In analyzing the question of democracy, we need to concentrate on its essence. It won't do for us just to look at the form it assumes.

The people want democracy because they need to have certain demands met and certain interests realized. They will strive for democracy when they are denied of the right to pursue their 'demands and interests. It is clear that democracy has always been associated with the people's demands and interests. The essence of democracy lies in whether it is associated with, and conforms to, the people's demands and interests. Nobody wants the kind of democracy that has nothing to do with, or even runs in counter against, the demands and interests of the people. That sort of "democracy" is democracy just in name-pseudo democracy, to put it more exactly.

Before New China came into being, the Chinese people demanded democracy because they wanted to fight against imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism. In its last years, the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), China's last feudal dynasty, once tried to practice a little "democracy". That was not meant to satisfy the people's demand for fight against imperialism, and even less for fight against feudalism, but to save the dynasty's reactionary feudal rule from collapse. And as expected, the Qing Dynasty was overthrown by the Chinese people who demanded true democracy. While mouthing democracy, the Kuomintang never fought against imperialism and feudalism and, instead, it went all out to practice bureaucrat capitalism. When the Japanese aggressor troops came, it refused to fight back at first and later was compelled to put up a half-hearted resistance. That explains why the Chinese people demanded democracy throughout the War of Resistance against Japan. After China won the war, the Kuomintang, acting in defiance of the people's demand for peaceful reconstruction of the country, started a civil war. That explains why the Kuomintang was kicked away by the Chinese people who were keen to pursue democracy, even though it staged a "national assembly" and a "presidential election" to advertise its own brand of "democracy".

The Communist Party of China (CPC) has held aloft the banner of democracy ever since it was born. Before New China was founded, democracy was already practiced in all the revolutionary base areas under the Party's leadership. In compliance with the Chinese people's demand, the Party fought resolutely against imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism and put up a heroic resistance against Japanese aggression. It continued to have the support from the Chinese people after the War of Resistance against Japan because it stood for peaceful reconstruction of the country and was against a civil war. That explains why the CPC won nationwide victory in the Chinese revolution.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics-this has been the demand of the Chinese people since New China was born. The Chinese people want to follow that road chosen by themselves in the wake of arduous struggles over long decades for whose victory they sacrificed so heavily. This road is the correct road for China to follow. Facts have proved that "only socialism can save China and only under socialism can China develop". Compliance to the demand of the Chinese people for building socialism with Chinese characteristics is, therefore, the essence of Chinese democracy.

Democracy must be practiced if socialism is to succeed. Deng Xiaoping, the architect of the Chinese reform, once said: "There will be no socialism (in China) without democracy, and neither will there be modernization under socialism." Deng was saying that without democracy it will be impossible for China to build the kind of socialism the Chinese people truly like. Democracy must be enforced in the course of building socialism simply because the building of socialism is an undertaking executed by the Chinese people for their own good. Moreover, there doesn't exist a blueprint ready for China to copy and, for this reason, unexpected problems and difficulties may crop up in the course of building socialism. Only by practicing democracy can it be possible for China to pool the strength and wisdom of the people so as to ensure a correct orientation for the cause of socialism and bring into full play their initiative and enthusiasm in a united effort to build socialism. Even if mistakes are made and setbacks occur, these can be promptly discovered and rectified and the country will quickly return to the right path of development provided socialist democracy is in force. That explains why China has been able to overcome a host of difficulties and made tremendous achievements in building socialism.

Some people see Western democracy-the multi-party election, the system of upper and lower houses and the separation of legislation, administration and justice, etc.-as the sole form of democracy in the world. They never bother to think about whether a democracy conforms to the demands and will of the people and whether the people's demand and will can be realized under it. These people actually stand for democracy only in name. In their opinion, democracy can be achieved by copying what is practiced in the West. This is not true to the fact. China once tried to imitate Western democracy, but internal disorder, instead of democracy, was the result. China is not the only country that has tried Western democracy. Attempts were made not only in China, but also in many other developing countries, to try out Western democracy. Have the demands of the people met and their interests ensured in any of these countries?

The forms assumed by democracy are certainly important, as they influence the operation of the democracy. But conditions vary from country to country and, consequently, democracy is bound to vary in form. As regards what specific form of democracy a country should take, that, in the final analysis, should be judged by proceeding from whether it can bring in genuine democracy, and whether the kind of democracy it brings in conforms to the demands and interests of the people. Demand for practicing a sole form of democracy without taking into account of the people's demands and interests in a specific country, that is, pursuit of democracy only in name without due regard to its essence, is highly deceptive and hazardous. It blurs the essential difference between true democracy and pseudo democracy. Advocates of such ideas harbor ulterior motives if not muddle-headed.

While accusing China of being "undemocratic," some people in the West are compelled to recognize the fact that the Chinese economy has been developing at an amazingly great speed. Unable to justify their accusation against China, these people allege that the Chinese economy has been able to develop rapidly simply because the country is "undemocratic" and "dictatorial", bent on economic development "at the expense of democracy". Allegations of this sort are indeed absurd, to which the U.S. Department of State has stuck. In its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices of 2001 and 2002, it went so far as to assert that in exercising a dictatorial rule, China relies mainly on advantage of its capability to maintain a social stability and improve the life for most of the 1.3 billion Chinese people. Look, the economic progress and social stability China has been able to enjoy and the constant improvement in the life of its population are pictured as something horrible, something used by the Chinese government to suppress democracy.

It is common knowledge that only when a country practices democracy will it possible for the country to develop its economy in a sustained manner and constantly improve the living standard of its people. If the country is under a dictatorial rule, its economic development is bound to stagnate or decline and its people will find life impossible. Even if the country makes some economic progress over a short period, the beneficiaries can only be the few who are privileged to enrich themselves at the expense of the interests of the laboring masses who account for the vast majority of the country's population. Economic progress achieved under dictatorial rule cannot sustain, and economies under dictatorial rules are bound to collapse. This is true to all countries, and China is no exception. Despite this common knowledge, there are people in the West who refuse to see Chinese democracy as it is. China practices socialist democracy, and socialist democracy is essentially different from Western democracy. In the eyes of these Westerners, democracy can only take the form prevalent in the West and democracy in any other form is "undemocratic." Basing themselves on this assumption, they try to negate China's socialist democracy even though China's socialist democracy has been responsible for the country's remarkable achievements in economic development and for the constant improvement in the life of the Chinese people.

It can be safely said that the mass line is China's democratic line, the guiding line for the Chinese government in all aspects of its work. The mass line is built on the understanding that the people, with boundless wisdom and creativity, are the masters of society. In practice, it obliges the government to do everything in the interest of the people and rely on the people in doing everything. In making and implementing decisions, the government is obliged to follow the approach summarized as "from the masses and to the masses". In making a decision, the first step taken by the government is to collect opinions and suggestions from the people. Then the government sums up the good ideas from all quarters and incorporate them into the decision it is making. The broad masses will be involved in implementation of the decision and, in the process, the decision will be tested through practice and may be revised or developed on merit of the actual circumstances. In other words, the will of the people is the point of departure and the end result for the making and implementation of any decision, and the government counts on the wisdom and strength of the people in making and implementing the decision. This mass line, or China's democratic line, has enabled the Chinese people to be masters of their own country, and made it possible for the Chinese revolution and national construction to enjoy the maximum popular support and consequently succeed. Chinese democracy as embodied by the mass line is different from Western democracy in both theoretical and practical terms. Unfortunately, this is yet to be fully understood by people in the West.

In contemporary China, economic development has been the most urgent demand of the people. Only through economic development will it be possible for the Chinese people to shake off poverty and for the country to become strong and prosperous. As far as China is concerned, whether economic development can be achieved is taken as the yardstick to decide whether political democracy is practiced in the country. Economic development conforms to the will of the people and, therefore, embraces democracy. A government is seen as undemocratic if it does not strive for economic development in defiance of the will of the people. Some people in the West attempt to isolate democracy from the country's economic development or even set democracy and economic development against each other. Among these people, there are those who have no idea about the specific conditions in China while others are bent on throwing mud at China.

As regards the relationship between democracy and economy, some people think that democracy should come before economy, and there are also those who insist that economy should come before democracy. Both ideas amount to setting democracy and economy against each other, and neither applies to China. When economic development becomes the major concern of the Chinese people, talk of democracy without relevance to economy will be meaningless. Even if there is such democracy, it is "democracy" just in name, something that the people will definitely reject. That kind of "democracy", if put into practice, can only cause confusion and even give rise to internal conflicts. When a person is dying of hunger, he or she will do whatever possible in search of bread. The person will not be interested in an invitation to a seminar on things irrelevant to bread, and will be interested only in a meeting that discusses issues linked to bread. On the other hand, no economic issue can be resolved without democracy. When a few persons run roughshod over the vast majority of the population, economic problems will definitely grow in severity and the people's life will definitely go from bad to worse.

Freedom of speech is an indispensable part of democracy. It must be ensured if democracy is truly enforced. Without freedom of speech, there will be no democracy to speak of. But we still have questions to ask: What does freedom of speech actually mean? How to exercise the right to freedom of speech in a truly democratic way?

Freedom of speech, as a matter of course, means the right of the people to speak out what is on their minds. If a person is compelled to say things that are not on his or her mind, the person will be deprived of the right to freedom of speech. Everybody in the West seems to enjoy the right to freedom of speech, but more often than not, what people are saying is not on their minds. The "mouth" is allowed to open but the "tongue", so to speak, is subject to control by the moneyed class. To put it bluntly, a person may be fired if he or she insists on speaking out what is truly on his or her mind. The moneyed class controls the "tongue" while allowing the "mouth" to open. "Smart", isn't it?

There might be cases in which you are allowed to say whatever you want to say. The problem is that you have only one "tongue" to rely on and your voice is overwhelmed in the huge noises produced by the mass media newspapers, radio and TV broadcasts, information networks, etc.-that are beyond your reach. You may keep saying, but your voice cannot be heard. That is exactly the case of elections in the West. You can't run for election single-handedly. The winner in an election is bound to be the person who has sufficient financial resources at his or her disposal along with a powerful enough publicity machinery. A person with only his or her own tongue to depend on is, as a matter of fact, simply not eligible for an election race. This mere fact suffices to bring to light the essence of the kind of democracy that exists only in name.

Here is our conclusion: Freedom of speech means not only the right of a person to speak out whatever is on his or her mind, but also the possibility for the person's voice to be heard. If the person cannot have his or her voice heard, whatever he or she says will amount to talking to him- or herself. In that case, freedom of speech will be meaningless and does in no way contribute to democracy.

People ask for freedom of speech because they want to have their demands met and their interests achieved. Demands and interests diversify. For this reason, never will it do for a person to expect whatever he or she wants to count and, instead, it is the will of the majority that should really count. The right of individuals to freedom of speech should of course be allowed under democracy. Meanwhile, democracy cannot be seen as consisting of nothing but the individual right to freedom of speech. While allowing individuals to speak out what is on their minds, democracy, if genuine, must call for obedience on the part of the individual to the will of the majority. The Chinese for "democracy", min zhu, conveys the true meaning of democracy-min meaning the "people" and zhu, the "power of decision". Democracy, as interpreted by the Chinese, means exercise of that power by the entire people, or by the majority of the people.

Stress on individual freedom of speech to the neglect of the will of the majority is extremely one-sided and can cause grave consequences. The "Cultural Revolution" (1966-1976) furnished a worst example of individual freedom of speech driven to the extreme. During this "revolution", absolute freedom of speech prevailed in China and any individual or any group of individuals could be free to attack, accuse and humiliate another individual or another group of individuals. Nationwide disorder and confusion were the result, culminating in physical fights between factions everywhere in the country.

There is the need to be always on the alert against those who spare no effort to advocate individual freedom of speech while acting in defiance of the will of the majority. It is highly possible that these people harbor ulterior motives. In an attempt to gain control over a country they dislike, forces in the West who are bent on power politics and hegemony often bang the drum of individual freedom of speech to embark their followers to oppose that country's government. Followers of such forces, on their part, aim at sowing quarrel in the country and throwing the country into disorder, so that they can take advantage of the subsequent confusion to seize the political power. When the country tries to curb this conspiracy, it will be accused of being "undemocratic" allegedly for "suppressing" the right of its people to freedom of speech.