Hummm.......
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/the-future-of-government-what-we-can-learn-from-asia/
The Future of Government: What We Can Learn from Asia
Western democracy may not be the end of history after all — Asia has another model in mind.
By Akhilesh Pillalamarri
June 19, 2015
641 Shares
23 Comments
In May, The Atlantic ran two interesting pieces on the future of liberal democracy, especially in the context of Asia and the Middle East. In “The Future of Democracy in the Middle East: Islamist and Illiberal,” Shadi Hamid argues correctly that democracy and liberalism do not necessarily go together, as they do in the West. It is just as likely for a democracy to produce an illiberal system as it is to produce a liberal one, especially throughout much of the Middle East (and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and so on). This is, of course, non-ideal, and reveals several flaws in the idea of implementing democracy in non-Western societies. It also raises the question: what is more important in the end — having basic legal rights (liberalism) or simply voting once every few years for a government whose policies one can hardly influence?
The problem with democracy in the long run is that it will always be hijacked by people with an agenda or special interests — contrary to Alexander Hamilton’s theory that factions could cancel each other out — simply because it is impossible for hundreds of millions of people to directly participate in the government. Groups with money, power, or influence easily sway governmental policies by claiming to be doing the “will of the people.” This trend has become especially pronounced over the past few decades in countries as different as the United States and India. In a country with multiple interest groups and multiple cultures like India, it is very hard to get anything done without protests, despite best intentions. What is to be done when a country cannot experience good governance because individuals and groups within it hide behind the plutocratic shield of electoral democracy?
There is an answer to this question from Asia, though it is much maligned in the West. It is a system of governance that avoids both the pitfalls of totalitarianism, North Korea style, and the dysfunctionalism seen in modern American politics. The concept of semi-liberal autocracy is not new nor is it unique to Asia — many 18th and 19th century Enlightenment European states were also organized on such lines. In short, this method of governance and development amounts to rule by an oligarchy that fills its ranks with technocrats or knowledgeable individuals that can dominate the system, whatever its formal constitutional structure: monarchy (Victorian Britain, Meiji Japan), aristocratic alliance (the United Arab Emirates, essentially), republic (the Founding Fathers of the United States), or a single-party state like China. Decisions are made and implemented at the highest level with relatively little outside interference but at the same time, people are free to go about their daily lives without the state constantly breathing down their necks.
At The Atlantic, Daniel A. Bell argued in his piece, “Chinese Democracy Isn’t Inevitable,” that there are in fact better models for governance and that one of them is emerging in China. I believe that it is important to observe and derive political theory from China and other Asian countries because these could be blueprints of the future, in the same way much of modern democracy theory comes from the observations of individuals like Montesquieu and Tocqueville who observed emerging structures in Britain, France, and the United States. Bell points out that there is democracy in the Chinese system at the lowest level — the level where it is the most practical, because “In small communities, people are more knowledgeable about the ability and virtue of the leaders they choose.” Bell continues: “At the local level relative to the national level, policy issues are more straightforward, generating a sense of community is easier, and mistakes are less costly.”
Bell also notes that in China’s autocratic system, experimentation is possible because of the stability of the top level of governance and its “flexible constitutional system.” I would add that on top of this, the social basis of Chinese society (and perhaps most other Asian societies as well) is more conducive to this sort of top-down authoritative experimentation because its traditional worldview and philosophy of human nature and governance has not been fully eaten up by Western progressivism, yet is not so rigid as to be incapable of modernization like the extremism of the Islamic State (IS).
Moreover, and most importantly, Bell points out that “the top of the China model is characterized by political meritocracy — the idea that high-level officials should be selected and promoted on the basis of ability and virtue.” This cannot be anything but a good thing, because “once leaders reach the pinnacle of political power, they can plan for the long term and make decisions that take into account the interests of all relevant stakeholders, including future generations and people living outside the country.” Bell contrasts this with democratic systems:
Leaders who need to worry about the next election are more likely to make decisions influenced by short-term political considerations than their counterparts in China. Democratically elected leaders are more vulnerable to the lobbying of powerful special interests, and the interests of non-voters affected by government policies—future generations, for instance—are likely to be sacrificed if they conflict with the interests of voters and campaign funders. Such leaders spend a lot of their time raising money and giving the same campaign speech again and again. In contrast, meritocratically selected leaders are judged by what they do, not what they say.
In other words, the Chinese system, despite its flaws, promotes good governance. China, unlike many other countries, is a one-party system and does not have to worry about the method of implementing a meritocratic form of governance; it’s unlikely that every country would be able to simply copy China’s actual political structure verbatim. But many aspects of the Chinese system are evident in other countries. The forerunner of this type of governance in Asia can in fact be said to be the Meiji oligarchy that dominated Japan for a few decades after 1868. It can also be argued that modern states like Singapore, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have arrived at this sort of collective top-down meritocracy, to the great benefit of strategic planning and governance in their nations.
True leaders do what is best for their nations and consider the overall effects of their policies on the development and virtue of their people. They do not cling irrationally to ideological notions of governance: after all, a nation’s political system is a means and not an end to its success. As long as basic economic and personal freedoms are guaranteed on the level of daily life, there is no reason for the complicated nexus of money, politics, and media activism that has emerged in the West. Political democracy is not a condition of the modern world — only social democracy is, which has leveled out the previously important classes of society.
A new hybrid system of governance is emerging throughout Asia that can show the way to better forms of governance throughout the world. Both the West and other Asian states — India in particular — can and should take note from this and draw the appropriate conclusions when considering their own political systems.
Comments:
Elvis • 2 days ago
I'm in total agreement. The economic, military, technological, and geopolitical rise of the European powers happened under oligarchies and technocrats of one form or another. In those were there were elections, the vote was restricted. The two greatest empires of old, Roman and Chinese likewise were run by the closest thing to a meritocracy they had, the Roman legions and the Confucian imperial bureaucracy.
Problem is once you have some with the right to vote due to their earned or hereditary status (landowners, military veterans, etc), the rest of the populace sooner or later wants the right to vote. After that comes the spiral leading to voting for ever increasing entitlements and imposing your views on others, eventually leading to gridlock, stagnation, & apathy. The best thing for China would be to reform the party as much as possible and make sure that the recruitment into the CCP and promotion is as meritocratic as possible. That will give China a world class technocracy that can lead the PRC for decades or centuries to come into the future.
9 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
TDog > Elvis • 2 days ago
I agree. The only addendum I would add is that a free market is essential to keeping a political meritocracy in check. If the government owns all the means of production, the impetus to excel is blunted. Furthermore, a dynamic free market will demand more of its government, making it more responsive to not only the economy, but ultimately the people.
I, of course, am glossing over a great deal, but my ultimate opinion is this: democracy is a great system, but it has some potentially fatal flaws. A responsive meritocracy is in theory a great system as well and there's no reason why the two can not be experimented with. For some, democracy may be the answer while for others it may be meritocracy. No one size fits all nor does the presence of options make the others wrong.
7 △ ▽
•
老三 > Elvis • 8 hours ago
If the Chinese one party system were a good system, why there are other parties (8 in total)? The fact that the communist party allows the existence of other parties creates a confidence crisis; the commies are not sure. And there are people trying to form new ones. People doing so are under danger of being persecuted to long prison terms as dozens are already serving times. This phenomenon shows, people in general don't like monopoly of power. Why only one party can rule while others cannot? Whenever you try to monopolize you are bond to cheat. For instance, the Chinese constitution, article 79, PROMISES that everybody has the right to compete in an election for the national president. Such a constitutional promise certainly is a cheat. Why such a world class technocracy cheats? Can such a cheating system last centuries to come? I doubt it.
△ ▽
•
MMCRailgun > Elvis • a day ago
Call me negative, but I have my doubts about their ability to implement a true meritocracy and still allowing the people to be free. Even just getting the merit part will be a challenge that will take them many more years of concentrated effort to maybe achieve. Also, I support republics and democracies and don't believe they have to be nor always are disfunctional.
△ ▽
Elvis > MMCRailgun • 21 hours ago
There is no such thing as a true meritocracy, that's why I said get as close as possible. During the Chinese Empire, the Confucian imperial bureaucracy was in theory based on merit (examinations) and it was the most meritocratic system of its era. Still there was cheating during exams and if you came from a wealthy family you had a vast advantage.
Today in the People's Republic of China, the CCP in theory recruits and promotes on merit (education, performance metrics, & examinations) which is why some scholars and analysts call it a meritocracy, and compared to most governing organizations or institutions out there it is meritocratic. Yet the process of promotion is also influenced by factional politics and corruption, as well as cheating.
Likewise no political system will ever get rid of corruption, the best you can do is lower the scale and reduce how systemic corruption is in the system. It appears that Xi Jinping is trying to do the aforementioned which will benefit both China and the CCP.
△ ▽
Leaves in the wind > Elvis • a day ago
I think a non-partisan nomocratic meritocracy will suit China best. An ideology that rejects ideology as a guiding principle will be essential for China to develop a stronger and more technocratic system.
I would advise that China reduce the barriers of entry to their political system and allow Plebeians freer access to positions of power (Hindering Nepotism, corruption and favouritism of course.). They should heed the advice of grassroot organisations more, which will in turn, help to rein in public dissent.
△ ▽
•
Oro Invictus • a day ago
There's alot of issues I would raise with this article's thesis, not the least of which would be the tired refrain of the "PRC as a meritocracy". Unless the qualifications by which "Merit" should be awarded are the function of popular consensus, it is inherently an imposed concept without demonstrable legitimacy, rendering it conceptually little different than the hard-line theocracies the author abhors. The same general line of thought applies to the direction a nation-state should take: Who defines what is "best" for a country?
By the same token that one could say the PRC has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, another could say it has placed these same people at risk of an even worse fate due to unsustainable social and ecological practices. One could say the PRC has saved millions of lives and made them longer than ever, while another could say it has killed and inflicted morbidity upon just as many through violence and pollution. One could say the PRC appears free of most of the lobbying issues the US has with corporations, while another could argue the PRC itself represents a corporatist power structure. Frankly, both sides are right, but that alone does little to make the PRC seem a particularly enviable model nor provide much in the way of prescriptive guidance.
In my case, I view what is most desirable by what preserves the most lives, current and potential. The CPC clearly uses a different metric, as does the US government, as does the Japanese government, and so on and so forth. Indeed, I suspect many do not share the same notions of what defines a system's merit; were I to attempt to impose my views upon others, I would be labeled as being egotistical and irrational. So why, precisely, is it any different for governments?
Idealism aside, if one excludes popular consensus from the decision making process and relegates it solely to "local issues", then what rationality, what legitimacy does that government actually have when its mandate does not extend from the people? What stops it from allowing its own self-interest to swallow everyone?
In this, I would argue the PRC presents no real answers. Though it does respond to populace concerns, it simultaneously restricts what those concerns will be by information control while punishing those severely who do not conform to the dogma that has been decided upon by a (relatively) select few. It offers no mechanism for citizens to say "No, this is not the path we want to take as a nation-state". The US suffers from this too, of course, but to a much lesser extent; mind you, it must also contend with dissent in government that can prevent forceful actions, which can be good or bad depending on the context and your perspective.
There are other, more specific matters I would take the author to task on (i.e. governments like the PRC are any closer to being free from clinging to ideology than others), but that would render this overlong. Instead, I will simply end of on this note: As someone who has spent a large amount of their life studying the biological sciences, I often take my cues from what I observe in nature. And, ultimately, there is a reason why (on the whole) nature favours biological and social plasticity, even if it results in lessened efficaciousness for a certain niche, rather then inelastic dedication to static roles.
3 △ ▽
•
Winston • a day ago
The Chinese/East Asian model will not be suitable for every country. East Asia has a long tradition of putting trust in a bureaucracy and the people are more willing to hand over the power to the elites. That's because East Asia's ethnicity and culture are more homogeneous due to thousands of years of unification and integration that consisted of brutal selections and assimilation of minority groups. That's how the nature works that survival of the fittest, and the past has largely finished the ugly job of selection for them.
However, for example, the west, especially the US, emphasizes more on individualism and cherishes more on diversity because of both its own history and political reality. Brutal selection and assimilation is off the table now due to the values and morals at this age. Therefore, if the US wants to remain as a harmonious republic, it has to have a democracy where different people representing different groups can get elected as a deputy to protect the group's interest. Otherwise, the society will fall apart.
3 △ ▽
•
Kimbo Y. Laurel > Winston • a day ago
I agree with you.
△ ▽
•
Susumu_Araki • a day ago
I don't think very highly of Daniel A. Bell. PRC is a primitive form of aristocratic oligarchy, not meritocracy. It heavily depends on people's ignorance, so CCP needs information control to keep people fool.
2 △ ▽
•
Fre Okin • 2 days ago
The criteria for democracy should be whether a country is willing to undergo extreme stress test. Thailand seems to have the most detour from democracy. So using Thailand as an example, perhaps idealist democracy is not suitable for a country that seems to be forever unstable. Perhaps the Singapore model is the best one can expect from Asia from most countries. Much of the so called democracies in Asia are just Show Biz democracy. After the governing party win at the poll through fraud or very low voter turnout, they basically write laws to favor themselves. Democracy in such countries is just a charade serving one part of the population at the expense of the other. Only Taiwan and S Korea have the finest democracies close to Western standards. Japan, Philippines, Malaysia, India are all at the bottom of the pile and nobody should ever emulate their style of democracy By Deception.
3 △ ▽
•
Malaysian Expat Senior > Fre Okin • a day ago
Malaysia is trying to change with Pakatan Rayat as the opposition. The challenge is that the money politics in Malaysia is so strong that it will take a while to upset the current BN-led government.
My own belief is that it does not matter which system is used. The key is those in power. Are these people willing to do good for the country? If so, any system will work.
So no need to debate if China's model is better of US model is better.
△ ▽
•
Ivan Lau > Malaysian Expat Senior • a day ago
Hitler believed what he did was good for his country. So did Emperor Hirohito. So does Najib. So does crown prince of Johor.
△ ▽
•
Ivan Lau • a day ago
Singaporean system is indeed suitable. I won't speak for other Asian countries. But if you observe the conditions under which developed East Asian countries came to be, it is due to technocratic and forceful leadership, with a dose of lip service for democracy. South Korea under Park Jung-hee, Taiwan under Chiang Ching Kuo, Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, China under Deng Xiaoping. These leaders are in a league of their own, and lumping them with other authoritarian leaders like Saddam or the Kim family is a lazy substandard way of the West dismissing what they are unable to perceive as credible alternatives that actually worked. Hoping for positive change to happen under popular (or "democratic") demand in this part of the world is unrealistic. Upon development, these countries will then be able to let go of some steam and the leadership can afford to be softer. It really depends on culture and national conditions. One thing you cannot deny, is that it has really worked for us.
2 △ ▽
•
Benjamin Engel • a day ago
That the West or liberal democracy will always be hijacked by lobbyists or money is false. In the U.S. decisions like Citizens United are what is allowing the system to be overtaken by money, not the innate design of liberal democratic governments. Also, the article starts out suggesting these authoritarian systems can safeguard personal liberties but in what way does China safeguard personal liberties? The Great Firewall? Jailing dissenters? Refusing to implement appropriate institutions to allow for the rule of law? Nothing about China's system protects civil liberties or guarantees even the author's so-called "semi-liberalism."
1 △ ▽
•
wingedream • a day ago
It appears that the author is making a case for a marriage of the whip and the toffee !China believes its ideology and political systems are people friendly at least for a vast majority.This socialist construct is the democracy that the western philosophers did not envisage as it is a system of delivery, home-grown in poor, post colonial countries.Enough has been said by Marx,Althusser,Gramsci, Lenin and Mao in this regard and needs a rereading if the author and his types do not see the interconnections and the theories therein.The author obviously is playing the pied piper for a different cause and destination. An argument subtle and vicious like: Viet Vets are ruined, forget what happened to Vietnam
As for the Middle East the First World has cause to find a new raison-d'etre:considering the West has created the new authoritarian Sheikdom out of the ashes of a Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and even Pakistan. Democracy or whatever be the word for fraternity, equality and liberty resides within the masses and the people only if poverty be reduced or overcome.And political strategies that are designed to achieve that would be the panacea. And that uncertain road cannot be seen in the one charted above.
1 △ ▽
•
Rafasa Arandas • a day ago
"Asia"? Is that not just another code-name, most of the time, for "China"? The PRC, whatever its ideologies, cannot speak for Asia, nor has it any right to do so; it certainly cannot speak for me. Besides, it seems somewhat hypocritical for it to debase the West in such a fashion given that opening itself up to Western capitalist reforms was what enabled its astronomic rise in the first place; how much did its vaunted system of meritocracy help it previously during the Cold War? Besides, trying to emulate the Communist Chinese model in the past has certainly not helped India significantly, as history has shown.
I do not believe that being hijacked by the interests of political and economic elites, for example, via lobbying, is as intrinsic or as inevitable as you make out in most modern democracies. And again, I would remind everyone that the PRC is not the only "Chinese" government in existence today, and that the Republic of China based in Taiwan, with its high standard of living and extremely developed economy, and certainly no less native to "Asia" than the former, is a fully functioning and vibrant non-meritocratic democracy. Obviously, Taiwan is still prone to governmental corruption and other political problems, but in actuality far less so than mainland China.
1 △ ▽
•
It is me again! • a day ago
It should be understood that in the West much of the real power has long ago been transferred to large corporations. These run exactly as the author advocates - utilising a concept of semi-liberal autocracy and meritocracy where people get promoted based on their abilities and skills.
The democratic institutions are maintained for the public to vent their sporadic anger, but as the power eventually lies where the best people are and the best people are not standing for elections, there is not much going on in the halls of the parliamentarians, and things that really matter are decided, developed and served by the corporations.
1 △ ▽
•
Tom Flynn • a day ago
What I find fascinating about many of these discussions on democracy in Asia is that no one has asked the people.The leaderships in their countries quickly assert that their countries are not suited to democracy. I believe that is clearly a vested interest that the author of this piece wished to avoid. The CCP is not a meritocracy as many like to assert - it clearly excludes millions of persons because of their religion or non-Communist ideological viewpoint and the corruption is endemic. Despite the very best propagandists attempts, the truth about China is clear to see - many people are dis-satisfied with the government. However, the model advocated by this author and many is for those people just to shut up - maybe one day the government will get around to addressing your concerns or maybe not because it doesn't suit them.
1 △ ▽
MMCRailgun • a day ago
I would disagree with the definition of liberalism just being about "basic human rights." Look at liberals in America, some of them are complete idiots, same as some conservatives. However, in the way the author decides to use the word, I can agree with what he meant. That said, the author didn't really get into the fact that there isn't "social democracy" in China either, nor that rampant corruption has thus far prevented China from truly implementing a meritocracy. He also neglects to mention that just because someone makes it to the top and won't be voted out, doesn't mean they will or can look long term. No matter the system there are plenty who are out to protect their own personal interests and this is at least as easily found in the CCP as in the West. I am not saying that their system doesn't have its own merits, they are pretty good about enacting decisions for one, just that you need to be careful when reading into someone else's way of doing things and decide if what you really want (social democracy) can be achieved under such a system.
1 △ ▽
Calvin 潮男 | 웃분 • a day ago
European liberal elections have created monsters, such as Hitler.
△ ▽
Kimbo Y. Laurel • a day ago
I would agree with most part of this article but all political system are always vulnerable to break down because human beings are prone to make bad decision. Even the greatest leaders can make horrible decision just like Franklin Roosevelt with his decision on the Japanese American during World War 2
△ ▽
•
−
⚑
faccts • a day ago
China just adapted the system of scientific method and social advancements brought about by industrial revolution some 60 years ago. Give it time and let history take its course. All other industrialized countries went through their own sets of ups and downs in the process spamming hundres of years.
Personally I am hoping it will arrive at a different (and maybe better) conclusion.
However another set of changes are coming for societies. Nowadays, it could be said we are approaching a completely tech dependent society that sees evermore of our daily lives mired with or taken over by technology. This adds in another aspect to societies that simply cannot be overlooked, and from my analysis this will result in changes in political systems too....
△ ▽
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/the-future-of-government-what-we-can-learn-from-asia/
The Future of Government: What We Can Learn from Asia
Western democracy may not be the end of history after all — Asia has another model in mind.
By Akhilesh Pillalamarri
June 19, 2015
641 Shares
23 Comments
In May, The Atlantic ran two interesting pieces on the future of liberal democracy, especially in the context of Asia and the Middle East. In “The Future of Democracy in the Middle East: Islamist and Illiberal,” Shadi Hamid argues correctly that democracy and liberalism do not necessarily go together, as they do in the West. It is just as likely for a democracy to produce an illiberal system as it is to produce a liberal one, especially throughout much of the Middle East (and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and so on). This is, of course, non-ideal, and reveals several flaws in the idea of implementing democracy in non-Western societies. It also raises the question: what is more important in the end — having basic legal rights (liberalism) or simply voting once every few years for a government whose policies one can hardly influence?
The problem with democracy in the long run is that it will always be hijacked by people with an agenda or special interests — contrary to Alexander Hamilton’s theory that factions could cancel each other out — simply because it is impossible for hundreds of millions of people to directly participate in the government. Groups with money, power, or influence easily sway governmental policies by claiming to be doing the “will of the people.” This trend has become especially pronounced over the past few decades in countries as different as the United States and India. In a country with multiple interest groups and multiple cultures like India, it is very hard to get anything done without protests, despite best intentions. What is to be done when a country cannot experience good governance because individuals and groups within it hide behind the plutocratic shield of electoral democracy?
There is an answer to this question from Asia, though it is much maligned in the West. It is a system of governance that avoids both the pitfalls of totalitarianism, North Korea style, and the dysfunctionalism seen in modern American politics. The concept of semi-liberal autocracy is not new nor is it unique to Asia — many 18th and 19th century Enlightenment European states were also organized on such lines. In short, this method of governance and development amounts to rule by an oligarchy that fills its ranks with technocrats or knowledgeable individuals that can dominate the system, whatever its formal constitutional structure: monarchy (Victorian Britain, Meiji Japan), aristocratic alliance (the United Arab Emirates, essentially), republic (the Founding Fathers of the United States), or a single-party state like China. Decisions are made and implemented at the highest level with relatively little outside interference but at the same time, people are free to go about their daily lives without the state constantly breathing down their necks.
At The Atlantic, Daniel A. Bell argued in his piece, “Chinese Democracy Isn’t Inevitable,” that there are in fact better models for governance and that one of them is emerging in China. I believe that it is important to observe and derive political theory from China and other Asian countries because these could be blueprints of the future, in the same way much of modern democracy theory comes from the observations of individuals like Montesquieu and Tocqueville who observed emerging structures in Britain, France, and the United States. Bell points out that there is democracy in the Chinese system at the lowest level — the level where it is the most practical, because “In small communities, people are more knowledgeable about the ability and virtue of the leaders they choose.” Bell continues: “At the local level relative to the national level, policy issues are more straightforward, generating a sense of community is easier, and mistakes are less costly.”
Bell also notes that in China’s autocratic system, experimentation is possible because of the stability of the top level of governance and its “flexible constitutional system.” I would add that on top of this, the social basis of Chinese society (and perhaps most other Asian societies as well) is more conducive to this sort of top-down authoritative experimentation because its traditional worldview and philosophy of human nature and governance has not been fully eaten up by Western progressivism, yet is not so rigid as to be incapable of modernization like the extremism of the Islamic State (IS).
Moreover, and most importantly, Bell points out that “the top of the China model is characterized by political meritocracy — the idea that high-level officials should be selected and promoted on the basis of ability and virtue.” This cannot be anything but a good thing, because “once leaders reach the pinnacle of political power, they can plan for the long term and make decisions that take into account the interests of all relevant stakeholders, including future generations and people living outside the country.” Bell contrasts this with democratic systems:
Leaders who need to worry about the next election are more likely to make decisions influenced by short-term political considerations than their counterparts in China. Democratically elected leaders are more vulnerable to the lobbying of powerful special interests, and the interests of non-voters affected by government policies—future generations, for instance—are likely to be sacrificed if they conflict with the interests of voters and campaign funders. Such leaders spend a lot of their time raising money and giving the same campaign speech again and again. In contrast, meritocratically selected leaders are judged by what they do, not what they say.
In other words, the Chinese system, despite its flaws, promotes good governance. China, unlike many other countries, is a one-party system and does not have to worry about the method of implementing a meritocratic form of governance; it’s unlikely that every country would be able to simply copy China’s actual political structure verbatim. But many aspects of the Chinese system are evident in other countries. The forerunner of this type of governance in Asia can in fact be said to be the Meiji oligarchy that dominated Japan for a few decades after 1868. It can also be argued that modern states like Singapore, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have arrived at this sort of collective top-down meritocracy, to the great benefit of strategic planning and governance in their nations.
True leaders do what is best for their nations and consider the overall effects of their policies on the development and virtue of their people. They do not cling irrationally to ideological notions of governance: after all, a nation’s political system is a means and not an end to its success. As long as basic economic and personal freedoms are guaranteed on the level of daily life, there is no reason for the complicated nexus of money, politics, and media activism that has emerged in the West. Political democracy is not a condition of the modern world — only social democracy is, which has leveled out the previously important classes of society.
A new hybrid system of governance is emerging throughout Asia that can show the way to better forms of governance throughout the world. Both the West and other Asian states — India in particular — can and should take note from this and draw the appropriate conclusions when considering their own political systems.
Comments:
Elvis • 2 days ago
I'm in total agreement. The economic, military, technological, and geopolitical rise of the European powers happened under oligarchies and technocrats of one form or another. In those were there were elections, the vote was restricted. The two greatest empires of old, Roman and Chinese likewise were run by the closest thing to a meritocracy they had, the Roman legions and the Confucian imperial bureaucracy.
Problem is once you have some with the right to vote due to their earned or hereditary status (landowners, military veterans, etc), the rest of the populace sooner or later wants the right to vote. After that comes the spiral leading to voting for ever increasing entitlements and imposing your views on others, eventually leading to gridlock, stagnation, & apathy. The best thing for China would be to reform the party as much as possible and make sure that the recruitment into the CCP and promotion is as meritocratic as possible. That will give China a world class technocracy that can lead the PRC for decades or centuries to come into the future.
9 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
TDog > Elvis • 2 days ago
I agree. The only addendum I would add is that a free market is essential to keeping a political meritocracy in check. If the government owns all the means of production, the impetus to excel is blunted. Furthermore, a dynamic free market will demand more of its government, making it more responsive to not only the economy, but ultimately the people.
I, of course, am glossing over a great deal, but my ultimate opinion is this: democracy is a great system, but it has some potentially fatal flaws. A responsive meritocracy is in theory a great system as well and there's no reason why the two can not be experimented with. For some, democracy may be the answer while for others it may be meritocracy. No one size fits all nor does the presence of options make the others wrong.
7 △ ▽
•
老三 > Elvis • 8 hours ago
If the Chinese one party system were a good system, why there are other parties (8 in total)? The fact that the communist party allows the existence of other parties creates a confidence crisis; the commies are not sure. And there are people trying to form new ones. People doing so are under danger of being persecuted to long prison terms as dozens are already serving times. This phenomenon shows, people in general don't like monopoly of power. Why only one party can rule while others cannot? Whenever you try to monopolize you are bond to cheat. For instance, the Chinese constitution, article 79, PROMISES that everybody has the right to compete in an election for the national president. Such a constitutional promise certainly is a cheat. Why such a world class technocracy cheats? Can such a cheating system last centuries to come? I doubt it.
△ ▽
•
MMCRailgun > Elvis • a day ago
Call me negative, but I have my doubts about their ability to implement a true meritocracy and still allowing the people to be free. Even just getting the merit part will be a challenge that will take them many more years of concentrated effort to maybe achieve. Also, I support republics and democracies and don't believe they have to be nor always are disfunctional.
△ ▽
Elvis > MMCRailgun • 21 hours ago
There is no such thing as a true meritocracy, that's why I said get as close as possible. During the Chinese Empire, the Confucian imperial bureaucracy was in theory based on merit (examinations) and it was the most meritocratic system of its era. Still there was cheating during exams and if you came from a wealthy family you had a vast advantage.
Today in the People's Republic of China, the CCP in theory recruits and promotes on merit (education, performance metrics, & examinations) which is why some scholars and analysts call it a meritocracy, and compared to most governing organizations or institutions out there it is meritocratic. Yet the process of promotion is also influenced by factional politics and corruption, as well as cheating.
Likewise no political system will ever get rid of corruption, the best you can do is lower the scale and reduce how systemic corruption is in the system. It appears that Xi Jinping is trying to do the aforementioned which will benefit both China and the CCP.
△ ▽
Leaves in the wind > Elvis • a day ago
I think a non-partisan nomocratic meritocracy will suit China best. An ideology that rejects ideology as a guiding principle will be essential for China to develop a stronger and more technocratic system.
I would advise that China reduce the barriers of entry to their political system and allow Plebeians freer access to positions of power (Hindering Nepotism, corruption and favouritism of course.). They should heed the advice of grassroot organisations more, which will in turn, help to rein in public dissent.
△ ▽
•
Oro Invictus • a day ago
There's alot of issues I would raise with this article's thesis, not the least of which would be the tired refrain of the "PRC as a meritocracy". Unless the qualifications by which "Merit" should be awarded are the function of popular consensus, it is inherently an imposed concept without demonstrable legitimacy, rendering it conceptually little different than the hard-line theocracies the author abhors. The same general line of thought applies to the direction a nation-state should take: Who defines what is "best" for a country?
By the same token that one could say the PRC has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, another could say it has placed these same people at risk of an even worse fate due to unsustainable social and ecological practices. One could say the PRC has saved millions of lives and made them longer than ever, while another could say it has killed and inflicted morbidity upon just as many through violence and pollution. One could say the PRC appears free of most of the lobbying issues the US has with corporations, while another could argue the PRC itself represents a corporatist power structure. Frankly, both sides are right, but that alone does little to make the PRC seem a particularly enviable model nor provide much in the way of prescriptive guidance.
In my case, I view what is most desirable by what preserves the most lives, current and potential. The CPC clearly uses a different metric, as does the US government, as does the Japanese government, and so on and so forth. Indeed, I suspect many do not share the same notions of what defines a system's merit; were I to attempt to impose my views upon others, I would be labeled as being egotistical and irrational. So why, precisely, is it any different for governments?
Idealism aside, if one excludes popular consensus from the decision making process and relegates it solely to "local issues", then what rationality, what legitimacy does that government actually have when its mandate does not extend from the people? What stops it from allowing its own self-interest to swallow everyone?
In this, I would argue the PRC presents no real answers. Though it does respond to populace concerns, it simultaneously restricts what those concerns will be by information control while punishing those severely who do not conform to the dogma that has been decided upon by a (relatively) select few. It offers no mechanism for citizens to say "No, this is not the path we want to take as a nation-state". The US suffers from this too, of course, but to a much lesser extent; mind you, it must also contend with dissent in government that can prevent forceful actions, which can be good or bad depending on the context and your perspective.
There are other, more specific matters I would take the author to task on (i.e. governments like the PRC are any closer to being free from clinging to ideology than others), but that would render this overlong. Instead, I will simply end of on this note: As someone who has spent a large amount of their life studying the biological sciences, I often take my cues from what I observe in nature. And, ultimately, there is a reason why (on the whole) nature favours biological and social plasticity, even if it results in lessened efficaciousness for a certain niche, rather then inelastic dedication to static roles.
3 △ ▽
•
Winston • a day ago
The Chinese/East Asian model will not be suitable for every country. East Asia has a long tradition of putting trust in a bureaucracy and the people are more willing to hand over the power to the elites. That's because East Asia's ethnicity and culture are more homogeneous due to thousands of years of unification and integration that consisted of brutal selections and assimilation of minority groups. That's how the nature works that survival of the fittest, and the past has largely finished the ugly job of selection for them.
However, for example, the west, especially the US, emphasizes more on individualism and cherishes more on diversity because of both its own history and political reality. Brutal selection and assimilation is off the table now due to the values and morals at this age. Therefore, if the US wants to remain as a harmonious republic, it has to have a democracy where different people representing different groups can get elected as a deputy to protect the group's interest. Otherwise, the society will fall apart.
3 △ ▽
•
Kimbo Y. Laurel > Winston • a day ago
I agree with you.
△ ▽
•
Susumu_Araki • a day ago
I don't think very highly of Daniel A. Bell. PRC is a primitive form of aristocratic oligarchy, not meritocracy. It heavily depends on people's ignorance, so CCP needs information control to keep people fool.
2 △ ▽
•
Fre Okin • 2 days ago
The criteria for democracy should be whether a country is willing to undergo extreme stress test. Thailand seems to have the most detour from democracy. So using Thailand as an example, perhaps idealist democracy is not suitable for a country that seems to be forever unstable. Perhaps the Singapore model is the best one can expect from Asia from most countries. Much of the so called democracies in Asia are just Show Biz democracy. After the governing party win at the poll through fraud or very low voter turnout, they basically write laws to favor themselves. Democracy in such countries is just a charade serving one part of the population at the expense of the other. Only Taiwan and S Korea have the finest democracies close to Western standards. Japan, Philippines, Malaysia, India are all at the bottom of the pile and nobody should ever emulate their style of democracy By Deception.
3 △ ▽
•
Malaysian Expat Senior > Fre Okin • a day ago
Malaysia is trying to change with Pakatan Rayat as the opposition. The challenge is that the money politics in Malaysia is so strong that it will take a while to upset the current BN-led government.
My own belief is that it does not matter which system is used. The key is those in power. Are these people willing to do good for the country? If so, any system will work.
So no need to debate if China's model is better of US model is better.
△ ▽
•
Ivan Lau > Malaysian Expat Senior • a day ago
Hitler believed what he did was good for his country. So did Emperor Hirohito. So does Najib. So does crown prince of Johor.
△ ▽
•
Ivan Lau • a day ago
Singaporean system is indeed suitable. I won't speak for other Asian countries. But if you observe the conditions under which developed East Asian countries came to be, it is due to technocratic and forceful leadership, with a dose of lip service for democracy. South Korea under Park Jung-hee, Taiwan under Chiang Ching Kuo, Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, China under Deng Xiaoping. These leaders are in a league of their own, and lumping them with other authoritarian leaders like Saddam or the Kim family is a lazy substandard way of the West dismissing what they are unable to perceive as credible alternatives that actually worked. Hoping for positive change to happen under popular (or "democratic") demand in this part of the world is unrealistic. Upon development, these countries will then be able to let go of some steam and the leadership can afford to be softer. It really depends on culture and national conditions. One thing you cannot deny, is that it has really worked for us.
2 △ ▽
•
Benjamin Engel • a day ago
That the West or liberal democracy will always be hijacked by lobbyists or money is false. In the U.S. decisions like Citizens United are what is allowing the system to be overtaken by money, not the innate design of liberal democratic governments. Also, the article starts out suggesting these authoritarian systems can safeguard personal liberties but in what way does China safeguard personal liberties? The Great Firewall? Jailing dissenters? Refusing to implement appropriate institutions to allow for the rule of law? Nothing about China's system protects civil liberties or guarantees even the author's so-called "semi-liberalism."
1 △ ▽
•
wingedream • a day ago
It appears that the author is making a case for a marriage of the whip and the toffee !China believes its ideology and political systems are people friendly at least for a vast majority.This socialist construct is the democracy that the western philosophers did not envisage as it is a system of delivery, home-grown in poor, post colonial countries.Enough has been said by Marx,Althusser,Gramsci, Lenin and Mao in this regard and needs a rereading if the author and his types do not see the interconnections and the theories therein.The author obviously is playing the pied piper for a different cause and destination. An argument subtle and vicious like: Viet Vets are ruined, forget what happened to Vietnam
As for the Middle East the First World has cause to find a new raison-d'etre:considering the West has created the new authoritarian Sheikdom out of the ashes of a Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and even Pakistan. Democracy or whatever be the word for fraternity, equality and liberty resides within the masses and the people only if poverty be reduced or overcome.And political strategies that are designed to achieve that would be the panacea. And that uncertain road cannot be seen in the one charted above.
1 △ ▽
•
Rafasa Arandas • a day ago
"Asia"? Is that not just another code-name, most of the time, for "China"? The PRC, whatever its ideologies, cannot speak for Asia, nor has it any right to do so; it certainly cannot speak for me. Besides, it seems somewhat hypocritical for it to debase the West in such a fashion given that opening itself up to Western capitalist reforms was what enabled its astronomic rise in the first place; how much did its vaunted system of meritocracy help it previously during the Cold War? Besides, trying to emulate the Communist Chinese model in the past has certainly not helped India significantly, as history has shown.
I do not believe that being hijacked by the interests of political and economic elites, for example, via lobbying, is as intrinsic or as inevitable as you make out in most modern democracies. And again, I would remind everyone that the PRC is not the only "Chinese" government in existence today, and that the Republic of China based in Taiwan, with its high standard of living and extremely developed economy, and certainly no less native to "Asia" than the former, is a fully functioning and vibrant non-meritocratic democracy. Obviously, Taiwan is still prone to governmental corruption and other political problems, but in actuality far less so than mainland China.
1 △ ▽
•
It is me again! • a day ago
It should be understood that in the West much of the real power has long ago been transferred to large corporations. These run exactly as the author advocates - utilising a concept of semi-liberal autocracy and meritocracy where people get promoted based on their abilities and skills.
The democratic institutions are maintained for the public to vent their sporadic anger, but as the power eventually lies where the best people are and the best people are not standing for elections, there is not much going on in the halls of the parliamentarians, and things that really matter are decided, developed and served by the corporations.
1 △ ▽
•
Tom Flynn • a day ago
What I find fascinating about many of these discussions on democracy in Asia is that no one has asked the people.The leaderships in their countries quickly assert that their countries are not suited to democracy. I believe that is clearly a vested interest that the author of this piece wished to avoid. The CCP is not a meritocracy as many like to assert - it clearly excludes millions of persons because of their religion or non-Communist ideological viewpoint and the corruption is endemic. Despite the very best propagandists attempts, the truth about China is clear to see - many people are dis-satisfied with the government. However, the model advocated by this author and many is for those people just to shut up - maybe one day the government will get around to addressing your concerns or maybe not because it doesn't suit them.
1 △ ▽
MMCRailgun • a day ago
I would disagree with the definition of liberalism just being about "basic human rights." Look at liberals in America, some of them are complete idiots, same as some conservatives. However, in the way the author decides to use the word, I can agree with what he meant. That said, the author didn't really get into the fact that there isn't "social democracy" in China either, nor that rampant corruption has thus far prevented China from truly implementing a meritocracy. He also neglects to mention that just because someone makes it to the top and won't be voted out, doesn't mean they will or can look long term. No matter the system there are plenty who are out to protect their own personal interests and this is at least as easily found in the CCP as in the West. I am not saying that their system doesn't have its own merits, they are pretty good about enacting decisions for one, just that you need to be careful when reading into someone else's way of doing things and decide if what you really want (social democracy) can be achieved under such a system.
1 △ ▽
Calvin 潮男 | 웃분 • a day ago
European liberal elections have created monsters, such as Hitler.
△ ▽
Kimbo Y. Laurel • a day ago
I would agree with most part of this article but all political system are always vulnerable to break down because human beings are prone to make bad decision. Even the greatest leaders can make horrible decision just like Franklin Roosevelt with his decision on the Japanese American during World War 2
△ ▽
•
−
⚑
faccts • a day ago
China just adapted the system of scientific method and social advancements brought about by industrial revolution some 60 years ago. Give it time and let history take its course. All other industrialized countries went through their own sets of ups and downs in the process spamming hundres of years.
Personally I am hoping it will arrive at a different (and maybe better) conclusion.
However another set of changes are coming for societies. Nowadays, it could be said we are approaching a completely tech dependent society that sees evermore of our daily lives mired with or taken over by technology. This adds in another aspect to societies that simply cannot be overlooked, and from my analysis this will result in changes in political systems too....
△ ▽