Home > Opinion, politics > “In defence of how China picks its leaders” by Daniel Bell and Eric Li

“In defence of how China picks its leaders” by Daniel Bell and Eric Li

November 14th, 2012 Leave a comment Go to comments

Following is an Op-Ed jointly written by Daniel Bell and Eric Li which recently appeared in Financial Times.


By Daniel Bell and Eric Li

The coverage in the western media of leadership changes at the Chinese Communist party’s 18th congress has been almost uniformly negative. Critics say corruption pervades the upper echelons of the party, policy issues are not publicly discussed and the Chinese people are completely left out of the process.

There is some truth to such criticisms but they miss the big picture. The Chinese political system has undergone a significant change over the past three decades and it comes close to the best formula for governing a large country: meritocracy at the top, democracy at the bottom, with room for experimentation in between.

There is a good case for popular participation at local levels. People usually know what’s needed in their communities and they have a good sense of the competence and character of the leaders they choose. In fact, most Chinese participate in local-level elections.

In a big country, however, one person, one vote is problematic. From a moral point of view, citizens should vote for the common good because their votes affect not just themselves but other people. Yet voters tend to vote with their pocketbooks. Many can’t even do that well, since they lack economic competence. One group of voters – the rich – has a better understanding of economics and finds it easy to skew the system in their favor.

To remedy the problem the economist Bryan Caplan proposes tests of voter competence, but that’s a non-starter in democracies because nobody wants to give up the vote once they have it. Hence, it really is the end of history, but in the bad sense that no improvements are possible once the system of one person, one vote is in place.

There is a deeper problem with democracy. It confers voting rights only to adults within national borders. But it’s not just voters who are affected by the policies of the government: non-voters such as future generations and people living outside the country are also affected. In Europe and the US, the public repeatedly votes for lower taxes and higher benefits, recklessly mortgaging the future of their countries. And let’s not mention global warming.
So how should leaders be chosen at the central level? Ideally, the process should be meritocratic: the mechanism should be explicitly designed to choose leaders with superior competence and virtue. Over the past three decades or so, the CPC has gradually transformed itself from a revolutionary party to a meritocratic organization.

Today, universities are the main recruitment grounds for new members. Students need to score in the top percentile of national examinations to be admitted to an elite university that grooms future leaders. Then they compete fiercely to be admitted into the party. Only high-performing students who have undergone thorough character checks are admitted.

Those who want to serve in government then usually need to pass government examinations, with thousands of applicants competing for a single spot. Once they are part of the political system, further evaluations are required to move up the chain of command. They must perform well at lower levels of government and pass character tests. Then there are more position-specific exams that test for specialised skills.

The advantages of Chinese-style meritocracy are clear. Cadres are put through a gruelling process of talent selection and only those with an excellent performance record make it to the highest levels. Instead of wasting time and money campaigning for votes, leaders can seek to improve their knowledge and performance. China often sends its leaders to learn from best practices abroad.

Yes, meritocracy can only work in the context of a one-party state. In a multi-party state, there is no assurance that performance at lower levels of government will be rewarded at higher levels, and there is no strong incentive to train cadres so that they have experience at higher levels because the key personnel can change with a government led by a different party. Hence, less talent goes to the bureaucracy, because the real power-holders are supposed to be chosen by the people.

In practice, Chinese-style meritocracy is flawed. Most obviously, there is widespread corruption in the political system. Term and age limits help to “guard the guardians”, but more is needed to curb abuses of power, such as a more open and credible media, more transparency and an effective legal system, higher salaries for officials, and more independent anti-corruption agencies.

When it comes to political systems, western opinion leaders are still stuck in a narrative of dichotomy: democracy versus authoritarianism. But the competition in the 21st century, as the scholar Zhang Weiwei writes, is between good and bad governance. The Chinese regime has developed the right formula for choosing political rulers that is consistent with China’s culture and history and suitable to modern circumstances. It should be improved on the basis of this formula, not western-style democracy.

The writers are a professor of political theory at Tsinghua University and a Shanghai-based venture capitalist

Categories: Opinion, politics Tags: ,
  1. N.M.Cheung
    November 15th, 2012 at 23:55 | #1

    The biases of the western media were a given from get go with the word “Princeling”. I have always hold a grudge against Maoists when they use “Class Background” against someone with background other than proletariat as if Mao and Chou En-lai weren’t from landed gentries. Now”Princeling” is being used by western media against Chinese leaders as if their parents were revolutionaries they are by definition nepotism involved and not qualified. While western leaders are proud of their pedigrees, more if it can be traced to American Revolution. They use their own ignorance of the career of Xi as an example of the opaqueness of Chinese selection of their leader. As I said, “The proof is in the Pudding”, one can compare the leadership of China in the last 30 years and the meteoric rise of Chinese economy against stagnant American economy and its leaders.

  2. November 16th, 2012 at 00:31 | #2

    if the west wants China to be democratic, then the people might just choose Mao communism. this is why the west prevented vietnam from holding elections because they would have voted for communism. in fact, i cant think of any reason why the masses would not vote for Mao style communism. capitalism only benefits the minority.

  3. William
    November 17th, 2012 at 09:55 | #3


    Pet peeve of mine too. Only in the last few years has “princeling” come to denote some sort of homogeneous group or faction. As if! There are serious problems with the emergence of a new bloodline aristocracy (“他是谁的孩子?”) but ideologically consistent faction, not quite.

    You notice how at this point in time (leadership transition) they always try and condense it down to some sort of nice vs nasty two-way struggle? And see how they’ve forgotten Bo Xilai while they’re at it?

  4. William
    November 17th, 2012 at 10:09 | #4


    Looks like someone else has come up with my idea: “It suits foreign spectators who do not have full access to the processes that decide the leadership to turn the event into a factional power struggle between two opposing sides. (It is how we play and understand sports.)”

    — from a slightly more intelligent analytical piece, James Cuffe on rectified.name

  5. N.M.Cheung
    November 18th, 2012 at 08:07 | #5

    Precisely, the New York Times’ story began with Marshall Ye’s chiledren convened a group protesting against corruption and income inequality, but suddenly morphed into a story of the power of princelings to protect their economic interests without any specifics. I would rather think the story of Marshall Ye’s children demonstrated their patriotism and idealism against their own economic interest; more like Warren Buffet wants to pay more taxes than his secretary, but was twisted into a story of the power of the princelings.

  6. Zack
    November 24th, 2012 at 19:40 | #6

    as i was saying before in the open forum, the coverage by the western media is replete with orientalist ethnocentric and downright racist tones and attitudes.
    it even appears that the west is sinicising itself in terms of economic policy yet still maintains the pompous attitude that is characteristic of its civilisation

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.