coming together to create a unified and harmonious world, where happiness is shared.
Appendix: Politics Should Be Beautiful (2007)
Reading Southern Weekly‘s account of Obama’s Faith, I was struck by the story of a Black man’s journey in American politics.
Obama’s mother was a white American, and his father a Black man from Kenya. He received an excellent education, graduating from Columbia University before returning to Chicago’s Black communities to engage in grassroots community service.
For many years, he rooted himself in these communities, working tirelessly and meticulously to improve housing conditions for Black residents and foster integration between Black and white neighbourhoods. He dedicated himself to enhancing the lives and dignity of strangers.
In November 2004, Obama was elected as a U.S. Senator. Perhaps one day, he will become President of the United States. Yet, regardless of his position, his enthusiasm for public service remains an intrinsic part of his character.
Obama’s story is that of an American politician, and it mirrors the journey of countless politicians in democratic nations. They are driven by a passion for public service and guided by a vision of a better society.
There is no such thing as perfect politics. Every country has its share of shrewd, even sinister, politicians. However, in nations with robust democracies, the political mainstream — presidents, senators, governors, and mayors of every scale — regards public service as a measure of life’s worth.
Politicians are not bureaucrats mechanically obeying orders from superiors. Instead, they devote their conscience and passion to serving strangers.
George Washington led armies into battle to establish the independent and free United States of America, then retired to his farm. Abraham Lincoln dedicated his life to abolish slavery and preserve national unity. Franklin D. Roosevelt led the United States, and indeed humanity, to victory over fascism. Each one of them was inspired by noble ideals to enter politics. This aristocratic spirit has shaped the political culture of a civilized nation.
Every nation has individuals who are deeply committed to public service. A healthy political system ensures that such individuals are elevated to public office. In the 21st century, political civility has become the dominant trend in human society.
In democratic nations, the foundation of power is not fear, violence, or falsehood, but the goodness of human nature — conscience, virtue, and love. The rules of the political game involve fair competition under the light of day, where contenders vie to prove their integrity, morality, and capacity to serve the public. Ultimately, the victor is determined by the free choice of the people.
In such nations, the transition of power is not marked by intrigue, treachery, or violent bloodshed, but by nationwide celebration. The people do not submit to state authority out of fear; rather, they do so out of respect for the rule of law and procedural justice.
In these nations, the nation truly belongs to the people, and the people are sure to take genuine pride in their country.
Our nation should be like this too. A century ago, our ancestors strove to establish the first republic in Asia. However, the overwhelming inertia of autocracy drowned out the hopes of civilization. Few believed in the beauty of constitutional governance, and after bitter disputes, the factions once again turned to weapons.
A century later, today, we are greeted by new hope. Political civility has become the mainstream of human society, and technological progress is fostering the growth of Chinese civil society. Democracy and the rule of law are now the aspirations of the entire populace. Let us believe that the Chinese nation will not miss this new century.
We have always believed that politics should be beautiful. While we cannot expect human nature to change, good politics uses just rules to suppress evil and promote good in the majority of people.
Human nature follows a normal distribution, regardless of country or region. Truly good people — those whose altruism and compassion significantly outweigh greed and selfishness — are a minority. Likewise, truly bad people, whose evil tendencies clearly surpass their virtuous ones, are also a minority. Most people tend to act in ways which maximize benefit and minimize harm.
In a healthy society, good people form the mainstream and serve as role models. Through well-designed systems, they inspire the majority of ordinary people to suppress their baser instincts and amplify their better nature. In an unhealthy society, however, bad people dominate and set an example. They use unwritten rules to guide ordinary people into suppressing their kindness and indulge the darker sides of human nature.
Children are taught from a young age to be wary of strangers, to lie, and to cultivate connections through nepotism. Many are often forced to act against their conscience, leading to a society filled with dissatisfaction and complaints. Such an unhealthy society must change.
The challenge we face is how to change the expectations and beliefs of over a billion people. Even if an individual believes in the value of the law, once they realize that most others do not abide by it, they won’t obey it either. When the majority does not follow the law, there can be no rule of law. These shared beliefs and expectations constitute culture itself.
Most people view politics as inherently corrupt, and so, if they enter politics, they abandon moral conscience. Most do not believe in justice, so they resort to relying on connections and backdoor deals. The result is the formation of a vast “field” of influence, where the collective tendency of over a billion people is to suppress good and amplify evil.
Now, we must change this “field.” We need to transform the temperament of over a billion people into one that instinctively suppresses evil and promotes goodness, transforming their psychological expectations from deep within their hearts. People must come to believe that politics can be beautiful; that wrongdoers will face just punishment, and that good people can receive justice without resorting to bribery.
Rebuilding our nation and society on the foundation of moral conscience is the greatest mission of our time.
This requires the cumulative efforts of millions of outstanding citizens working tirelessly on institutional reform, little by little, day by day. It demands a group of exemplary citizens to lead the way, guiding society toward a politically civilized way of life. And it also calls for a momentous historical event — one powerful enough to shake the very soul of the nation — to reverse the psychological expectations of the Chinese populace.
A constitutional China requires institutional rules, and such rules are currently being established. However, good rules alone are not enough to ensure the effective operation of constitutional governance. For constitutionalism to function, a driving force is needed: a group of outstanding citizen role models who uphold conscience and justice, steadfastly adhere to the principles of democracy and the rule of law, and possess the courage and wisdom to shoulder responsibility. This group of exemplary citizens must, in the aftermath of a momentous historical event, transform the psychological expectations of the nation, while striving to minimize any negative impacts such an event may have on Chinese society.
I am fortunate to have realized my responsibility and the meaning of life while still young, and I am willing to be part of this distinguished group.
For the sake of responsibility, we must strive to become pure individuals, dedicated to a pure dream. We must break away from the traditional notion that politics is solely about revolution and counter-revolution, repression and being repressed. Our goal is not to oppose for the sake of opposition, but to build; not to seek power, but to constrain it.
What we pursue is not material wealth, nor the desire to control others through power. Our only personal ambition is to realize the value of our own lives, and that value is inherently tied to a life spent serving the public good. We will not conceal any hidden agendas behind the banner of idealism. Our ideals, words, and actions must be unified and consistent. Only with such purity can we be without fear; and only then can we summon the courage to face all criticism and blame, all conspiracies and challenges.
For the sake of responsibility, we approach the task of nation-building with beautiful aspirations and a tolerant, rational mindset. We must forgive the past, recognizing that the truth behind every historical tragedy should not serve to fuel hatred but should usher in a chapter of reconciliation. Our history’s numerous sorrows should not remain as a perpetual source of animosity, but instead mark the beginning of an era of forgiveness and gratitude.
We empathize with the silent majority. Even in this seemingly morally degraded, materialistic era, people are yearning for a brighter future. We strive to understand everyone, treating each person as a fellow citizen, even those who have lost their conscience and become entangled in the barbaric rules of politics. They too are objects of our compassion. With optimism, we face each day. Even when confronted with ugliness — even evil — we approach it with great historical empathy, aspiring to awaken the desire for happiness buried deep within each soul.
For the sake of responsibility, we find the courage to let go of the self. We do not speak lightly of sacrifice, yet we have the courage to give up everything if necessary. Only with this immense bravery needed to give up everything, can we render conspiracy and violence so insignificant as to be meaningless. Only then can we truly overcome conspiracy and violence, promote the goodness of human nature, and build a free and happy society.
Our only strength lies in morality; this is the seed which God planted deep within every soul. This strength must be so powerful that even the most wicked and violent thugs lay down their weapons in shame before us. Only with such strength can our nation achieve a peaceful transformation and become a truly modern and civilized country.
When most people remain silent, there must be some who speak out. When most people complain, there must be some who rise above blame. When most people abandon hope, there must be some who are unable to give up. For the sake of a free and happy society, there must be those who resolutely uphold conscience and justice. Not only must they hold firm, but they must also cultivate the wisdom to ensure that conscience and justice become mainstream values.
This era calls for a group of outstanding citizens who acknowledge their responsibilities, forge a consensus, and jointly grow into a healthy force capable of driving this great nation through its transformation toward political civility.
If twenty years ago such dreams seemed naïve, today they have become my faith, my life. No matter how many setbacks I encounter, and no matter what price I pay, a life dedicated to this cause is meaningful.
I am committed to becoming an exemplary Chinese citizen, a member of the outstanding group who will drive historical progress. I want to inspire belief in ideals and justice, to let people see hope in an era of change. Yes, I have already embarked on the path of politics, pursuing an idealistic and civilized vision of governance. With my life’s actions, I aim to prove to the countless millions enduring the long shadows of autocracy that politics can and should be beautiful — a noble endeavor which serves the public good.
July 21, 2007
Chinese original: 许志永《美好中国之二十一：美好政治》
Download a PDF copy:
Related
Jesus Christ is King
