With the impact of another wave of democratization, people's understanding of democracy has also taken a step forward. Nevertheless, due to the complexity of modern political life, people often can't see the true face of the problem and are confused by its appearance. In particular, there are still many misunderstandings about the relationship between elections and democracy and the position and role of elections in the process of democratization. In real political life, many countries hold large-scale elections to flaunt themselves as "democratic" countries, but are these countries that have held elections really democratic countries? It turns out that this is not the case. So, how to understand the relationship between electoral democracy and democratic election? Clarifying this issue is undoubtedly of great theoretical and practical significance to our ongoing democratization. As Huntington, an American political scientist, pointed out, since the mid-1970s, there has been a third wave of democratization in the world. 1974 "Carnation Revolution" in Portugal, political changes in the Philippines and South Korea in the mid-1980s, great changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the arrival of multi-party democracy in Africa since the 1990s, recent political changes in Malaysia and Indonesia, and political system reform in China. It is a small climax of the third wave of democratization. All these changes are closely related to political elections, and some people even equate them, thinking that democracy can be achieved as long as elections are held. However, modern political life is so complicated, can an election alone cover all the connotations of democracy? What is the relationship between election and democracy? As we all know, the most basic pillar of democracy is people's sovereignty. Democracy literally means popular rule. In Montesquieu's words, everyone is both a ruler and a ruled. But in real life, no matter which era or regime, what people always see is that a few people are in power and rule the majority. Even in Athens, where only tens of thousands of citizens, parliamentary presidents and consuls were decided by lot, only citizens' "rule by turns" was realized, not the rule of the majority. There, the status and role of political leaders, decision makers and leaders, that is, ethnic minorities, are still impressive. Because of this, the principle of "democracy" has been criticized and challenged from the beginning. Plato, for example, is not sad about democracy. He thinks that "in this country, those who are qualified to be in power can not be in power, and those who are unwilling to obey orders can not obey at all, and nothing can force you." Others are fighting, so you don't have to go to war. Others want peace. If you don't like it, you can also ask for war. Therefore, Plato publicly argued that the best regime is "sage politics" ruled by philosophers. As for the long Middle Ages, the principle of "democracy" almost disappeared in theory and in fact. For example, in France, Louis XIII not only publicly declared that his power came from God, but also publicly declared that his will was the law. However, as stated in the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of Human Rights, all men are created equal. In that case, everyone should have a say in his own destiny. Perhaps it is precisely because this principle is rooted in human nature. Therefore, although it has been killed and ravaged several times, in modern times, with the victory of the American War of Independence and the French Revolution, the principle of democracy has finally been universally recognized. Of course, as most western thinkers admit, democracy is neither a blueprint nor a commitment to a specific result. In fact, democracy itself can't guarantee anything. It provides both opportunities for success and risks of failure. In Jefferson's words, the promise of democracy is only the pursuit of life, freedom and happiness. However, the whole human history has proved that there are more people who pursue happiness freely than those who are endowed with happiness by others. This may be the reason why democracy is generally welcomed and expected, and democratic principles are carried forward again. Since it is a principle and an ideal, it is bound to have a certain distance from reality. If in Athens, where there are only 30,000 to 40,000 citizens, the principle that everyone is both a ruler and a ruled cannot be realized, then in a modern country with a large population, the above principle is almost utopia. Therefore, modern western thinkers began to re-explore the meaning of "democracy". Lincoln once defined democracy as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Schumpeter believes that "democracy is a political method" and "democratic method is an institutional arrangement for political decision-making. In this institutional arrangement, some people gain decision-making power by winning people's votes". Huntington further developed Schumpeter's thought. He believes that "the core procedure of democratic politics is that the ruled people choose their leaders through competitive elections", and he goes on to point out that "if universal suffrage is the essence of democracy, then the key point of the democratization process is to replace those governments that are not produced by this method with governments that are freely, openly and fairly elected. "In fact, since World War II, the mainstream method has defined democracy almost entirely on the basis of elections. Why did Schumpeter and other political scientists define "election" as the essence of democracy? This is because, whether in history or in modern political life, the literal "democracy", that is, the principle that all people are both rulers and ruled, has not been and cannot be realized. The modern democratic system actually pursues the "majority rule principle", that is, the principle that the minority obeys the majority, which is actually the "feasibility principle" of democracy in reality. In the words of American political scientist Satolli, "the minority is subordinate to the majority" is the most suitable procedural principle for democracy. Why is it better than the principle of unanimity? The simple answer is: the majority principle avoids deadlock, and at the same time gives the huge collective the right to speak. " Any form of modern democratic system is that citizens freely make political decisions according to the principle of majority rule, and democracy can be redefined as "majority rule". In this case, when can "majority rule" be embodied in practice, that is, when can democracy be effectively embodied? The answer is: during the election. Because in the election process, the principle of absolute majority is embodied. Whoever stands on the side of the majority, who embodies the will of the majority, is the winner; On the contrary, whoever votes for the minority, or wins the support of only a few people, is the loser. To this end, in order to be elected, candidates lobbied everywhere at all costs and agreed to the opinions and demands put forward by voters. Because they understand that if they want to be in power, they must win the support of the majority of voters. The interests and demands of most people are fully expressed and reflected in the election process. For example, in the 43rd presidential election in the United States, voters in Florida finally decided that Bush was in the White House instead of Gore, which fully reflected the rule of man. In fact, only in places where large-scale free elections are held can citizens' sense of "ownership" be awakened and their enthusiasm and enthusiasm for participating in politics be stimulated, and this active and extensive participation is the foundation of democracy. In China, as early as War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression's time, extensive democratic elections were held. In the book North China-Shanxi-Chahar-Hebei Behind the Enemy, Mr. Li Gongfu vividly described the democratic political phenomenon he witnessed: on the day of village head election, the streets were full of red and green slogans, such as "Election of real representatives" and "Election of serious progressives as village heads". According to Mr. Public Servant's observation, people in the base areas actively participate in various public affairs and freely express their opinions and interests. The average voter participation rate in each village is over 80%. Democratic participation in politics makes them happy, full of spirit, strong self-esteem and strong sense of ownership. Without such extensive participation, democracy cannot happen; Even if it happens, it will wither quickly. Perhaps it is because of the above considerations that political scientists such as Schumpeter and Huntington have raised elections to the height of democratic essence. 2. The election must be democratic. Elections are a direct manifestation of democracy. The rule of the majority can only be achieved through elections. Therefore, all modern democratic countries hold elections without exception. However, elections are only a necessary condition for democracy, not a sufficient and necessary condition. For example, during Stalin's period, various elections were held regularly, and Stalin was unanimously approved by all voters almost every time. The newly stepped-down Yugoslav President Milosevic, the incumbent Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and many autocratic rulers in Africa also organized elections. In these elections, there may be only one candidate or list of candidates, and voters can actually only agree, and there is no other choice. Some may have provided several candidates, but who is directly elected and who is accompanying the election is carefully arranged and manipulated in advance. Elections like this are actually just a means for rulers to add a "legitimate" aura to their rule. It is not so much the embodiment of the consensus of the majority and the principle of democracy, but rather the mockery and even rape of democracy. In other words, the election itself must be democratic, and only democratic elections can embody democracy. So, what kind of election is democratic? American scholar Jenny kirkpatrick defines democratic election as: "Democratic election is not only symbolic, but also competitive, periodic, extensive and decisive. In the election, the main decision makers of the government are elected by the people, and the people enjoy extensive freedom to criticize the government, express their opinions and provide other choices. " In other words, whether an election is democratic depends on whether it is free, fair, extensive, regular and competitive. Democracy is established to protect people's freedom rights. People not only have the freedom of speech and belief, but also have the freedom to vote. Democratic elections require citizens to actively and freely vote for candidates who represent their interests, which means that citizens can freely express their wishes without any external influence and do not have to worry about intimidation or retaliation when voting. In real political life, in order to make the election results favorable to them, various interest groups, including those in power, actively participate in the election process in an attempt to influence the election through various means (including intimidation and force coercion). For example, in the early years of the Republic of China, Yuan Shikai organized the so-called "national representative election" and "national vote" in order to find a legitimate reason for his "accession to the throne". When the provincial people's congresses hold a "referendum", soldiers with live ammunition are arranged outside the venue, and monitors are arranged inside the venue. One by one "national representatives" wrote the word "yes" on the ballot paper printed with the words "constitutional monarchy" in advance. It can be seen that this illiberal election result is just the opposite of public opinion. Therefore, in order to ensure the freedom and fairness of elections, the most important thing is to get rid of the influence and control of the outside world, especially those in power. Therefore, secret ballot boxes must be set up for secret voting (secret ballot). Openness and accountability are undoubtedly the success of democracy, but voting itself is an exception. The purpose of allowing voters to vote in secret is to enable voters to freely express their opinions and opinions on the candidates in the election without being discovered and retaliated by the candidates and their representatives. In addition, during the election process, opposition parties and candidates must enjoy freedom of speech, assembly and activities. These freedoms are necessary for them to openly criticize the government and provide voters with other policies and candidates. It is not enough to give opponents a chance to vote. It is undemocratic to prevent opponents from broadcasting, control their assembly or censor their newspapers in an election. On the premise of freedom, elections must also be fair and equal. In other words, when people make a final decision on policies, every member should have equal and effective voting opportunities, and every vote of voters should have the same weight, which will not be different because of the amount of property and the level of power. In the history of elections, there are two voting systems: equal voting and multiple voting. Equal voting means that each voter has one vote and only one vote in an election; In addition, the votes cast by all voters are equally valid. On the contrary, voters with special qualifications have more than one right to vote, or their voting effect is greater than that of ordinary voters. This is a plural vote. China has implemented the principle of equal voting since the first general election in 1953, and has adhered to this principle in all previous general elections. Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De and Deng Xiaoping all cast a solemn vote as ordinary voters. In some western countries, the number of votes per person is determined by the amount of property owned. New Zealand's election law stipulates that in the county Council election, people whose property does not exceed 1 000 can vote for1; People whose property exceeds/kloc-0.000 but less than 2000 can vote for 2 votes; People whose property exceeds 2000 can vote for 3 votes. Although most modern western countries have abolished the unfair "plural voting" system, in fact, there are still various qualifications restrictions, and not everyone enjoys the right to vote and be elected equally. In addition, the election must be conducted under the condition of full competition. There is no candidate designated by the superior in advance, and the differential election is implemented. The number of candidates is more than the number of deputies to be elected. Each candidate participates in the competition on an equal footing, publicly publishes his "platform" at the voters' meeting and answers voters' questions. At the same time, the ruling party and those in power can enjoy the convenience brought by their functions and powers, but they cannot manipulate elections through non-competitive means to their advantage. In reality, many regimes often cheat in the election by making an electoral system that is beneficial to the government, intimidating the opposition and using the resources held by the government in the election. For example, during the ten years from 1974 to 1984, the Brazilian government regularly revised its laws on elections, political parties and elections in an attempt to prevent the opposition from growing stronger in competition. Elections that lack open competition often lead to the emergence or continued existence of undemocratic regimes. Therefore, open competition is an important factor to ensure electoral democracy. Since democracy means "majority rule", democratic elections must also be extensive, that is, democratic elections must be conducted on the basis of majority participation. But in reality, not only was democracy in ancient Athens limited to the ruling class, but even in the process of national democratization in the modern sense, certain groups in society, especially ethnic minorities, different religious groups and women, were always excluded. For example, in the history of South Africa, as an ethnic oligarch, 70% of the population has been excluded from politics for a long time. Similarly, in American history, only white men in certain industries have the right to vote and stand for election. In this way, even though the election may be competitive and open, it is only held in a small area, and such an election does not reflect the wishes of the majority. Therefore, almost all political scientists agree that elections under universal suffrage can only be regarded as democratic elections. Finally, elections must be held regularly. Generally speaking, the winner in the election often represents the interests and opinions of most people. However, there is a saying in China: "Thirty years east, thirty years west." In modern times when the pace of social life is obviously accelerated, we can even say that "three years in Hedong, three years in Hexi". In other words, people's interests and views are not immutable. Since the people are the main body of society and the owners of sovereignty, they should of course have the right to freely change their positions and views with the development and changes of events and situations. Because of this, in real political life, the opposition between the majority and the minority is relative. With the changes of individual voters' positions and viewpoints (which will be caused by every speech made by candidates during the campaign), the majority can become a minority, and the minority can also become a majority. This is the "variability" in elections. This "variability" is also one of the important sources of the vitality of modern democratic mechanisms. However, if the elected person has no term limit or a long term, it is equivalent to allowing the initial winner in the democratic election to set himself as the winner forever. Caesar and Augustus in ancient Rome, Cromwell in modern British bourgeois revolution, and Napoleon in France all made such attempts. In modern society, it is not uncommon to maintain the ruling position by postponing elections. Obviously, even if the election process is very democratic, if it is "cadre selection", such an election is not so much the beginning of democracy as the end of democracy. Because, if we deny "variability", deny that the majority can become a minority or a minority can become a majority, it is actually denying people's sovereignty and democracy. Therefore, elections must be held regularly. The elected government and the ruling party must have a clear term of office. In order to prevent the government and rulers from abusing the people's authorization, many countries have even made provisions such as holding elections in advance and not being re-elected. Only in this way can the people's will be fully reflected. 3. Democratic Elections and Electoral Democracy As can be seen from the above, elections are an important part of democracy, and free, fair, equal, competitive and formal elections can really reflect the will of the people and embody the principle of "rule by man". Because of this, many people argue that as long as elections are realized, democracy will be realized. This is the so-called "electionism" in political science. However, in fact, even democratic elections are not equal to democracy. Democracy can be said to be a systematic project, which can only be achieved through many institutional guarantees other than elections. For example, this American presidential election ended in legal proceedings. In other words, democracy must have certain preconditions. The first is political freedom. Obviously, political freedom is a prerequisite for democracy, and some people even think that freedom and democracy are mutually inclusive and mutually beneficial. For example, in ancient Greece, it was obviously impossible for slaves to attend the citizens' assembly, otherwise slaves would not be slaves, and since citizens were free, they had the right to "demand" and "obtain" dominance. Since modern times, although people have generally gained legal freedom, due to the religious reform, industrial revolution and three technological revolutions, societies in various countries have been divided into different classes, strata and interest groups. The political status of these different classes, strata and interest groups is different in different countries and different times. The so-called political freedom means allowing different classes, strata and interest groups to form independent political parties and associations, allowing different political parties to freely express their political opinions and allowing dissidents to exist. Only when voters can freely choose between different political parties, different policy platforms, different political opinions and different political leaders can their will be fully reflected. For example, in the early years of the Republic of China, during the racist regime in South Africa and the military dictatorship in South Korea, those in power banned the existence of other political parties, assassinated dissidents or put them in prison, and then held elections. Even if the procedure is democratic, this kind of election can't really reflect the will of the people. Second, freedom of the press, speech and publication. In ancient Athens, almost all public affairs were discussed and decided at citizen meetings. Although there were only 30,000 to 40,000 citizens in Athens at that time, there were generally about 6,000 people attending the citizens' meeting, which was held forty times a year. In modern society, it is impossible to hold such frequent citizen meetings with such a high proportion of representatives. Citizens' understanding of public affairs is mainly through the news media, especially the current television. In fact, mass media has become an important means to influence voters' attitudes and election results. If there is no freedom of the press, speech and publication, the public will not be able to know the truth of the matter and thus will not be able to reflect their wishes through elections. Third, we must have a sound legal system. Democracy and the rule of law are two complementary aspects. Without a sound rule of law as a guarantee, democratic principles cannot be implemented. Take the election as an example, from the aspects of the examination of voter qualifications, the formulation of election procedures, the safety of voting places and ballot boxes, and the counting of votes. , must have a strict legal system to ensure. For example, the 43rd presidential election in the United States ended in the form of legal proceedings. It can be said that without the guarantee of the legal system, any election can not be carried out normally. The significance of the rule of law is not limited to, or even mainly lies in, ensuring the election process, but in ensuring the election results and ensuring the implementation and enforcement of public opinion. The subject of the rule of law is of course the people, and the object of the rule of law is, in a sense, state officials or "officials", including "officials" elected through democracy. There are two opposite views on this issue. One is represented by Hobbes. He believes that in order to get rid of the "natural state", people agree with each other: everyone gives up all his power and gives it to a meeting composed of one person or a group of people. The person or meeting who is granted power is the monarch, and the power of the monarch is absolute and supreme. Once others hand over power, they can only be subjects of the monarch. Obviously, the regime established in this way must be an authoritarian regime. Another view is represented by Rousseau. Rousseau believes that sovereignty is composed of public will and public opinion, and government officials exercise power only when entrusted by the people. People can limit, change or withdraw the power given to officials. The so-called rule of law refers to the restriction, change or revocation of the power of elected officials by the people. Otherwise, even democratic elections can only mean the beginning of autocracy or dictatorship, such as Hitler's regime. A sound legal system not only means that people have the right to supervise, restrict and recall their elected officials, but also means that the rights of minorities must be fully guaranteed. Because an operating principle in modern democratic system is 50%+ 1, that is, the "majority rule". However, although the minority must obey the opinions of the majority, their rights and status should not be deprived, and they must be protected by law. For example, in western countries with multi-party system, the party with the majority seats in parliament has the right to form a cabinet, but the ruling party cannot persecute, destroy or dissolve minority political parties by virtue of its ruling position, and the status of minority political parties as opposition parties must be guaranteed by law. Otherwise, the "majority rule principle" will evolve into "majority tyranny" and, in the words of Madison and Jefferson, it will become "election tyranny". In other words, respecting and protecting the interests of minorities should be the proper meaning of the people's theme. True democracy not only embodies the interests of the majority, but also respects and protects the rights of the minority. Only in this way can we maintain the power and mechanism of democracy. As Rousseau said, citizens in representative democratic countries will not lose their freedom when voting, because they can decide to turn their support for the majority opinion into a minority opinion at any time. Allowing people to change their views is not only the foundation of citizens' lasting freedom, but also enables democracy to persist as an open and self-regulating regime. Minority rights are a necessary condition for the democratic process itself. Therefore, true democracy should not only protect the interests of minorities in law, but also protect the interests of minorities in practice. Of course, a sound legal system should also mean that democratically elected officials and leaders can exercise their power independently according to law. This seems to be self-evident in most developed countries. However, in some countries, unelected spiritual leaders, politicians, military leaders and senior civil servants often act independently of elected officials, and they often actually control the political power. In this case, the elected officials are actually just puppets. The election held under such circumstances is obviously nothing more than a scam. Another most important prerequisite for democracy is a certain level of economic and cultural development. Although most political scientists call the political system of ancient Athens democracy, Athenian democracy is based on slavery and is a minority democracy. It is not the same as liberalism and constitutional mass democracy that we are discussing today. The freedom, constitutionalism and popular democracy we are discussing today are the products of the development of human society, human civilization, especially the productive forces of human society to a certain extent. In today's world, with few exceptions, almost all developed countries and all rich countries have implemented democracy politically, while almost all developing countries, especially those very poor countries, have not achieved political democracy at present, at least not yet fully. This close relationship between economic and cultural level and political democracy is actually not a mystery, but the simplest and most basic fact, that is, Engels pointed out long ago that people must have food, drink, shelter and clothing before they can engage in political, philosophical and religious activities and strive for rule. For African refugees who are suffering from war, naked and hungry, democratic elections are just a mirage, a plum in a picture and a cake in a picture. Similarly, people in European countries have had heated discussions on whether to join the EU or the Euro, and some countries have held several rounds of referendums. The attitudes and strategies of different political parties towards the EU and Euro also directly determine whether voters support them or not. This is because European voters have their own judgment and understanding of the development trend and possible advantages and disadvantages of these events. Therefore, it is very meaningful to hold a national discussion and referendum. In China, holding a referendum on whether to join the WTO or letting all voters decide who will form a cabinet and who will be president is not only meaningless, but also ridiculous. Because most voters in China don't even know what the WTO is, and they don't have their own understanding and judgment. In this sense, democracy cannot be transplanted. We cannot transform an undemocratic country into a democratic country overnight by transplanting a constitution and an election method. Democracy is the product of the development of human social civilization to a certain stage. Of course, politicians should not sit still and talk about democracy, but they should not be eager to achieve success.