Editor's Note:

Since the publication of the first volume of Xi Jinping: The Governance of China in 2014, the book has garnered widespread recognition globally, becoming a key resource for political figures, scholars, and experts in many countries. It stands as the leader's work with the most published languages, the widest coverage, and the greatest global influence, opening a "window of thought" for understanding China in the new era.

As part of the "Decoding the Book of Xi Jinping: The Governance of China" series, the Global Times (GT) launched "Translators' Voices," comprising interviews with translators of the book from various countries. The translators share their insights on Xi's governance ideas and how these ideas help shape their understanding of China. 

In the first article of the installment, GT reporter Ma Ruiqian talked to David Ferguson (Ferguson), chief English editor at Foreign Languages Press and winner of the Chinese Government Friendship Award, who was involved in translating and publishing the book. 

David Ferguson, chief English editor at Foreign Languages Press

GT: Could you share with us the story behind your involvement in the translation team for Xi Jinping: The Governance of China? How has this experience impacted your understanding of China's governance?

Ferguson: I was invited in 2014 to join the team responsible for translating and publishing volume one of Xi Jinping: The Governance of China. At the outset, we didn't know exactly what the project would become. We only knew it was a project of great significance. Some of our best translators from the Foreign Languages Press (FLP), as well as some very senior figures from other fields, including diplomats and former senior managers in FLP were put together. That's how I first became involved in what has turned into a long-term project.

As a result of my work on the book, I now have a much better understanding of China's governance. When I was editing books, I've actually already read them four or five times. Obviously, going through that process has significantly increased my knowledge of China's political structures and processes.

GT: In volume 4 of the book, it is stated that whole-process people's democracy is the most extensive, genuine and effective socialist democracy. How do you understand these three terms? 

Ferguson: First, the word "extensive" conveys that whole-process people's democracy encompasses a vast range of structures and processes. This includes things like the National People's Congress (NPC), the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and other structures where a wide variety of individuals and groups have representation and the opportunity to participate. 

Second, I would interpret the word "genuine" as meaning that it is a genuine attempt to deliver good outcomes to all the people, which is reflected in Chinese society today.

Third, the term "effective" comes back to what I was just saying. If you take specific examples like targeted poverty alleviation, you can look at that and see that it was very effective. Indeed, it delivered what it set out to deliver - 100 million people were raised from absolute poverty in the space of about 10 years. That is a huge achievement.

GT: Chapter 10 of the book mentions that there is no uniform or single model of democracy, it comes in many forms. The West often categorizes countries as either "authoritarian" or "democratic" when comparing China to Western developed nations. What kind of mind-set does this reflect?

Ferguson: I often say that the person who controls the megaphone controls the message. In terms of the definition of democracy, the West has very powerful soft power. The West has this very strong belief about what democracy should look like. But it tends to be focused on processes rather than outcomes. It's focused on things like votes and elections, rather than what those votes and elections deliver.

The West divides the world into countries that mirror its own interpretation of democracy and countries that don't. However, the use of terms like "authoritarian" is becoming much less effective as a definition because Western countries themselves are becoming more and more authoritarian. There is less and less free speech, and more and more intervention in ordinary people's business. I think the West's desire to impose its definitions on other countries is diminishing in influence as countries like China become more influential. Its impact is waning as Western countries themselves become more and more like the systems they claim to criticize.

GT: Some suggest that the existing Western democratic system has "genetic defects." How do you perceive these flaws? Compared to Western democracy, what are the differences and unique advantages of China's democracy?

Ferguson: When I talk about democracy in China, I talk about three Cs: cooperation, consultation and consensus. Cooperation means different groups and different people working together toward a common goal. Consultation means that those who have the power to make decisions talk to the people who are affected by those decisions and try to ensure that their policies and strategies are the right ones. And consensus is formed when groups of people come together with a common purpose and work together as a unit. I think China's form of democracy does that very well.

I would describe Western democracy also as being built on three Cs, but the focus is on competition, confrontation and conflict. The West is very focused, almost religiously, on the power of oppositional politics. They believe that by having opposing forces in the government, the opposition can keep the government in check. If the people are not satisfied with the government, they have the opportunity to vote in elections and choose a different government. But in practice, what it ends up doing is inviting people into the political sphere who enjoy conflict, because competition leads to confrontation, and confrontation leads to conflict. In reality, Western democracy is very conflict-oriented. What's interesting about that is that most normal people don't enjoy conflict. But there are people who do enjoy conflict - such as playground bullies who like to impose their views on others, control-oriented individuals who want to force others to do what they say, narcissistic people and those who are greedy for power. 

There are two very contrasting models of democracy. One encourages individuals who want to engage in public service, work together with others, consult and build consensus. The other attracts people who tend to be very self-interested and often lack empathy for others. This distinction is reflected in the results of both systems. I've spoken a couple of times about processes and outcomes. What I think is very important when comparing Western democracy with China's system is this: The West is very focused on votes and elections. They say their system is the best because they have votes and elections. But poor people in developing countries need outcomes. They need clothes on their backs, food on the table, and a roof over their heads. They need safe streets, schools for their kids, healthcare, and social welfare. These are outcomes, not processes. A system that delivers outcomes is more effective than one that focuses only on processes.

GT: As the book states, democracy is an instrument for addressing the issues that concern the people. How has whole-process people's democracy offered Chinese wisdom to solving the problems facing mankind?

Ferguson: China's whole-process people's democracy, as it becomes demonstrably successful and clearly delivers results, will increase China's influence on the international stage. Books like Xi Jinping: The Governance of China communicate to the international community how China's system works. No other country will be able to emulate everything in China's system, and China does not seek to impose its system on others. However, there are elements that can be adopted by many countries. For example, the development process and people-centered development are things that can be implemented elsewhere. Specific tactics that China used in its poverty alleviation process can also be adopted and applied.

China's influence will become increasingly important. Although the Western process will fight very hard to stop it, I believe that more and more ordinary people in Western countries - in these supposed successful, prosperous democracies - will start looking to China. You can already see that happening with platforms like Xiaohongshu (RedNote). Many Western people are now logging on and discovering aspects of China that they never knew before. It is actually starting a process of questioning what they've been told - about China, and about the fundamental differences between systems. 

GT: The national two sessions recently came to a conclusion in China. It's generally believed that the two sessions are a window for the rest of the world to understand China's whole-process people's democracy. How do the two sessions reflect China's whole-process people's democracy?

Ferguson: Earlier, I spoke about the three Cs of China's system, which are cooperation, consultation and consensus. I think the two sessions are a really good example of that, because you've got the NPC deputies and CPPCC members coming together to discuss important issues every year. To me, that is a very clear and effective way of showing cooperation among large number of individuals and groups, and all sorts of representation from industry, cultural activities, specific social groups and geographical regions. A huge number of groups are cooperating with each other. People are being asked for their views, invited to express their opinions and invited to participate. This whole process is used to create consensus and agreement about what we should do to move forward and how we should do it. So, I think the two sessions are a very good representation of the three Cs of China's system.