Difference between English "democracy" and Chinese "民主"

[tooironic]

The word "democracy" is defined in my Oxford dictionary as: "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives". On Wikipedia: "a form of government in which eligible citizens may participate equally – either directly by voting for the passing/ rejecting of laws or running for office themselves, or indirectly through elected representatives. – in the proposal, development and establishment of the laws by which their society is run." You can see in both definitions elections are mentioned almost as a defining characteristic. And when you ask the average Anglophone, I think most would think of a democratic country as one which holds elections.

 

By contrast, the word Chinese word "民主" - the long-accepted translation of the English term "democracy" - is defined in my 现代汉语规范词典 as: 指人民享有参与政治生活和国家事务并对其自由发表意见等的权利。("Refers to the people enjoying participation in political life and affairs of the state, as well as other rights as such as freedom to express their views, etc.") In the online Baidu dictionary "民主" is defined as 一种社会状态，其特点是：人民有参与国事或对国事有自由发表意见的权利。("A type of social state with the characteristic of the people participating in affairs of the state or having the right to express their opinions about them.") You can see in both definitions there is a focus on participation and freedom of speech/expression, but neither elections nor voting are mentioned.

 

Why is this? Could it be that the Chinese think of democratic society as one in which the people can participate and express their views, but that elections is not a necessary component? Could this explain why, on the one hand, there are Westerners who assume a legitimate democracy must hold elections, while on the other there are Chinese who are puzzled why their own country cannot be considered a democratic one? And how did this difference in interpretations of "democracy" evolve?

 

To make matters even more interesting, the 國語辭典 (the Taiwan Chinese standard dictionary), does mention elections in its definitions: 國家主權屬於全國人民，國家施政以民意為準則，人民得依法選舉民意代表，以控制國家政策的政治體制。("[When] a country's sovereignty belongs to all of its people, and the country regards the will of the people as the standard in governance, and the people must, in accordance with the law, elect representatives, [it is] a political system which can control a nation's policies.") Could we then say that the Chinese and Taiwanese have different interpretations of democracy, and that perhaps the Taiwanese concept is more in line with the Western one in which voting and elections seem to be key features?

 

[li3wei1]

It's not just history that's written by the winners, they get to write the dictionaries, too.

[陳德聰]

Every country interprets democracy differently. I'd say the Chinese definition is the core meaning of democracy and your fixation on elections is motivated by your cultural background.

[Divato]

Personally, I agree with 三民主义(Three Principles of the People) advocated by 国父 孙中山先生. (http://baike.baidu.com/view/14963.htm)

I think the 民权主义(Principles of Democracy) may be closer to western.

民权主义：实行为一般平民所共有的民主政治，而防止欧美现行制度之流弊，人民有选举、罢免、创制、复决四权(政权)以管理政府，政府则有立法、司法、行政、考试、监察五权(治权)以治理国家。其核心观念强调直接民权与权能区分，亦即政府拥有治权，人民则拥有政权。

[陳德聰]

I feel like we also need to talk seriously about how using dictionary definitions in place of actually learning what a concept is (especially when it's complex and involves political ideology) is kind of ridiculous. Ask a Chinese person to explain 民主 and then ask an Englishman to explain democracy and I suppose you'll probably get the same answer. "Everyone's voice is equally applied to the decision making process" and then the way that this is done varies greatly by region.

[Silent]

 

Every country interprets democracy differently. I'd say the Chinese definition is the core meaning of democracy and your fixation on elections is motivated by your cultural background.

 

To my knowledge democracy stems from ancient Greece with the meaning that every one has an equal share in power. In my perception that means every one can equally participate in the debate and everyone's vote has equal value. What we, today, call democracy is imho a watered down version of that idea.

 

In part this watering down is the result of practical considerations. E.g. the original idea may be workable in a small village, becomes much harder in a city and is pretty much impossible when the area becomes larger and the population runs into millions resulting systems where the population votes for representatives and the representatives decide. In part it's watered down to limit the disadvantages of democracy and there is of course also some watering down due to self interest of more powerful stakeholders

 

The Chinese system is, based on my limited knowledge, imho way off from the idea of equal participation in debate and decision making. To my knowledge it's more like a meritocracy. Consequently I've to agree with liwei that this seems to be an issue of the victor writes the dictionary. I at least don't see how mere participation does justice to the core idea in democracy which is equality.

[Michaelyus]

Adding a Francophone perspective:

 

From the 9ème édition du Dictionnaire de l'Académie française:

 

 

Système d'organisation politique dans lequel la souveraineté et les décisions qui en découlent sont exercées théoriquement ou réellement, directement ou indirectement, par le peuple, c'est-à-dire par l'ensemble des citoyens. La démocratie athénienne fut la première démocratie connue. La démocratie place l'origine du pouvoir dans la volonté des citoyens et soumet son exercice à leur vote majoritaire. La démocratie repose sur le principe de l'égalité des citoyens. Démocratie directe, où la souveraineté est exercée par l'assemblée des citoyens. La démocratie directe subsiste dans certains cantons suisses. Démocratie parlementaire, où la souveraineté est exercée par délégation à une ou deux assemblées. Par méton. État, pays où le système démocratique est en vigueur. Les démocraties d'Europe occidentale. Spécialt. Démocratie populaire, État où un parti unique se réclamant du marxisme-léninisme exerce le pouvoir. 

 

Rough translation:

 

System of political organisation in which sovereignty and its resultant decisions are exercised, theoretically or in reality, directly or indirectly, by the people, that is to say, by the ensemble of its citizens. Athenian democracy was the first known democracy. Democracy puts the origin [basis] of power in the will of the citizens and submits its exercise to [puts the exercise of power under] their majority vote. Democracy rests on the principle of the equality of citizens. Direct democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by the assembly of citizens. Direct democracy subsists [remains] in certain Swiss cantons. Parliamentary democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by delegation to one or two assemblies. By metonymy, a state, country where the democratic system is operative. The democracies of Western Europe. Specialised. people's democracy, state where a single party claiming Marxism-Leninism exercises power. 

 

Larousse:

 

Système politique, forme de gouvernement dans lequel la souveraineté émane du peuple.

 

 

Political system, form of government in which sovereignty comes from the people

[陳德聰]

I think the point is that the definition given in by those two Chinese dictionaries does not specifically mention elections, but that doesn't somehow mean that Chinese conception of democracy precludes elections. Chinese students elect 班长 as one of the first democratic things they ever do. I think that this is a misleading and problematic way to try to understand what Chinese people supposedly think about democracy.

 

Some Chinese people may think they are participating in a democratic society, but is it real democracy? Not really. But I don't think that all Chinese people are under that illusion in the first place.

 

Where I live in Canada, many people seem to think they are participating in a democratic society just because there is voting involved, and yet the system routinely churns out results that are not representative at all. Is it a real democracy? Not really. But what's strange (read: totally normal) is that nobody seems to point at the dictionary and wonder if that might be why.

[gato]

1. Voting is a type of participation, so referring to "participation" rather than "elections" makes the definition broader but also more vague. This is no doubt so that CCP could claim that the PRC is a democracy. Few members of public thinks that the PRC is a democracy, and most probably don't think democracy is right for China. This is not about what the Chinese public's understanding of "democracy" is, but is more about the government's use of language.

2. Definition from 汉语大词典, via Pleco (I found the last sentence amusing; it is critical of democracy):

指人民有参与国事或对国事有自由发表意见的权利。民主用于国家形式, 即成为一种国家制度, 与“专制”相对立。作为一种国家制度, 民主总是体现统治阶级的意志, 具有鲜明的阶级性。

[陳德聰]

In practice, that sentence certainly is true here.

[anonymoose]

there are Chinese who are puzzled why their own country cannot be considered a democratic one?

 

Well, China isn't democratic even by their own definition. When can one do the following in any meaningful way?

 

对国事有自由发表意见的权利

 

The government seems pretty determined to make sure this one isn't implemented.

[Angelina]

To my knowledge democracy stems from ancient Greece with the meaning that every one has an equal share in power. In my perception that means every one can equally participate in the debate and everyone's vote has equal value. What we, today, call democracy is imho a watered down version of that idea.

 

Not exactly.

 

It would not hurt to read Aristotle and Plato. 

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/

 

 

• Barker, Ernest, revised by Richard Stalley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
• Jowett, Benjamin, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, The Revised Oxford Translation, vol. 2, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.
• Lord, Carnes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
• Reeve, C. D. C. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 1998.
• Simpson, Peter L. P. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.
• Sinclair, T. A., revised by Trevor J. Saunders. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983.
• The Clarendon Aristotle Series (Oxford University Press) includes translation and commentary of the Politics in four volumes:

[Silent]

 

Not exactly.

 

It would not hurt to read Aristotle and Plato.

 

Maybe you could point out in what regard you disagree instead of referring to half a dozen books? You're right in that my description is simplified, the principles are likely to be much older, but I think Plato was the first describing it in Republica (as far as known literature goes) and I think Plato is the one who coined the word. Hence originating  in ancient Greece

[gato]

Plato's "Republic" was actually against democracy. He advocated a form of government ruled by a wise Philosopher King, a kind of benevolent dictatorship/monarchy.

But Plato's opinion should by no means be considered to be representative of Greek public opinion. Plato was an elitist. Greece at that time wasn't a single country but many city-states. Each city has its own form of government. Athens was a democracy, with its assembly chosen by lottery among its citizens (its citizenship rules aren't really democratic by modern standards and excluded women and many others).

[Angelina]

I don't disagree with you because this is not about our own political views.

As gato said, democratic by modern standards means that the modern idea of a democracy, what you said about equality comes from the American Revolution (All men are created equal) and the French Revolution (liberte, equalite, fraternite).

Therefore, Chinese democracy is democracy because of the fact that the modern idea comes from the same political movement.

Ancient Greece is complicated. According to Aristotle, democracy means the rule of the poor and oligarcy the rule of the rich. Plato and Aristotle did not support democracy.

[Silent]

 

Plato's "Republic" was actually against democracy. He advocated a form of government ruled by a wise Philosopher King, a kind of benevolent dictatorship/monarchy.

Pro or contra is imho irrelevant for origination. It's easy to come up with an idea and to reject it as inferior. In republica Plato discussed several models of governance among it was democracy. That he rejected it, the idea of perfect equality, is understandable. Democracy as such has some serious flaws and consequently at present all so called democratic states have an altered form of democracy where equality may be vested in the constitution but in reality it does not exist.

 

 

Ancient Greece is complicated. According to Aristotle, democracy means the rule of the poor and oligarcy the rule of the rich. Plato and Aristotle did not support democracy.

They were right, democracy basically means the average rules and exceptionally intelligent and visionary people are easily dismissed. At the same time, the masses are easily manipulated by playing the sentiments. Promises of short term gains and blaming groups of outsiders for all problems are proven methods to gain support for senseless policies.

[陳德聰]

Democracy as such has some serious flaws and consequently at present all so called democratic states have an altered form of democracy where equality may be vested in the constitution but in reality it does not exist.

I want to upvote this multiple times.

[Angelina]

I want to upvote the entire post multiple times.

[Michaelyus]

I think the history of the phrase "démocratie populaire" and its relation to Communist (specifically Stalinist) thinking has a strong influence, one that is seems to be less well-known in Anglophone circles. It is easy to dismiss as propaganda, and is now only retained in the name of the DPRK. But I think it is how the constitution of the PRC sees itself, which does identify 民主主义 as one of its elements. 

[renzhe]

Democracy is such a broad concept that it's difficult to condense it to a couple of sentences. It is possible, yes, but there are many possible definitions with might stress different aspects.

Democracy as a broad, political concept does not need or require either elections or representatives (see grassroots democracy or participatory democracy). On the other hand, the vast majority of countries run under some kind of a democratic system are based on elections, so stressing it in an encyclopedia definition is also understandable.

I'd also add the German perspective (from wiki) goes even further, and in addition to strictly proscribing elections also lists protecting fundamental rights, citizen rights and human rights as typical for a democratic society: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demokratie