前几天在一个X空间里，听到一位发言者很认真地说：中国是有民主选举的，是中国人自己不去参选，不能怪共产党。这句话看似有理，甚至可以拿出法律条文佐证，但我知道它背后隐藏着一个被制度包装得体的巨大谎言。所以今天我就来和大家一起系统性的揭开这个谎言的面纱。

【文字稿】

各位朋友，大家好。

我今天想谈一个我们很少深入讨论、却经常被误导的话题：中国公民的选举。之所以谈这个，是因为前几天我在一个X空间里，听到一位发言者很认真地说：“中国是有民主选举的，比如司马南就当过人大代表。”这句话看似有理，甚至可以拿出法律条文佐证，但我知道它背后隐藏着一个被制度包装得体的巨大谎言。所以我想在这里揭开这个谎言的面纱：中国所谓的选举，到底是真实的权利，还是空头承诺。

先来看看中国法律中对于选举权利的部分规定。宪法规定：年满十八周岁的公民，都有选举权和被选举权。县级及以下人大代表由选民直接选举产生，县级以上人大代表由下一级人大代表选举产生。选举法规定：十人联名就可以推荐候选人，甚至对候选人不满意还可以另选他人。怎么样，听起来似乎充满民主精神。但是，这只是法律文本上的承诺。真正的中国选举制度，是一场被设计好的幻觉，是法有其名，实无其实。

第一重幻觉：独立候选人参选权，名存实亡。我们看到，法律规定任何人都可以参选人大代表。但实际上，如果不是由中共提名，想参选人大代表困难重重，当选更是几乎不可能。胡温时期是中国政治氛围相对宽松的时代，涌现出了一批独立候选人参选人大代表，然而真正能够当选的少之又少，很多参选人被骚扰、拘留、边控，宣传材料被没收，助选团队被驱散。还有很多这里就不一一列举了。包括像姚立法这样曾经成功当选人大代表的，最终也难逃被监控、骚扰，其传记也被禁。每一个案例都在告诉我们：所谓的选举，只能按照中共要求的剧本来演。

第二重陷阱：禁止组党，剥夺组织能力。选举不只是一个人的事。你需要助选、宣传、资源调度，而这一切，都依赖组织。但在中国，独立组党是被明令禁止的。甚至你想注册个NGO干点公益，只要动员群众，就可能被认定为非法组织，轻则取缔，重则坐牢。没有组织，就没有动员；没有动员，就根本无法参选。单枪匹马，就算让你参选，你又有多大可能当选？中国人的被选举权，是没有组织权的空壳。

第三重机制：层层间接选举，构建制度过滤网。从县级人大开始，往上每一级都不是直接选举，而是层层间接选举。每次提名都需要十人以上下一级代表，投票通过更需要半数以上。按照这种机制，只要中共掌握了超过50%的席位，即使一个党派在基层拿下了49%的席位，上一级的席位依然会被中共100%包圆，更何况你们根本不能组党，即使多数当选都不一定能形成一致行动。从县级、市级、省级到全国人大，至少要经过三次过滤，即使让你去选，全国人大也只可能被中共完全控盘。这个制度的本质是：将民意层层稀释，确保每一层都更加纯净可靠。最终，到了全国人大，我们看到的是一致鼓掌、全票通过、零反对的表演型代表。

所有这一切带来的后果是：人大代表不是人民选出来的，而是中共选出来的。他们不代表人民，而代表任命他们的中共。选民无法影响谁成为代表，也无法罢免谁。代表自然也不会向选民负责、聆听意见或回馈民意。这不是民主的变种，这是民主的替身与冒充。中国并非没有选举制度，它有；但它设计得如此巧妙、如此封闭，以至于这套制度正是用来防止真正民主发生的制度。被选举权不是一纸写在宪法上的权利，它应该是每个公民都能实际行使、公开竞争、平等参与的权利。而在今天的中国，这份权利，仍然被关在制度的笼子里。

最后，我想提一个关键的问题，中国人民的选举权利是被宪法和法律赋予的，这合理吗？相对的，美国宪法正文没有赋予人民任何权利，因为这些权利本该就是与生俱来的，它只是禁止政府剥夺人民的权利。美国宪法的精神内核是：权利与生俱来，而权力必须被关在制度的笼子里。反观中国，人民权利需要宪法和法律赋予，那么用英文来说，这些就不是right，而是privilege，是随时可以被收回的。当国家声称赋予你权利时，它实际上是在告诉你：你从来就没有真正拥有它。

谢谢大家！

A few days ago, I heard a speaker in an X-space say very seriously: China has democratic elections, and it is the Chinese people themselves who do not participate in the elections, and the Communist Party cannot be blamed. This statement seems reasonable, and can even be supported by legal provisions, but I know that behind it is a huge lie that is packaged appropriately by the system. So today I will work with you to systematically unveil this lie.

【Transcript】

Hello, friends.

Today I wanna talk about a topic that we rarely discuss in depth but are often misled about: the election in China. The reason I want to talk about this is that a few days ago I heard a speaker in an X-space say very seriously: "China has democratic elections. For example, Sima Nan has served as a representative of the People's Congress." This sentence seems reasonable, and even legal provisions can be used to support it, but I know that behind it is a huge lie that is packaged decently by the system. So I want to unveil this lie here: Is the election in China a real right or an empty promise?

Let's first look at some of the provisions on the right to vote in Chinese law. The Constitution stipulates that citizens who are 18 years of age or older have the right to vote and be elected. People's Congress representatives at or below the county level are directly elected by voters, and people's congress representatives at or above the county level are elected by people's congress representatives at the next level. The Election Law stipulates that ten people can jointly recommend candidates, and even if they are not satisfied with the candidates, they can choose someone else. How about it, it sounds like it is full of democratic spirit. However, this is only a promise in the legal text. The real Chinese electoral system is a designed illusion, which is a legal system in name only.

The first illusion: the right of independent candidates to run for election is in name only. We see that the law stipulates that anyone can run for deputies. But in fact, if you are not nominated by the CCP, it is difficult to run for deputies, and it is almost impossible to be elected. China's political atmosphere was relatively relaxed in Hu-Wen era. Many independent candidates emerged to run for deputies, but very few were elected. Many candidates were harassed, detained, and controlled at the border. Propaganda materials were confiscated and campaign teams were dispersed. There're many more that I won't list here. Even Yao Lifa, who was once elected as a deputies, eventually could not escape surveillance and harassment, and his biography was banned. Every case tells us that the election can only be performed according to the script required by the CCP.

The second trap: prohibiting the formation of parties and depriving organizational capabilities. Elections are not just a matter for one person. You need campaigning, propaganda, and resource allocation, and all of this depends on the organization. But independent party formation is expressly prohibited. Even if you want to register an NGO to do some public welfare, as long as you mobilize the masses, it may be identified as an illegal organization, which may be banned at the least and jailed at the worst. Without organization, there is no mobilization; without mobilization, you cannot run for election at all. Even if you are allowed to run for election, how likely are you to be elected? The right of the people to be elected is an empty shell without the right to organize.

The third mechanism: indirect elections at all levels, building an institutional filter...

The consequence of all this is that the representatives are not elected by the people, but by the Communist Party of China...

Finally, I would like to raise a key question. The right of the Chinese people to vote is granted by the Constitution and the law. Is this reasonable? In contrast, the text of the US Constitution does not grant people any rights, because these rights should be innate. It only prohibits the government from depriving people of their rights. The spiritual core of the US Constitution is: rights are innate, and power must be locked in the cage of the system. In contrast, in China, people's rights need to be granted by the constitution and laws. In English, these are not rights, but privileges, which can be taken back at any time. When the state claims to give you rights, it is actually telling you: you have never really owned it.

Thank you all!