在考察权威概念及其从教会向人民的转移时,西方哲学家采纳了一种想象性的、假设性的观念,这种观念并无现实依据。这一观念仅仅是西方人的一种精神建构:据称,人类原本生活在自然的、野性的状态中,随后通过社会契约进入城市化的、文明的状态。在社会契约之中,个人同意交出部分意志,以形成一个集体意志,即构成主权的公共意志。个人交出(部分)意志的这一约定被称为社会契约,它是国家的根基、权威的根基,也是公共自由的根基。他们认为,体现这一观念的制度,按照他们的理解,就是民主制度,它是行使人民主权的政治实体。因此,西方的统治制度建立在民主之上。"民主"一词源自希腊语的复合词 δημοκρατία(demokratia),由 demos(人民)与 kratos(统治)构成,因此其含义为"人民的统治"。民主通常以亚伯拉罕·林肯(卒于1865年)在葛底斯堡演说中的那句名言来定义:"民有、民治、民享的政府。"

When examining the concept of authority and its transfer from the Church to the people, the Western philosophers adopted an imaginary, hypothetical idea that has no basis in reality. Instead, the idea is merely a mental construct of Westerners, in which it is claimed that Man used to live in a natural, feral state, then moved to an urbanized, civil state through a social contract. Within the social contract, individuals agreed to give up part of their will, to form a collective will, which is a public will constituting sovereignty. The agreement of individuals to give up their (part of) will is called social contract, which is the fundamental of the state, the fundamental of authority and the fundamental of public freedom. They viewed that the system that embodies this idea, as they perceive, is the democratic system, as a political entity to exercise the sovereignty of the populous. Accordingly, the ruling system of the West is based on Democracy. The word Democracy is a Greek-origin composite word, SppoKpcma, demokratia, which is from demos (people) and kratos (rule), so it means “rule of the people.” Democracy is usually defined by the famous saying of Abraham Lincoln (d 1865), who said, “government of the people, by the people, for the people” during his Gettysburg Address.

在当今西方所倡导的全球化、当代意义上，民主与自由（liberty）的理念密不可分。这一问题并不新鲜，也并非源自现代西方思想，如人们所认为的那样；相反，它只是从希腊人那里继承而来。亚里士多德在其著作《政治学》中说道："如果自由与平等，正如一些人所认为的那样，主要存在于民主制之中，那么当所有人都尽可能平等地参与政府时，它们将得到最好的实现。既然人民是多数，而多数人的意见具有决定性，这样的政府必然是民主制。"然而，现代自由（liberty）的概念与希腊人的并不相同。这正是西方的独特之处，其起点可追溯到启蒙运动时期以及西方自由主义哲学的兴起。

In its global, contemporary concept as promoted by the West, Democracy is inseparable from the idea of freedom (liberty). This matter is not new and has not emerged from modern Western thinking, as is held. Instead it is merely inherited from the Greeks. Aristotle says in his book Politics, “For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost. And since the people are the majority, and the opinion of the majority is decisive, such a government must necessarily be a democracy.” However, the concept of modern freedom (liberty) differs from that of the Greeks. This is something that distinguishes the West, starting from the era of Enlightenment and the emergence of the Western liberal philosophy.

因此，民主在现代被表述为自由民主（liberal democracy），以区别于其他形式的民主，无论是古代的还是现代的，例如社会民主。按照西方的理解，真正的民主是与自由观念相联系的民主，这是西方在其启蒙时代所承认的。因此，民主被描述为一套与自由相关的思想和原则的集合，正如他们所理解的那样。一些思想家则将其视为自由的制度化。可以说，西方支持民主的人士之间存在一种共识，即民主与一组被视为民主支柱的事项密不可分，这些事项包括：人民主权、分权、各项自由、人权、平等、多元主义、自由公正的选举及随后的和平政权交接、法治，以及在保护少数群体权利的同时实行多数统治。

Accordingly, Democracy is expressed in a modern term as liberal democracy, distinct from other democracies, whether ancient, or modern, such as social democracy. True democracy according to the Western perception is Democracy connected to the concept of freedom, acknowledged by the West in its era of Enlightenment. Therefore, it is described as a collection of thoughts and principles related to freedom, as they perceive. Some thinkers consider it as an institutionalization of freedom. It can be said that there is a consensus amongst Westerners who support Democracy, that it is inseparable from a group of matters that are considered as the pillars of Democracy, which are: Sovereignty of the people, separation of powers, freedoms, human rights, equality, pluralism, free and fair elections followed by peaceful transition of power, rule of law and majority rule whilst preserving the rights of minorities.

这是对民主的简要介绍。值得一提的是，它过去和现在都是西方思想家自身批评的对象。雅克·朗西埃在其著作《对民主的憎恨》中暗示了这一点："对民主的憎恨当然不是什么新鲜事。"西方大多数批评者对民主理论的批评，基础在于"人民"这一术语。他们批评该词含义模糊，对其意义的定义存在分歧。此外，分歧还集中在确定"人民统治"概念的程序层面。程序层面实际上肯定了"人民统治"这一不切实际的想法。考察民主一词在"人民统治"意义上的语言学含义，我们发现，自希腊人自身时代起，这一含义便脱离了现实。希腊人首先沉迷于这一理念，其中"人民"一词被限定为希腊人中的自由民，同时排除了妇女、奴隶以及非雅典人。十八世纪重新确立民主理念时，一些思想家从理论角度意识到该理论的不切实际之处，因为全体民众对国家的统治与管理达成一致是不可能的。于是他们发展出其程序层面，创立了所谓的代议制民主，即由民选代表进行统治的民主。

This is Democracy, concisely. It is worth mentioning that it was and is still the subject of criticism amongst the Western thinkers themselves. This is what Jacques Ranciere alludes to in his book, Hatred of Democracy, “Hatred of democracy is certainly nothing new.” The basis of criticism towards the democratic theory levelled, by most of the Western critics, arises over the term ‘people.’ It is criticized as a vague term, differing in the definition of its meaning. Beyond that, disagreement moves on to focus on the procedural aspect to determine the concept of rule of the people. The procedural aspect practically affirms the unrealistic idea of the rule of the people. Upon looking at the linguistic meaning of Democracy with regards to the rule of the people, we find this meaning to be devoid of reality, since the days of the Greeks themselves. The Greeks were the first to indulge in this idea, wherein the word ‘people’ was restricted to the free people amongst the Greeks, whilst excluding women, slaves and those who were non-Athenians. When the idea of Democracy was reinstated in the eighteenth century CE, some thinkers realized the unrealistic nature of the theory, from a theoretical standpoint. This is because consensus of all the people over ruling and administration of the state is impossible. So they developed its procedural aspect, creating the so-called representative democracy, which is democracy of elected deputies.

一个关注西方思想运动的人可以发现,几十年来,一批思想家中形成了一股固定的趋势,即采用现实的统治方式。随着理论上的民主制度不切实际的一面日益明显,这一趋势开始拒斥民主的理论概念。这一趋势由一群思想家引领,其中包括维尔弗雷多·帕累托、加埃塔诺·莫斯卡、罗伯特·米歇尔斯、C·赖特·米尔斯等人。他们采纳了精英理论,该理论建立在少数人掌握社会权力的观念之上。 加埃塔诺·莫斯卡在《现代社会学理论基础》(意大利文:Elementi di scienza politica)一书中的文章《统治阶级》(意大利文:La Classe Politica)里概括了这一现实。他写道:“属于统治阶级的人会开始形成一种群体精神。他们会变得越来越排他,并越来越熟练地把获取和保持权力所必需的品质与能力据为己有。最后,一种本质上保守的力量出现了——习惯的力量。许多人甘于处于卑微的地位,而某些特权家庭或阶级的成员则逐渐确信,他们几乎拥有居于高位、发号施令的绝对权利。”(意大利文:coloro che fanno parte della classe politica vanno acquistando lo spirito di corpo e di esclusivismo ed imparano l'arte di monopolizzare a loro vantaggio le qualità e le attitudini necessarie per arrivare al potere e per mantenerlo: infine, col tempo, si forma la forza conservatrice per eccellenza, quella dell'abitudine, per la quale molti si rassegnano a stare in basso ed i membri di certe famiglie o classi privilegiate acquistano la convinzione che per loro è quasi un diritto assoluto lo stare in alto ed il comandare.) 在此背景下,法国政治学家与法学家莫里斯·迪韦尔热(Maurice Duverger)在其著作《政党》(法文原名:Les Partis Politiques)中提出,民主不可能是"人民由人民治理的政府",而只能是"由从人民中崛起的精英所治理的人民政府"。西方思想家自身对民主提出的最重要的批评包括:

One who follows the Western intellectual movement can observe the existence of a crystallized trend for decades amongst the group of thinkers, about adopting the realistic procedure for ruling. It is a trend of rejecting the theoretical concept of Democracy, after the unrealistic nature of theoretical Democracy became clear. This trend is led by a group of thinkers, amongst them are, Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, C. Wright Mills and others. They adopted the elite theory which is based on the idea of acquisition of power by a minority of the people in society. In the book, Foundations of Modem Sociological Theory (Italian: Elementi di scienza politica), in his essay, “The Ruling Class (Italian: La Classe Politica)” Gaetano Mosca summarizes this reality by saying, “those who belong to the ruling class will begin to acquire a group spirit. They will become more and more exclusive and learn better and better the art of monopolizing to their advantage the qualities and capacities that are essential to acquiring power and holding it. Then, at last, the force that is essentially conservative appears—the force of habit. Many people become resigned to a lowly station, while the members of certain privileged families or classes grow convinced that they have almost an absolute right to high station and command. (Italian: coloro che fanno parte della classe politica vanno acquistando Io spirito di corpo e di esclusivismo ed imparano I'arte di monopolizzare a loro vantaggio le qualita e le attitudini necessarie per arrivare al potere e per mantenerlo : infine, col tempo, si forma la forza conservatrice per eccellenza, quella dell'abitudine, per la quale molti si rassegnano a stare in bassoA ed i membri di cede famiglie o classi privilegiate acquistano la convinzione che per loro e quasi un diritto assoluto Io stare in alto ed il comandare.)” In this context, the French political and legal scholar Maurice Duverger proposes in his essay “Political Parties” (French: Les Partis Politiques) that democracy cannot be “government of the people by the people” but only “government of the people by an elite rising from the people.” The most important criticism levelled at Democracy by Western thinkers themselves are:

1. 多数人的压迫，以及少数人权利的丧失。

1. Oppression by the majority, with loss of minority rights.

2. 扩大舆论权力的危险：选举和决策都受制于舆论，而这些舆论往往被某些势力所操控，即那些利益相关者和游说者。

2. The danger of expanding the power of public opinion, since elections and decisions are subject to public opinion that is controlled by certain powers, from amongst the stakeholders and lobbyists.

3. 规定权力与政党垄断于少数资本家集团手中的"寡头统治铁律"。

3. The "iron law of oligarchy" that stipulates the monopoly of power and political parties, in the hands of a few groupings of capitalists.

随着时间的推移，民主会演变为官僚主义。随着时间流逝，民主变得越来越复杂，以至于权力最终只掌握在职业专业人士手中。

4. Over time, democracy turns into bureaucracy. As time goes by, democracy becomes more and more complex so that the power transpires in the hands of career professionals alone.

这些是西方思想家自己对民主提出的一些批评。然而,其中大多数并未提出替代方案。相反,他们将民主视为一项固定不变的原则,以至于人们甚至无法设想其替代方案。英国政治家安东尼·伯奇在其著作《现代民主的概念与理论》中认识到了这一点。一方面,伯奇主张多数人无力统治,他引用达尔的一句许多精辟的评论:关于联邦政府,达尔说,在很大程度上,“数量上的多数无法采取任何协调一致的行动,而是构成这一多数的各个组成部分拥有行动的手段。”然而,另一方面,伯奇仍坚持认为:“我相信代议制民主是迄今为止所设计出的最佳政府制度安排。”因此,我们发现,许多试图完善民主程序、复兴其概念与价值的思想家,尽管受到强烈批评,仍一致认为民主是最好的制度。罗伯特·艾伦·达尔在其著作《民主及其批评者》中为民主背书。他断言,民主通过确立基本的政治权利和自由(例如言论自由)而使自由得到最大化,并允许“人们依据自己所选择的法律而生活”。他声称,民众在民主中的政治参与能够培养“独立、自立和公共精神”等可取品质。罗伯特·达尔重申,民主程序是“保护和增进所有受集体决策影响之人的善与利益的最可靠手段”。

These are some of the criticisms directed towards democracy from Western thinkers themselves. However, most of them do not present an alternative. Instead, they deemed democracy as a fixed principle for which one cannot even conceive of an alternative. The British politician Anthony Birch recognized this in his book, The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy. So on the one hand Birch maintained that the majority is incapable of ruling by saying, One of Dahl’s many accurate comments on the federal government was that, to a large extent, ‘the numerical majority is incapable of undertaking any co­ ordinated action. It is the various components of the numerical majority that have the means for action.’ However, on the other hand Birch still insists “I believe that representative democracy is the best institutional arrangement for government yet devised.” Thus we find many of the thinkers who attempt to develop the procedures of democracy and revive its concepts and values, agreeing that democracy is the best despite strong criticism. In his book, Democracy and Its Critics, Robert Alan Dahl endorses Democracy. He asserts Democracy maximizes freedom by embracing basic political rights and liberties, such as free expression, and allows “persons to live under laws of their own choosing.” He claims that political participation by the public in a democracy fosters the desirable qualities of “independence, self-reliance, and public-spiritedness.” Robert Dahl reaffirms the democratic process “as the most reliable means for protecting and advancing the good and interests of all the persons subject to collective decisions.”.

从上文可以清楚地看出,西方思想家们自己也审视并批评了民主的理念,依据他们的认识指出了它的缺陷。尽管如此,他们的一致共识是:民主是人类智慧在治理方面所创造的最好事物,并且没有可以取代它的其他选择。

It is clear from the above that Western thinkers themselves examined the idea of Democracy and criticized it, pointing out its flaws according to their perceptions. Despite that, their unanimous consensus is that Democracy is the best thing created by the human mind in ruling and that there is no alternative for it.

事实上，深入审视西方所理解的民主的实质，我们会发现，对他们而言，“民主”一词象征着两个层面：一是思想与文明层面，二是政治层面。

In fact, a deep look into the reality of democracy as perceived by the West shows us that the word democracy for them symbolizes two dimensions: an intellectual, civilizational dimension and a political dimension.

第一个维度是价值体系，它构成了西方的价值观及其关于生活的观念，例如自由、平等、多元主义和世俗主义等。它是一个政治框架，由西方采纳并被西方人坚决认可的一组文明概念所组成。弗朗西斯·福山在其著作《历史的终结》中断言:“在历史的终点，已不再有严肃的意识形态对手能与自由民主相抗衡。过去，人们拒绝自由民主，是因为他们相信它劣于君主制、贵族制、神权政治、法西斯主义、共产主义极权，或是他们恰好信奉的任何其他意识形态。但如今，在伊斯兰世界之外，似乎已普遍形成共识，接受自由民主所宣称的，它是最理性的政府形式。”而让-路易·凯尔莫纳在其著作《西方政治制度》（法文：Les regimes politiques occidentaux）中断言:“作为一种合法性原则，西方民主并非新思想。它是其之前的文明的继承者：希腊城邦和罗马共和国。在被帝国、领主制和绝对君主制取代数百年之后，在几乎消失、又在第二次世界大战期间的几十年里为极权政权让路之后，它今天已不再受到质疑。”（法文：En tant que principe de legitimite, la democratie occidentale n’est pas une idee neuve. Elle est heritiere des civilisations qui l’ont precedee: la cite grecque et la Rome republicaine. Et, apres avoir ete supplantee pendant des siecles par des empires, des seigneuries et des monarchies absolues, apres avoir failli disparaitre, apres quelques decennies de fonctionnement, pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, au profit des regimes totalitaires, elle n’est plus contestee aujourd’hui.）因此，民主必须从这一角度来研究，即将其视为一组概念与价值，或关于生活的首要理想。 这属于对西方所采纳的文明根基的研究范畴，民主政治实体正是建立在这些根基之上的。

As for the first dimension, it is the value system that frames the Western values and its concepts about life such as freedom, equality, pluralism and secularism, amongst others. It is the political framework comprising a group of civilizational concepts adopted by the West, endorsed emphatically by the Westerners. In his book, The End of History, Francis Fukuyama asserted, “At the end of history, there are no serious ideological competitors left to liberal democracy. In the past, people rejected liberal democracy because they believed that it was inferior to monarchy, aristocracy, theocracy, fascism, communist totalitarianism, or whatever ideology they happened to believe in. But now, outside the Islamic world, there appears to be a general consensus that accepts liberal democracy's claims to be the most rational form of government.” Whilst, in his book, The Western Political Systems (French: Les regimes politiques occidentaux) Jean-Louis Quermonne asserted that “As a principle of legitimacy, Western democracy is not a new idea. It is the heir to the civilizations that preceded it: the Greek city and Rome republic. After being supplanted for centuries by empires, lordships and monarchies absolute, after having almost disappeared, after a few decades during the Second World War, for the benefit of totalitarian regimes, it is no longer contested today. (French: En tant que principe de legitimite, la democratie occidentale n’est pas une idee neuve. Elie est heritiere des civilisations qui I’ont precedee: la cite grecque et la Rome republicaine. Et, apres avoir ete supplantee pendant des siecles par des empires, des seigneuries et des monarchies absolues, apres avoir failli disparaftre, apres quelques decennies de fonctionnement, pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, au profit des regimes totalitaires, elle n’est plus contestee aujourd’hui.) Thus, Democracy must be studied from this angle, as a group of concepts and values or the primary ideal about life. This falls within the study of the civilizational foundations adopted by the West and upon which Democracy's political entity is established.

关于第二个层面，它涉及对民主的评价：认为民主是最优越、最理想或最佳可能的制度，正如西方人所宣称的那样。持这一观点的人不去考察其文明构成，即其概念、价值观或意识形态，而这些观点本身是会变化、存在差异或相互矛盾的。他们只考察民主的构成，或者说这一理念的抽象含义，而不顾及其他任何问题。因此，他们把民主看作一种政治制度，用以组织任何国家的统治事务，调节任何社会的政治问题。这一问题实际上与所谓的"社会契约"相关，在他们的说法中，社会契约被视为政治事务的源头。这一问题揭示了西方思想在政治和理智层面的缺陷，以及自其确立之初起就存在的谬误。

As for the second dimension, it is related to evaluating democracy as the most superior or optimal or the best possible system, as the Westerners claim. Those who agree with this angle do not look into the civilizational composition i.e. its concepts, values or ideology whose views are subject to change or difference or contradiction. They only look into democracy's composition or the abstract meaning of the idea, without looking into any other matters. Thus, they look into democracy as a political system that organizes the matter of ruling in any state, regulating the political issues of any society. This subject is, in fact, related to the so-called social contract, in their words, which is considered as the origin of political matters. This subject reveals the shortcomings of the Western mind at the political and intellectual level and its errors, right from the moment of its establishment.

因此，人作为人或作为个体，在今世的生活中，本身就是一个政治人：他既参与政治，也受政治影响，因为他要照料自己的事务，或他所负责之人的事务，或一个民族的事务。照料一个民族、一个群体或他所属团体的事务，必然使这位政治人需要考虑治理的问题。

Thus a man by virtue of being a human or an individual, in terms of living a life in this world, is a politician who both engages in politics and is affected by it, because he takes care of his own affairs, or the affairs of those who are under his responsibility, or the affairs of a nation. Taking care of the affairs of a nation or people or a group in which this political man belongs to obliges him to consider the issue of ruling.

处理事务的过程只能通过一个政治实体或国家来实现。无论考察其定义如何，也无论倡导其建立的人是谁，都是如此。国家建立在一套制度之上，该制度界定其形式、机构、结构和组织，以及处理事务所依据的思想、观念和标准，还包括须予施行的宪法性法律，以及属于统治范畴的其他事项。这被称为政治制度或统治制度。

The process of taking care of the affairs comes through a political entity or a state alone. This is so regardless of looking into its definition and the one who calls for its establishment. The state is founded upon a system that defines its forms, apparatus, structures and institutions, as well as the thoughts, concepts and criteria to take care of the affairs, alongside constitutional laws to be implemented and other matters that fall within ruling. This is called the political system or ruling system.

人对统治体系的构想，即在实际中使他得以处理事务的那种构想，实际上被框定在三个问题之内：以什么来统治？谁是统治者？统治者如何统治？

Man’s conception of the ruling system, which practically enables him to take care of the affairs, is actually framed within three questions: With what to be ruled? Who is the ruler? How does the ruler rule?

关于应当以什么来进行统治，自然的情形是：由一群人所接受的某种意识形态来统治。因此，统治者或政府的职责，就是贯彻和运用这群人所采纳的一整套概念、标准和信念。这一问题在国家建立之后，同时摆在统治者和被统治者面前。它不会因每一次选举、公投、议会会议或政策考量而重新提出审议。所以它不会被重新提出，除非处于一种情况，即旧制度崩溃且存在变革的意愿。因此，这唯一的情况就是新建立的情形。据此，西方国家无论其名称、形式和模式如何，都是建立在被视为固定不变、不考虑改变的特定思想和概念之上的。这就如同伊斯兰国家，即哈里发国家，它建立在不同的特定思想和概念之上，而这些思想和概念并非西方的思想和概念。因此，以某种意识形态为基础建立国家、并规定以什么来统治，本身并不是西方统治制度的显著特征，不足以使其区别于其他统治制度。

As for what to be ruled with, the natural case is that there is ruling by an ideology that is accepted by a group of people. Accordingly, the role of the ruler or the government is to implement or apply the group of concepts, criteria and convictions adopted by the group. This matter is proposed to both the ruler and ruled once the state is established. This proposal is not reviewed upon every election or referendum or parliamentary session or policy consideration. So it is not newly proposed except in one condition, which is when the previous system falls and there exists a will to change. So the one condition is the case of a new establishment. Accordingly, the Western state, regardless of its name, form and model, was established upon specific thoughts and concepts that are deemed to be fixed, with no consideration for their change. This is just like the Islamic state, the Khilafah (Caliphate) State that was established upon differing specific thoughts and concepts, that are not the Western thoughts and concepts. Thus, being established upon an ideology, specifying what to be ruled with, is not in itself a distinguishing characteristic of the Western ruling system, making it distinct from other ruling systems.

不能在此说，西方的独特之处在于西方人的本性，即他通过自己对统治概念和价值的确定来表达自身的主权，因此由他自己选择用什么来统治，并由他自己立法。这种说法不能成立，因为这里讨论的主题与统治的来源无关。相反，这里的主题关乎统治思想和概念的存在。正如西方有一套用以统治的意识形态，其他民族也有其他用以统治的意识形态，无论其来源如何。因此，从这一角度看，两者并无区别。区别只有在考察统治的来源时才会显现，即从该意识形态的真实性、有效性和善性方面来看。这一问题在此的研究中并不相关，尽管我们之前已经讨论过其中一部分，并将在即将到来的关于西方文明的专题中作进一步探讨。这里的研究主题是对这一问题的回答：人应当以什么来统治？人类已知的所有政治制度无一例外地回答了这个问题。这意味着，信奉民主制度的西方政治思想，从这一角度看，并不存在区别。

It cannot be said here that the Western distinctiveness lies in the nature of Western man, who expresses his own sovereignty by his own determination of concepts and values of ruling, so he chooses what is to be ruled with and he himself legislates his laws. This cannot be said because the subject here is not related to the source of ruling. Instead, the subject is related to the existence of the thoughts and concepts regarding ruling. So just as the West has an ideology to rule with, others also have other ideologies to rule with, regardless of their sources. So there is no distinction between them from this perspective. Instead, the distinction appears only when studying the source of ruling, in terms of the truthiness, validity and goodness of the ideology. This issue is not relevant here in terms of study, whilst we have looked at some of it before and we discuss further in the subject of Western Civilization to come. The subject of study here is the answer to the question: with what is man to be ruled? All the political systems known by humankind answer this question without exception. This means the Western political thought, believing in the democratic system, is not distinct from this perspective.

也不能说西方民主统治制度以多元主义为特征，保障不同立场与排他性，允许多种文化和意识形态并存。这种说法站不住脚，因为西方的多元主义只是其意识形态范围之内的多元主义。因此，西方既不接受任何来自其意识形态之外、影响社会的观念，也不接受与其意识形态相矛盾的概念。据此，西方过去与共产党派作斗争，如今仍在与所谓的政治伊斯兰作斗争，将其描绘为恐怖主义、激进主义和原教旨主义。由此可见，这是一种形式上的多元主义，而不是绝对意义上的真正多元主义。

It cannot also be said that the Western democratic ruling system is distinguished by pluralism, guaranteeing non-conformity and exclusivity, allowing multiple cultures and ideologies to exist. This cannot be said, because Western pluralism is pluralism within the confines of its ideology alone. So the West neither accepts any idea from outside of its ideology to influence the society, nor does the West accept concepts that are contradictory to its ideology. Accordingly, the West fought with communist parties in the past and is continues to fight the so-called political Islam, depicting it as terrorism, radicalism and fundamentalism. Thus it is a formal pluralism and not actual pluralism in an absolute sense.

如果所谓多元主义指的是在同一意识形态范围之内，观点、认知、方案以及思想和政治理解上的差异，那么从这一角度看，西方思想并无独特之处。这种多元主义在其他体系中同样存在，例如伊斯兰的统治体系。

If what is intended by pluralism is the difference in views, perceptions, projects and intellectual and political understandings within the confines of the same ideology, then there is no distinctiveness in the Western thought from this perspective. Such pluralism also exists in other systems, such as the Islamic ruling system.

然后是考察所谓少数群体的问题,即在两个社会领域——私人领域与公共领域——之内,考察他们的权利与义务。这一划分见于西方政治与社会科学。有人声称,现代民主的独特之处在于:在私人领域允许隐私与多元,而在公共领域则受所有人共同遵守的一般原则约束。如果多元主义所指的正是这一特征,那么这种说法在两个方面都是错误的。 第一个理由是从实践角度而言。今天的西方国家甚至在私人领域也在强加其观念与价值。它监视穆斯林,无论老少,要求他们为每一个念头负责,依照其文化与文明进行盘问,并迫使他们融入其文明。这与所谓的多元主义相去甚远。 至于第二个理由,则是从这一理念的理论角度来看:在公共领域服从一般原则,同时在私人领域依照各自不同的宗教与信仰生活,这种区分在伊斯兰制度中同样存在。因此,民主在这一方面并无任何独特之处。此外,伊斯兰所规定的"只扎"(Dhimma,保护非穆斯林公民)概念与制度,是一种在保障权利方面比西方少数群体概念更为优越、更为公正、更为完善的思想与程序。

Then there is the matter of considering pluralism by looking at so-called minorities, their rights and their duties, within two societal domains, the private and the public, a classification mentioned in Western political and social sciences. It is claimed that modern democracy is distinguished by allowing privacy and diversity in the private domain, whilst in public domain, it is controlled by general principles that everyone adheres to. If this is what is intended by pluralism being a distinguishing feature, then this is also is wrong for two reasons. The first reason is from a practical perspective. The Western state today is imposing its concepts and values even in the private domain. It monitors Muslims both young and old, holding them accountable for every thought, interrogating according to its culture and civilization and forcing them to integrate into its civilization. This is far from what is claimed to be pluralism. As for the second reason, it is from the theoretical perspective of the idea, the difference between submission within the public domain to general principles, whilst living according to differing religions and convictions in the private domain. This distinctiveness is also found in the Islamic system. So there is nothing unique about Democracy in this regard. Moreover, the concept of Dhimma (protecting the non-Muslim citizens) mandated by Islam is a thought and procedure which is superior, fairer and better in securing rights than the Western concept of minorities.

至于谁来统治以及如何统治的问题，西方的政治思想家和社会学家探讨了统治及其制度问题，他们考察了人类的政治历史及其现实，列举了统治的形式和领导的模式。于是，他们依据自己的观点，按照统治中所采用的标准，将人类所知的统治制度划分为various类别。其中大多数源自希腊人。总而言之，一种制度要么承认人民有资格统治，要么不承认。

As for the matter of who rules and how he rules, the political thinkers and sociologists in the West who addressed the issue of ruling and its system, looked into human political history and its reality, enumerating the forms of ruling and the models of leadership. So they divided the ruling systems known by man, according to their view, into various classifications, according to the criteria taken in the ruling. Most of them were inherited from the Greeks. The summary is, the system either accepts people as eligible to rule or not.

至于那些不承认人有统治资格的制度，它们包括：精英治理（meritocracy）——由有才能、努力和成就者统治；寡头政治（oligarchy）——由少数人为了自身利益而统治；贵族政治（aristocracy）——由少数享有特权的统治阶层即贵族统治；独裁政治（autocracy）——由单一个人统治；神权政治（theocracy）——由拥有神圣授权的宗教精英统治。至于基于人民统治权或基于人民主权意识形态的制度，即主张人民有资格决定统治者的制度，则是民主制度。按照西方人的看法，在这一分类之中，民主是唯一被视为最佳和最优的制度。

As for the systems that do not accept people as eligible to rule, they include, amongst others; meritocracy - rule of those of talent, effort, and achievement, oligarchy - ruling by a small number of people for the sake of their benefit, aristocracy - ruling by a small, privileged ruling class, the aristocrats and the autocracy- rule of a single individual, theocracy - the rule of religious elites with divine sanction. As for the system based on the right of ruling for the people or based on the ideology of the sovereignty of the people, asserting the eligibility of the people to determine the ruling, it is the democratic system. According to the Westerner, democracy is the only system within the classification, that is to be considered the best and optimal.

然后是一些西方思想家，他们依据治理方式、夺取权力的方法、统治机构以及权力运作和可协商的模式等法律标准对政治制度进行分类。据此，制度被划分为三大类：极权制、威权制和民主制。在这些西方思想家看来，民主始终被视为一种理想，与可怕的威权模式形成对照。

Then there are those Western thinkers who classify the systems according to legal standards such as, governance, the method of achieving the power, the ruling administration and model of power that is exercised and subject to negotiation. Accordingly, the systems are then classified into three main groups, the totalitarian, the authoritarian regime and the democratic. According to the Western thinkers, democracy is always and forever placed as an ideal, against awful authoritarian models.

在赋予人以主权的权利之后，即让他自行确定其制度与立法，世俗的西方又将治权赋予他，于是给了他通过选举来选择统治者的选择权。由此，西方人把统治的全部组成部分搅在一起，没有区分主权、治权与权力。他们把研究局限在一个他们所认定的单一议题上打转。他们既没有察觉到区分与分离的可能，也没有注意到存在着不同且各自独立的制度。相反，他们把民主当作衡量所有政治制度优劣的标准。正如他们自己承认的那样，这种看法是主观的。因此，它也并非客观、全面的，而是片面、肤浅的，缺乏理论深度，也没有正确理解统治的实际情况。

After conferring the right of sovereignty to man, so as to determine his system and legislation himself, the secular West confers the right of authority upon him, so it gives him a choice to choose the ruler through elections. Thus the Westerners intertwined all the components of rulings, without differentiating between sovereignty, authority and power. They limited the study to revolving around a single agenda point, as they perceive it. They neglected to notice either the possibility of differentiation and separation, or the existence of systems that are different and distinct. Instead they made democracy a criteria of goodness for all political systems. This view is subjective, as they themselves admit. It is also therefore not objective, partial and superficial, lacking intellectual depth and the correct understanding of the reality of ruling.

根据他们的说法,"主权"的含义是人拥有其意志并行使它,因此他选择统治者是谁,以及用什么来统治。人应当自己决定其法律与制度,制定这些法律,并选择执行者。如果"人"的含义是指人类整体、人类这一族群、全体人类,那么按照他们的说法,这种主权实际上属于人类。在西方,制定法律并选择统治者的,正是人类。 然而,如果"人"指的是作为个体的人,也就是他们真正想表达的含义,即每个人都是自己的主人,那么这种主权在西方并不存在。这是因为西方的制度与立法是由人类中的某个群体或少数人提出的,而不是由全体个人共同提出的。民主的西方在实际中的情况是,立法由政府、某个机构或由少数人组成的议会制定,然后作为具有约束力的法律颁布,所有个人都必须服从。

Sovereignty, according to them, is used in the sense that man possesses his will and exercises it, so he chooses who the ruler is and what he rules with. Man is to determine his laws and systems, legislate those laws and choose the one who implements them. If the meaning of Man is to mean Man generally or his kind, the whole of humanity, then such sovereignty does practically belong to Man, according to them. The one who legislates and chooses the ruler in the West is of humankind. However, as for meaning man with his characterization of being an individual, which is their actual intended meaning, such that each man is a master of himself, then such sovereignty is non-existence in the West. This is because Western systems and legislations are put forward by a grouping or few within humankind. They are not put forward by all individuals collectively. The practical reality of the democratic West is that the legislations are set by a government, a body or a council of a few individuals. Then they are enacted as binding laws to which all the individuals submit.

因此,他们所理解的主权概念与其之间的统治现实并不相符,尽管他们坚持这种理解。世上一切统治的现实是:既有统治者,也有被统治者。统治权掌握在一个人或一群人手中。所有人不可能同时既是统治者又是被统治者。因此,按照"所有个人的主权"这一含义来说,并不存在"人民主权"这回事。主权要么属于某个特定的人或某群人,由他们通过制定立法和法律来施行自己的意志,约束被统治者;要么属于造物主、至高的真主,使法律和立法完全源自神圣的启示,别无其他选择。然而,世俗的西方,由于其与基督教会的历史冲突,以及曾经尝试过以"君权神授"观念控制民众的神权统治制度,蒙蔽了西方的洞察力。于是西方拒绝了人对其造物主的服从,却接受了人对人的服从,并将此称为主权。

Thus the concept of sovereignty as they conceive does not match the reality of ruling amongst them, even though they insist upon this understanding. The reality of all the ruling in this world is that there is both the ruler and the ruled. Ruling is in the hand of an individual or a group of people. All the people cannot be both the ruler and the ruled simultaneously. Accordingly, there is no such thing as sovereignty of the people by the meaning of sovereignty of all individuals. Sovereignty can either belong to a specific individual or a group of individuals, who exercise their will by determining legislation and laws for the ruled, or it can belong to the Creator, the Almighty so that the laws and legislations are derived from the Divine Revelation alone, without any other choice. However, the secular West, with its historical conflict with the Christian Church, and its experimentation with theocratic ruling systems that controlled people by the conception of divine right, blinded the insight of the West. So the West refused the servitude of man to his Creator and accepted the servitude of men to other men, calling sovereignty.

一旦人确认了规范其关系的体系、以及该体系的来源与立法依据，即界定人应当以何者为准则而受其统治，他便会自然地转向另一个研究对象：谁来执行这一体系。这便是“谁在其中统治”的问题。由于民众无法集体地执行这种执行权，它便委托给一些个人，代表整体来承担执行工作，并基于他们的选择与同意。这便是“权力或权威属于某一民族或国家”的含义。需要再次说明，这一含义并非民主所独有，也不构成民主的特殊之处。相反，这种权威观念也见于其他体系之中。事实上，它正是伊斯兰统治体系的核心，因为哈里发制度被定义为基于选择与同意的契约。哈里发以服从的效忠誓约（Bay’ah）为基础，这份誓约是授予那位有权被服从、且位列掌权者之中的人。权力所授予的对象，以及给出誓约的人，都必须达成共识。 西方从理论层面将权威归于民众，认为民众通过自由公正的选举来选择统治者，他们如此宣称。然而，实际情况表明，西方民众对统治者的“选择”在名义上是选择，实际上并非如此。因为在现实中，拥有巨额资本财富的人、富有者与有权势者，才真正决定谁来当统治者。只有他们能够决定和引导复杂的选举制度与程序；只有他们能够影响舆论，引导其选出自己想要的人；只有他们能够资助成本最高的竞选活动。这是人人皆知、有目共睹之事。因此，从实际层面看，西方并未把主权交给民众，相反，主权属于少数有影响力的集团，他们奴役着民众。 同样地,西方并未确保权力属于人民。相反,权力掌握在少数有影响力的集团手中。由此可见,西方人是被奴役的,因为他们既不是自己的主人(就个人而言),也不拥有真正的权力。然而,那些有影响力的人能够操纵民众,欺骗他们,使其相信自己才是主人和掌权者!至于统治者如何统治,这个问题涉及两件事:一是他如何获得权力或统治地位,二是他如何管理统治事务。

Once man affirms the system that governs his relationship, the source of the system and legislation, defining what to be ruled with, he will then naturally move to the subject of study as to who implements it. That is the subject of who rules within it. Since the people are not able to collectively perform this implementation, it is delegated to some individuals on behalf of the collective, to undertake implementation, with their choice and consent. This is the meaning of power or authority belonging to a people or a nation. Again, this meaning is not unique to democracy or makes it distinct. Instead, such a conception of authority is also found in other systems. Indeed, it is the core of the Islamic ruling system, as the Khilafah is defined as a contract of consent and choice. This is because the Khilafah is upon the Bay’ah (pledge) of obedience given to the one who has the right to be obeyed, from amongst those charged with authority. There must be consensus both over the one to whom Bay’ah to assume power is given, as well as over those who give the Bay’ah. Although the West confers authority to the people from a theoretical perspective, as people are the ones who choose their ruler through free and fair elections, as they say, the practical reality indicates that the choice of the ruler by the people in the West is a choice, nominally and not in reality. That is because in reality the owners of immense capital wealth, the rich and the powerful, are the ones who really decide who the ruler is. They alone determine and direct complex electoral systems and procedures. They alone are capable of influencing public opinion, directing it to elect whoever they want. They alone are capable of funding the costliest electoral campaigns. It is a matter known and witnessed by everyone. So the West did not give sovereignty to people from a practical perspective. Instead, sovereignty belongs to a few grouping of the influential who enslave the people. Similarly, the West did not ensure authority belongs to the people. Instead, authority is in the hands of few grouping of the influential. So, it is clear that people in the West are enslaved, as they neither are masters for themselves on an individual basis, nor do they possess actual authority. However, the influential were able to manipulate the people, deceiving them by convincing them that they are the masters and people of authority! As for how the ruler rules, this question is related to two matters. The matter of how he arrives at authority or ruling and how he manages the affairs of ruling.

关于权力的取得方式，其形式有很多种，如选举、任命、世袭、篡夺权力等。如今，人们的习俗已趋于认为选举是最好的方式，这也是西方所遵循的方式。尽管伊斯兰统治制度在历史进程中出现过各种误用，选举方式仍然属于符合伊斯兰教的方式之一。哈里发们正是依据当时可行的程序，以这种方式在实践中被推选出来的。因此，民主制并非在选举统治者的方式上独有或与众不同，选举方式与其他统治制度是共通的。民主的独特之处和与众不同之处，在于它对如何管理统治事务的看法，即其对领导权概念的认识。

In relation to how the power is arrived at, it has many styles such as voting, appointment, inheritance, usurpation of power and others. Today, people’s customs have settled to consider that the election is the best style. It is the style followed in the West. Regardless of the misimplementation witnessed by the Islamic ruling system over a period of history, the election style is amongst the styles that accords with Islam. The style had been practically implemented to choose Khulafaa’ (caliphs) according to the possible procedures of that time. Accordingly, democracy is neither unique nor distinct in style of election to choose the ruler. Instead, the style of elections is common with other ruling systems. The uniqueness and distinctiveness of democracy lies in its view of how to manage the affairs of rulings, through its perception about the concept of leadership.

在西方的观点中，领导力被划分为三种模式。第一，民主式领导，鼓励并允许群体的每一成员参与所有决策。第二，威权式领导或独裁式领导，决策由一位专断的个人作出。第三，无政府式领导，允许群体成员自行管理事务并自行作出决定。基于这些划分，他们认为民主式领导，即集体领导，是最好的领导模式。这一观念有两个错误的理由。

Leadership in the Western view is classified into three models. Firstly, democratic leadership that encourages and allows the participation of a group in all the decisions. Secondly, authoritarian leadership or autocratic leadership in which decisions are made by an individual tyrant. Thirdly, anarchic leadership that allows members of the group to manage their affairs and take decisions by themselves. Based on these divisions, they say that democratic leadership, the collective leadership, is the best model of leadership. This concept is wrong for two reasons.

首先，从现实和实践的角度看，这种观点是错误的。所谓的集体领导并不存在。统治的现实是，权力最终掌握在一个人手中，西方人在西方本土也知道并亲眼目睹这一点，无论是共和国总统还是议会民主制的总理。当他掌握统治权时，他个人便施加权威，使所有权力都落入总理或总统之手，而其余的权力人物则沦为助手、雇员或顾问。

It is firstly wrong from the realistic, practical perspective. So-called collective leadership does not exist. The reality of ruling is that it is ultimately in the hands of a single person, which the Westerners know and witness even in the West itself, whether one is the president of the republic or the prime minister of the parliamentary democracy. When he assumes ruling, he imposes authority himself individually, such that all authority comes under the hands of the prime minister or president, whilst the remaining people of authority become assistants, employees or consultants.

例如，在美国，实际权力掌握在总统手中，正如在英国和德国，实际权力掌握在首相手中。即使列宁为旧苏联的共产党人所带来的集体领导，也只是名义上的集体领导，停留在纸面上，别无其他。实际上，领导权总是个人化的。这一事实是自然的，因为统治、总统职位或领导权，是由观念所产生的管理的体现。其观念的来源和事实的认知，与大脑有关，涉及感知、关联、强弱，以及信息是否真实、是否充足。这因人的大脑而异。两个或更多的大脑不可能在所有事务上达成一致，对事物作出同样的判断，从而加以管理。差异正是在这里产生的。因此，一方必须与另一方妥协，在这种情况下，即使在两个人之间，领导权也会变成个人化的。因此，永远不可能存在集体领导，而只可能存在单一的、个人化的领导。

For instance, the ruling is practically in the hands of the president in America, just as it is in the hands of prime ministers in England and Germany. Even the collective leadership brought by Lenin to the communists of the previous Soviet Union was only a nominal collective leadership, on paper and nothing more. In reality, leadership is always individualistic. This matter is natural because ruling or presidency or leadership is an expression of administration resulting from the concept. The origin of its concepts and realization of facts are related to the brain in terms of sensation, linkage, weakness and strength, in terms of information whether it is true or abundant. This differs from one brain to another. It is impossible for two brains or more to agree to proceed in all matters, to judge upon things in order to manage them. Here the difference occurs. So it becomes mandatory for one to compromise with the other, in such a case the leadership becomes individualistic, even amongst two. Thus there can never be a collective leadership. Instead, it is only possible to ever have singular, individual leadership.

至于导致篇幅冗长的第二个原因,在于人们混淆了治理体系中涉及的两件事:意见与决定。伊斯兰对二者作了精确的区分,使伊斯兰在这方面独具特色、与众不同。治理的过程经历两个阶段:意见阶段与决定阶段。在第一阶段,为处理问题而征求意见,因此会出现多种观点,这些观点需要经过商讨与研究。此外还包括关于何时意见具有强制约束力、何时仅具参考性的细节。这属于伊斯兰治理体制中所谓的“舒拉”(协商)范畴。安拉(SWT)说:

As for the second reason for being long, they confused in the two matters related to the organization of ruling, opinion and decision, between which Islam differentiated precisely, making Islam distinct and unique in this regard. Ruling passes through two phases, the phase of opinion and the phase of decision-making. In the first phase, the opinion is sought for treating the problem, so there will be multiple views which will be subject to deliberations and research. This is in addition to details about when the views are mandatorily binding and when they are informative. This falls within the realm of what is known in the Islamic ruling system as Shura (consultation). Allah (swt) says,

“他们的事务是靠协商决定的。”[《古兰经》第42章“协商”章38节] 第二阶段是决策阶段。这是一种个人事务，由一位获得授权的人做出决定，因此决定并非集体作出。安拉（SWT）说：

“who conduct their affairs by mutual consultation.” [TMQ Surah Ash-Shura 42:38]. The second phase is the decision making phase. It is an individual matter in which decisions are made by a single authorized person, so decisions are not made collectively. Allah (swt) says,

"并与他们商议此事。一旦你做出决定，就要信靠真主。"[TMQ 阿里·伊姆兰章 3:156]。因此，伊斯兰的统治既不是专制的，也不是民主的。相反，伊斯兰的统治体制是一种独特的模式，它是现实的，而非名义上的或理想化的。

“And consult them on the matter. When you have decided, then rely upon Allah.” [TMQ Surah Aali Imran 3:156]. Thus the ruling in Islam is neither autocratic nor democratic. Instead, the ruling system of Islam is a unique model, which is realistic and not nominal and idealistic.

总之，民主作为一种统治制度，无论在理论形式还是程序形式上，本身都不具有优越性。尤其是当民主与伊斯兰的统治制度相比较时，更是如此。事实上，民主的神圣性与优先性源于其内部的构成要素，即其所代表的概念与价值，例如自由。我们很快也将对此加以驳斥。

In conclusion, Democracy as a ruling system has no primacy in itself in terms of either theoretical or procedural forms. This is particularly so when Democracy is compared with the Islamic ruling system. In fact, Democracy’s sanctity and preference originates within its people through its components, namely its concepts and values it represents, such as freedom. We will refute this too shortly.