See this imageThe China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy Paperback – September 6, 2016
by Daniel A. Bell (Author, Preface)
4.1 out of 5 stars 21 customer reviews
Westerners tend to divide the political world into "good" democracies and “bad” authoritarian regimes. But the Chinese political model does not fit neatly in either category. Over the past three decades, China has evolved a political system that can best be described as “political meritocracy.” The China Model seeks to understand the ideals and the reality of this unique political system. How do the ideals of political meritocracy set the standard for evaluating political progress (and regress) in China? How can China avoid the disadvantages of political meritocracy? And how can political meritocracy best be combined with democracy? Daniel Bell answers these questions and more.
Opening with a critique of “one person, one vote” as a way of choosing top leaders, Bell argues that Chinese-style political meritocracy can help to remedy the key flaws of electoral democracy. He discusses the advantages and pitfalls of political meritocracy, distinguishes between different ways of combining meritocracy and democracy, and argues that China has evolved a model of democratic meritocracy that is morally desirable and politically stable. Bell summarizes and evaluates the “China model”―meritocracy at the top, experimentation in the middle, and democracy at the bottom―and its implications for the rest of the world.
A timely and original book that will stir up interest and debate, The China Model looks at a political system that not only has had a long history in China, but could prove to be the most important political development of the twenty-first century.
Editorial Reviews
Review
"A Financial Times Summer Books Selection"
"Selected as one of Financial Times (FT.com) Best Books of 2015"
"A Guardian Best Holiday Reads of 2015 selection"
"[I]t is part of the job of academics to ask fundamental questions that challenge conventional thinking. Bell performs this role admirably in lucid, jargon-free prose that leads the reader back to some of the most fundamental questions in political philosophy - refracted through the experience of contemporary China . . . I found the questions that Bell raised consistently stimulating."---Gideon Rachman, Financial Times
"Bell . . . has written a fascinating study. Open-minded readers will find it equips them with a more intelligent understanding of Chinese politics and, no less valuable, forces them to examine their devotion to democracy. . . . [The China Model] isn't just for those who want to better understand China. More than anything I've read for a while, it also forced me to think about what's good and bad about Western systems of government. From start to finish the book is a pleasure and an education."---Clive Crook, Bloomberg View,
"Bell makes a solid and worthy case for why the outside world might want to think about the Chinese experiment in governance a bit more deeply. . . . This is a very clearly written book."---Kerry Brown, Asian Review of Books
"The China Model . . . is as important for us as it is for China. If the book brings us some humility about the ways in which an undemocratic model like China's can be deeply rooted in history and culture, it will have done good work. But it will do something better if it can remind us that our own history isn't over."---Rob Goodman, POLITICO
"In careful, clear and measured prose, [Bell] works hard to overcome prejudice, defuse emotions and discuss the pros and cons in the cool language of political philosophy. This, perhaps, is the book's greatest contribution."---James Miller, Literary Review of Canada
"Serious re-evaluations of democracy are inhibited by two factors: fears about the alternatives turning sour and a century of educational indoctrination that makes imagining the alternatives a frightful exercise. Bell's book should be read as an antidote (or if you prefer, an elixir) to overcome these doubts."---Siddharth Singh, Mint
"This book is a welcome addition to the expanding literature on the emerging ‘China model'. . . . Bell's argument, based on his long-term observation of China's political development, provides a nuanced, thought-provoking view of the meritocratic aspects of the Chinese system that have been obscured by the broad label ‘authoritarianism.' It offers an original explanation for the resilience of the Chinese regime and essentially challenges the widely held notion that liberal democracy is the universally desirable political outcome for modern societies." (Choice)
Read less
From the Back Cover
"For many Western readers, Daniel Bell's book will be hard to digest because it calls into question 'fundamental truths.' For Chinese readers, Bell's book will assure them that at least some Westerners understand them. Over many centuries, right down to the present, the institution that Chinese people have held in highest regard is their examination system, because it is meritocratic and objective. This regard for individual achievement has always been coupled to a moral obligation to serve one's community. The China Model explains how this duality continues to operate at the heart of modern China."--George Yeo, former foreign affairs minister of Singapore
"Rarely is there a book so powerful in its analysis, timely in its topic, and relevant in its thinking. Combining his intellectual training in the West and teaching and research experience in China, Daniel Bell explains the development of China's hybrid political regime--an integration of Chinese meritocracy with components of Western democracy. This illuminating book should be read by those who are interested in China and by those who care about the future of Western democracies."--Zheng Yongnian, director of the East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore
"Whether China has found a genuinely new approach to governance, and how well that model works, are crucial questions. Daniel Bell's assessment will be surprisingly positive for many readers, and is more upbeat than my own--but it is carefully argued and must be considered by any serious student of today's China."--James Fallows, author of China Airborne
"In Western countries it would normally be anathema even to question the one-person–one-vote rule. But Daniel Bell does just that. In a Confucian spirit, he argues vigorously for meritocratic governance, and believes that popular democracies cannot solve our most vexing problems. There is much to learn from this deeply provocative book."--Mathias Risse, Harvard University
"This is a highly provocative book from a Western scholar who, in his own words, derives his intellectual inspiration from Confucianism. I am, without apology, from a radically different political tradition. But there is real merit in understanding how the modern Chinese Communist Party theorizes about its own tradition of ‘political meritocracy' within what it describes as the ‘China model.'"--Kevin Rudd, former prime minister of Australia
"The China Model is a timely, highly original, and hugely important book. Based on excellent knowledge of current political theories and a deep understanding of manifold peculiarities regarding China's constantly evolving political system, this book will be widely read by political science students, sinologists, and all those who are interested in the rise of China."--Yuri Pines, author of The Everlasting Empire
Read moreSee all Editorial Reviews
Product details
Paperback: 336 pages
Publisher: Princeton University Press; Reprint edition (September 6, 2016)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0691173044
ISBN-13: 978-0691173047
Product Dimensions: 5.7 x 1 x 8.8 inches
Shipping Weight: 13.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars 21 customer reviews
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #126,549 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#171 in General Elections & Political Process
#200 in Communism & Socialism (Books)
#211 in Asian Politics
Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
21 customer reviews
4.1 out of 5 stars
4.1 out of 5 stars
5 star 57%
4 star 24%
3 star 9%
2 star 5%
1 star 5%
Review this product
Share your thoughts with other customers
Write a customer review
Ad feedback
Customer images
See all customer images
Read reviews that mention
daniel bell political meritocracy political system china modeltsinghua university tyranny of the majority political theory professor bellform of government liberal democracy university china chinese politicalchina dao of development china as a political economic internetamerica voters century growth
Showing 1-8 of 21 reviews
Top Reviews
Hua Qiang
5.0 out of 5 starsA rare book in a rare eraJuly 16, 2015
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
In contrast to many similar books with shocking titles and propositions, Daniel A Bell has succeed in injecting a rare sense of intellectual rigor into an often neglected, albeit possibly one of the most consequential topics of our time. You may disagree with his critical review of democracy, his optimistic case of a refined meritocracy cemented by democratic mandate via a referendum, you may even question whether the "meritocracy" he professed can even be characterized as a political system (rather than a political practice) in the first place, but you must truly admire his efforts in assembling an extensive amount of data and sources to support his arguments ( ranging from cognitive science to classical Confucian texts) as well as his well-balanced approach in postulating his views.
As a Chinese, I must confess that it is rather disappointing to see such a rare book dedicated to a sobering and scholarly assessment of our political system has to come from a foreigner in a different language. Across our political spectrum, most public figures have indulged in ideological mud-slinging rather than focusing on what is really unfolding in our society. Unlike Daniel A Bell, China's public intellectuals are increasingly resorting to polemics that have negligible values. The result is a vast amount of literatures dedicated to either painting a rosy picture of the West and suggest complete adoption or proclaiming the superiority of the Chinese political system over liberal democracy. They have shown little interest in making intellectual innovations that can truly contribute to a constructive debate on our future. I believe this book can set a good precedent for similar works to come.
For non-Chinese and particularly western readers, I highly recommend this book to you as a balanced and intellectually stimulating account on China's political system. Daniel A Bell draws political wisdoms from traditional Chinese Culture, introducing many classical Chinese thoughts on statecraft and organizational management and systematically analysed them in the context of modern China. As a Chinese who welcomes alternative views and criticisms on China's political system, I believe Daniel A Bell has shown that the most relevant and realistic critiques and recommendations on China's development have to come with a deep understanding of the Chinese civilization itself. In an era where narratives professed by the West in assessing China are becoming increasingly detached from reality, books like this is indeed timely in promoting a more accurate and nuanced understanding of China.
48 people found this helpful
HelpfulComment Report abuse
Amazon Customer
3.0 out of 5 starsExciting Thesis, Disappointing and Uneven ArgumentsOctober 13, 2016
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
A book by a Confucian, read by a Taoist:
As interesting as the thesis is- that democracy is a poor way to select leaders, that political meritocracy may be a better way and it should thus be taken seriously and improved- the arguments are incredibly poor, often- but not always- with weak conclusions. Let me be clear here: I am not dismissing his ideas out of hand because of bias, which is easy to do. Treating democracy as a sacred cow, the author works to put it into question in a way that you might find alarming, even if you find yourself critical of democracy. This is because there is a difference between criticizing democracy and criticizing democracy in order to implicitly favor the Chinese system. But the real reason for the provocation is not substance but tone. The author attempts to claim his arguments are value-neutral- that he is not criticizing democracy or voters but just trying to open the reader's mind to alternatives- but his derision for voters and voting, for political leaders more effective at stump speeches than policy implementation is loud and clear. That being said, I empathize with his arguments about how messy and poor the results of democracy are and I worked to read his text without bias and with open mind. I just wish he had presented a more cogent alternative.
I could go subsection by subsection with my criticism, but that would take too long. Here are just a few to help you determine whether or not you want to read this book:
First, there is stunningly little in here about the real nuts and bolts of China's political system. The author is more interested in Chinese history and spends an inordinate amount of time on trying to update archaic traditions from distant dynasties. Further, anyone with their feet on the ground- someone with experience as an officeholder, or in policy research or implementation- could tell you just how impractical and idealistic some of his ideas are. And when enumerating problems like corruption, accountability, and ways to measure a politician's progress, he is unusually silent on the hard details: if boards of experts are to determine how well an official performs, who is on the board, how do they get chosen, how do they evaluate the issues, and how do you ensure no conflicts of interest? What happens if an officeholder is promoted due to economic growth, but then, as a result of his policies, a deep regional recession occurs after his promotion? How is this factored into his evaluation? These are the sort of practical suggestions that the author steers clear of. In this way he is like a philosopher masquerading as a political scientist.
Next: one of the most common mistakes a human mind makes is to extrapolate too much meaning from a small sample size. In the book, Bell seems to have become enamored with political meritocracy in a way that is only possible with a small sample size. How small you ask? About 50 years in two countries, China and Singapore. Don't get me wrong: the progress of these two countries in the last half century is stunning and worthy of emulation the world over. But it is hardly a smart argument to self-select the two countries where these sorts of political systems have worked and to subsequently ignore the rest. What's more, it's not entirely clear that either of the countries, if we extend our gaze out another 50 years, will prove to be a successful example of political meritocracy: Singapore, now that it is a relatively wealthy nation is rejecting wholesale it's lack of full political rights. China, now that it has a more balanced set of objective to meet- as opposed to just eradicating poverty- is not succeeding nearly as well as when it had only a single minded purpose. Also, on the issue of climate change- one of the key metrics the author uses to judge the failure of American democracy and the superiority of the Chinese system- it is not at all clear that the Chinese will outperform the West and Bell gives no quantitative measure to suggest as much. (This represents another huge criticism: there is little quantification for his arguments anywhere. Granted it is hard to measure things like corruption, accountability, progress, etc. but he doesn't even try.)
But in the end, the irritatingly biased, classist, and naive assumption that the idea of meritocracy is simply a benevolent exercise, a gift from the intellectual class to the lowly peasant, is too much to bear. Any argument over how to select leaders is ultimately an argument of power, and it is inevitably an argument by those who want power, to have more power. Call it the Daniel Bell hypothesis: anyone who argues for changes in how power is dispensed will always argue to empower people like themselves. And lo and behold, who does Bell advocate for? People like Daniel Bell, scholars are Confucian classics and Chinese history. But Bell is unwilling to acknowledge this. The author asked me to face my biases; is he willing to do the same?
Let me put it simply: Confucius- whom the author loves- is an uptight anal-retentive obsessed with controlling people. Of course he and Bell dislike democracy and want a rigid hierarchy instead. But I'm more of a Taoist: I let people be, accept what is, and try to be like a ball in the mountain stream, flowing with the current. I'm eager to hear a better sourced, rigorous, quantitative argument as to a) why one system is superior, and b) how meritocracy can be improved. But this book is not it. I wouldn't recommend it for the price.
10 people found this helpful
HelpfulComment Report abuse
bill nelligan
5.0 out of 5 starsand this book was great on both points- successfully challenged my views on meritocracy ...September 19, 2017
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase
I'm an avid fan of political theory and also have a keen interest in China's development, and this book was great on both points- successfully challenged my views on meritocracy and made me reconsider how the West should view China's reluctance to adopt democratic institutions and political structures. Highly recommend!
3 people found this helpful
HelpfulComment Report abuse
bruno Mithout
4.0 out of 5 starsThis book is enlightening as it gives an insight into ...April 9, 2018
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase
This book is enlightening as it gives an insight into the current Chinese political system which synthesizes traditional Confucian meritocracy with the luminous ideals of scientific socialism. The author is still biased towards bourgeois democracy though.
HelpfulComment Report abuse
-------------
The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy
by
3.57 · Rating details · 86 ratings · 14 reviews
Westerners tend to divide the political world into "good" democracies and "bad" authoritarian regimes. But the Chinese political model does not fit neatly in either category. Over the past three decades, China has evolved a political system that can best be described as "political meritocracy." "The China Model" seeks to understand the ideals and the reality of this unique...more
Hardcover, 336 pages
Published June 2nd 2015 by Princeton University Press (first published June 1st 2015)
Recommend This Book None of your friends have reviewed this book yet.
Ask the Goodreads community a question about The China Model
Recent Questions
This question contains spoilers… (view spoiler)
Showing 1-30
The China Model asks an ambitious and challenging question - is there a better and more effective form of government than liberal democracy? The premise, I am sure, will be deeply offensive to many, and it will be harder to find a more coherent analysis of his argument if that is the case. A political intellectual should not fear asking difficult questions.
That said, however, this book has serious and abiding flaws in the premise of the argument. Bell makes his comparisons between Western 'liberal democracy' and Chinese 'meritocracy'. The idea of the 'meritocracy' is not new in Western political thought, and reaches back to John Stuart Mill and Plato. In Bell's case, however, he naturally refers to Confucius and the derivatives of Confucianism.
The first section of the book is a critique of democracy. At times, Bell can make some sound points - voters could elect short-sighted demagogues who ignore long-term issues, and that the majority could outvote and bludgeon the political minority. But at times, Bell makes stunningly superficial remarks on the organization of modern democratic states. He cites Max Weber's 'Politics as a Vocation', yet seems to ignore any of Weber's work on the bureaucracy, or on a democratic civil service at all. Never mind that direct democracy for all decisions is not the case. Not every law is passed by a referendum, nor is every official or civil servant or diplomat elected. (The United States is an outlier in its elections of county clerks and local judges).
By contrast, Bell holds up contemporary China as an example of meritocracy. An elaborate system of examinations, internal promotions, and a vanguard party-state ensure, in his view, promotion of the most talented individuals to positions of higher responsibility. But the idea of testing and educational standards has its own roots in Imperial China, where it can be convincingly argued that the hierarchical educational system was treated not a means of establishing effectiveness, but as a means of political control over intellectuals.
Furthermore, Bell's idealized model of 'meritocracy' obscures genuine issues in the current Chinese political system. This political elite can still become self-serving. He later admits that corruption and income inequality remain major issues.
In another case, Bell asks the question if democracy is necessary to economic growth? Bell cites the examples of China and Singapore, and says there can be no comparison to Chinese growth in terms of scale. India is close enough case because of the population, but it has not achieved the spectacular growth rates that China has. But there are other success stories in the region, such as Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan. Not to mention the less spectacular, but still promising cases of the Philippines and Indonesia. And even then, the Chinese economic reform began in 1976, which is a far step from when he considers the beginning of the modern 'meritocracy' in the 1990s.
Bell also focuses on a vague and unquantifiable metric of 'effectiveness' in terms of economic growth and political stability. In doing so, Bell underemphasizes the dynamics of power (I found no references to it in the index). There is barely any discussion of the separation of power in the united states, and a superficial discussion of the concentration of power in China under Mao. Even in a more modern case, contemporary leadership cannot be considered to have developed from an orderly discussion, but a bitter power struggle.
Unlike the average defender of authoritarian states, Bell has enough intellectual honesty to realize when he is wrong. He acknowledges the state's censorship and repression of dissident groups, but he halfheartedly asserts that the state is a step above North Korea - a low bar. All this leads me to ask why this book was ever written. Is it an attempt to model the chinese state for outsiders? Or perhaps a call for further reform (should the book be translated into Chinese and not bowdlerized?)
The book reminds me of the journalists in the 1930s who viewed the Soviet Union as a 'new civilization'. It is a listing of what Bell would prefer to be true instead of the reality of institutional corruption. It cherry picks facts to fit a theoretical model instead of attempt to connect all available information.
Yet to Bell's credit, he has recently published an article in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month (Oct. 2, 2015). He has made some sharp remarks on if the economic crisis continues, the Communist Party will lose his political legitimacy, and that the integration of democratic methods and institutions could be useful to maintain stability. He even makes the ingenious suggestion of holding a one-time referendum to ensure the legitimacy of rule - assuming they do not chuck them out like Pinochet in 1980.
Yet for all the frequent and staggering mistakes, I enjoyed Bell's investigation on the questions of democracy and government, and how many policy issues the United States and China hold in common. (less)
That said, however, this book has serious and abiding flaws in the premise of the argument. Bell makes his comparisons between Western 'liberal democracy' and Chinese 'meritocracy'. The idea of the 'meritocracy' is not new in Western political thought, and reaches back to John Stuart Mill and Plato. In Bell's case, however, he naturally refers to Confucius and the derivatives of Confucianism.
The first section of the book is a critique of democracy. At times, Bell can make some sound points - voters could elect short-sighted demagogues who ignore long-term issues, and that the majority could outvote and bludgeon the political minority. But at times, Bell makes stunningly superficial remarks on the organization of modern democratic states. He cites Max Weber's 'Politics as a Vocation', yet seems to ignore any of Weber's work on the bureaucracy, or on a democratic civil service at all. Never mind that direct democracy for all decisions is not the case. Not every law is passed by a referendum, nor is every official or civil servant or diplomat elected. (The United States is an outlier in its elections of county clerks and local judges).
By contrast, Bell holds up contemporary China as an example of meritocracy. An elaborate system of examinations, internal promotions, and a vanguard party-state ensure, in his view, promotion of the most talented individuals to positions of higher responsibility. But the idea of testing and educational standards has its own roots in Imperial China, where it can be convincingly argued that the hierarchical educational system was treated not a means of establishing effectiveness, but as a means of political control over intellectuals.
Furthermore, Bell's idealized model of 'meritocracy' obscures genuine issues in the current Chinese political system. This political elite can still become self-serving. He later admits that corruption and income inequality remain major issues.
In another case, Bell asks the question if democracy is necessary to economic growth? Bell cites the examples of China and Singapore, and says there can be no comparison to Chinese growth in terms of scale. India is close enough case because of the population, but it has not achieved the spectacular growth rates that China has. But there are other success stories in the region, such as Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan. Not to mention the less spectacular, but still promising cases of the Philippines and Indonesia. And even then, the Chinese economic reform began in 1976, which is a far step from when he considers the beginning of the modern 'meritocracy' in the 1990s.
Bell also focuses on a vague and unquantifiable metric of 'effectiveness' in terms of economic growth and political stability. In doing so, Bell underemphasizes the dynamics of power (I found no references to it in the index). There is barely any discussion of the separation of power in the united states, and a superficial discussion of the concentration of power in China under Mao. Even in a more modern case, contemporary leadership cannot be considered to have developed from an orderly discussion, but a bitter power struggle.
Unlike the average defender of authoritarian states, Bell has enough intellectual honesty to realize when he is wrong. He acknowledges the state's censorship and repression of dissident groups, but he halfheartedly asserts that the state is a step above North Korea - a low bar. All this leads me to ask why this book was ever written. Is it an attempt to model the chinese state for outsiders? Or perhaps a call for further reform (should the book be translated into Chinese and not bowdlerized?)
The book reminds me of the journalists in the 1930s who viewed the Soviet Union as a 'new civilization'. It is a listing of what Bell would prefer to be true instead of the reality of institutional corruption. It cherry picks facts to fit a theoretical model instead of attempt to connect all available information.
Yet to Bell's credit, he has recently published an article in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month (Oct. 2, 2015). He has made some sharp remarks on if the economic crisis continues, the Communist Party will lose his political legitimacy, and that the integration of democratic methods and institutions could be useful to maintain stability. He even makes the ingenious suggestion of holding a one-time referendum to ensure the legitimacy of rule - assuming they do not chuck them out like Pinochet in 1980.
Yet for all the frequent and staggering mistakes, I enjoyed Bell's investigation on the questions of democracy and government, and how many policy issues the United States and China hold in common. (less)
A thought provoking case for elite meritocracy rather than one-man-one-vote democracy as a way to select top national leaders -- Bell argues that this is an especially appropriate model for a "large, diverse, modernizing country" like China.
Part analysis of contemporary Chinese institutions and part normative political theory (drawing on Chinese scholars to critique classic western theorists from Mill and Hayek to Rawls), the book also makes the case for the problems with democracy. In this sense, it has been eeriest vindicated by the turn of political events in 2016z (less)
Part analysis of contemporary Chinese institutions and part normative political theory (drawing on Chinese scholars to critique classic western theorists from Mill and Hayek to Rawls), the book also makes the case for the problems with democracy. In this sense, it has been eeriest vindicated by the turn of political events in 2016z (less)
Jun 16, 2017Volodymyr Stoyko rated it liked it · review of another edition
Дуже короткий відгук про гарно написану книгу із поганими аргументами.
Деніел Белл у книзі "Китайська модель. Політична меритократія та межі демократії" має на меті оправдати наміри світових спільнот знайти альтернативи всюдисущій демократії. Особливих проблем із пошуком приводів для цієї затії немає. Зразкова американська демократія дає періодичні збої, через що формула "одна людина - один голос" щоразу викликає занепокоєння щодо своєї адекватності. Белл, завдяки практиці викладання в університе ...more
Деніел Белл у книзі "Китайська модель. Політична меритократія та межі демократії" має на меті оправдати наміри світових спільнот знайти альтернативи всюдисущій демократії. Особливих проблем із пошуком приводів для цієї затії немає. Зразкова американська демократія дає періодичні збої, через що формула "одна людина - один голос" щоразу викликає занепокоєння щодо своєї адекватності. Белл, завдяки практиці викладання в університе ...more
Nov 03, 2015Shawn rated it it was ok
Introduction
It is absurd for a society not to have its best people at the head of its leading institutions. The theme of this book is how such people are best identified and elevated into prominent positions. This book is essentially an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of political meritocracy versus open democracy.
To resist meritocracy is like a plant insisting on exposing its roots to sunlight and burying its leaves; or like a football team putting its cutest player at running back instead of its fastest. There are innate intellectual differences among people.
A meritocracy distributes wealth according to ability rather than by class or family background. Meritocracy tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment and awards those superiorly endowed. It is an idea of elevating the worthy and diminishing the pedigree-based order that prevails in the world today.
Is Democracy Really Sacred?
It is quite enlightening to take a step back and critically examine our democracy. Most Americans are so busy brandishing open praise and worship for their democracy that they rarely think of it critically.
There are two major problems with democracy: First, the majority of people don’t always act in their own self-interest. Second, even if the majority of the population sincerely wanted to maximize their self-interest, most lack the knowledge that would allow them to do so.
The reason so many lack knowledge is the fact that common people need to work hard to maintain their standard of living and, as a result, simply don’t have time to educate themselves in political matters. The people who most need education to overcome cognitive biases are the ones least likely to read articles and books designed to be helpful. Collective wisdom works only to the extent that the crowd is collectively wise.
Acquiring political knowledge is costly and difficult and it does the common person little immediate good. As a result, most individuals express their political preferences without informing themselves fully beforehand. Therefore, much voting in the United States is little more than irrational decision-making. Seventy-nine percent of Americans cannot identify their state senators. Most citizens cannot identify the congressional candidates in their district.
The uncomfortable truth is that the only way to reduce the political influence of ignorant voters is to deprive them the vote. People should have a right for political power held over them to be exercised by competent persons and in a competent way. Universal suffrage often violates this right. Leaders worry too much about the next election and make decisions influenced by their chances of getting reelected.
Perhaps the greatest impotence of electoral democracy occurs because there is no direct representation for future generations. It is recklessly optimistic to expect that voters will sacrifice their own interests to benefit people fifty years from now. Voters often opt for instant gratification and have no patience for politicians who would impose present pain in order to achieve future good. No better example of that exists than the bankruptcy of Greece, where politicians gave the people everything they wanted, without ever expecting the bill to arrive.
Living in harmony with other people and nature just isn’t the main priority of Western politics. Instead, Western politics commonly involves the demonization of political opponents and mean-spirited political speeches that poison social relations. If what we really want is a procedure that is fair to all, we might be better off just flipping a coin?
Do We Really Want the Masses to Dominate?
Americans think that electoral democracy is a universal political good, not only for us, but also for the rest of the world. Americans think this without recognizing the educational levels of the countries where they chose to export democracy. In her recent book, World On Fire ,Amy Chua explains the disastrous consequences that arise when free market democracy is deployed in poor, developing countries. Chua provides example after example of how, in such circumstances, the less educated masses achieve control of assets they are unable to manage and dispense political violence upon the usurped minorities. The will of the people may not always be moral; it might just as easily endorse racism, imperialism, or fascism.
Tocqueville wrote that the chief danger of democracy is that the less affluent majority will use its political power to expropriate wealth, which is exactly what Chua factually demonstrates happens time and time again when democracy is forced upon third world countries. Conversely, the more lasting scenario is the dominance of the affluent minority via manipulation of the system in ways designed to perpetuate their control of the state of affairs.
Why Are The Masses So Ignorant?
Tocqueville writes: “In all the nations of the world, the greatest number has always been composed of those who did not have property, or those whose property was too restricted for them to live in ease without working.” And yet, this huge majority, these masses, these workers, allow themselves to be taxed astronomically, their prodigy barred from education by exorbitant expense, and their noses firmly secured in day-in, day-out toil that persists unto death for most of them. Keeping them uneducated and in toil makes them too busy and too tired to worry about politics or ideological motivations they really don’t understand. Indoctrinated with largely mythical Horatio Alger type stories of rags-to-riches, they are besieged by the comparative inadequacies of themselves and their families, never stopping to think that they are simply too busy seeking basic sustenance to ever play the game of entrepreneurial-ship touted by the ultra-conservatives.
The reality is that the United States has less social mobility than most every other industrialized democracy in the world; and yet, in one of the grand ironies of American public opinion, the United States is still the place where merit is preached the loudest, remarkably, among the most impoverished. Especially in the South, the conservative poor are indoctrinated with a patriotic fervor that somehow ignores their personal impoverishment and instead polarizes them against social programs, minorities, and immigrants. All the while, they subconsciously kowtow to the wealthy, as somehow more deserving.
The losers do not blame the system as much as they ought to because the electoral system provides an element of illusory control. They fail to recognize that big business interests mobilize and pressure policy makers to influence the structure of markets to their advantage. The impoverished are more inclined to believe that any hard worker will succeed as opposed to the hard evidence of social scientists. They are, in fact, so brainwashed as to find openly repulsive the mere mention of the word “socialism” and to mistakenly blame foreigners for their unemployment and impoverishment. Meanwhile, the self-perpetuating elite provide their own children with the social skills, financial support, connections, and cultural knowledge to sustain economic dominance.
The reality is that anyone with insufficient income for subsistence, housing, education, and healthcare should not pay taxes. What logic is there in taking earned funds from someone just to return the same funds in the form of social welfare? All this does is diminish the integrity such persons would have from paying their own way. It destroys their sense of self-worth.
But the government wants impoverished people to beg for assistance, for educational grants, student loans, food stamps, subsidized housing and on and on. This lets the government throw out its chest and boast about how generous are its social programs; while, in fact, it is only giving back that which it has taken. No better example exists than social security, which is only a partial return of funds confiscated from taxpayers over a working lifetime. If the government would just stop raiding the Social Security fund, it would be more than capable of funding all of its various benefits. How could social security be going bankrupt when people pay into it for far longer than they take out of it? The reality is that, if the funds were indeed left alone to grow, with compound interest, the extent of benefits would be astronomical, allowing for people to retire earlier and receive more compensation! The social security budget is raided for the sheer purpose of thwarting those goals and keeping laborers busy producing in the economy. Similarly, limitations on retirement fund contributions are capped in order to restrain people from retiring too soon and keeping the work force at work.
The United States vs. China
To a large part, the discussion in this book contrasts the political systems in the United States against those in China. As you know, the U.S. selects leaders through the process of popular voting. In contrast, China uses a rigorous examination system and performance assessments.
The theory underlying capitalism is essentially meritocratic; but in practice it becomes tainted because of our tendency toward monarchy, birthright, connections, nepotism, bribery, and corruption. Is there any better example of hereditary monarchy than the candidacy of Jeb Bush, in the footsteps of his brother and father? It is remarkable that the people of the United States, a country founded in revolution against a hereditary monarchy, would even remotely consider a third Bush for President.
However, many of these same tendencies of corruption occur in the Chinese system. My perception, after reading this book, is that the United States is better at rewarding economic merit while the Chinese are better at rewarding political merit. In the United States, top leadership has the motivation to help reduce income inequality, but lacks the ability to do so, stymied by lobbying efforts and pressure of Congress to enact measures that benefit the wealthy. China has the opposite problem: the top leadership has greater ability to enact measures designed to reduce the income gap but lack the motivation to do so. Top Chinese leaders tend to be wealthy personally and linked to families with tremendous assets.
It is interesting to note that, to a surprising degree, the United States has built meritocracy into its political system. Examples of such meritocratic institutions are the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve, and the military. These are powerful systems in the United States government wherein leaders arise largely by education and demonstration of their abilities. These systems help to protect us from simple-minded voters who can easily be swayed by emotive arguments or demagogues. However, the possibility of someone like a Hitler, rising to power in a democratic atmosphere, should always cause us to pause in reflection.
But Which System Is The Best?
Both systems are flawed. China isn’t doing much better than the United States in terms of income inequality, which has worsened in both systems over the past two decades.
Unquestionably, democracies have the best economic record in comparison to all other forms of government ever tried in the world. Nevertheless, it is very interesting to see how China is tweaking its governmental forms through experimentation. In seeking a better way, China is using electoral democracy at certain levels, but with pre-qualification of the candidates. This is in contrast to the United States, where the most popular get elected and the most economically successful get wealthy. We must understand that our system must evolve and that if it remains static it will eventually die. Perhaps this is no better said than by T. Boone Pickens in this recent essayon Linkedin.
Many cases exist of college drop-outs, like Bill Gates, bringing huge companies to bear in capitalistic societies. This doesn’t mean, however, that the system in the U.S. is not similarly plagued with nepotism, favoritism, corruption, and hereditary favoritism. Perhaps no greater disgust for such feeble beneficiaries and their silver spoons has been shown than in Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged ,which exposes the sickness inherent to societies that distribute significant rewards on any basis other than merit. Such societies are likely to go the same way as the football team that insists on having the coach’s son run the football instead of its fastest player.
But how to do this? The only real solution is an underlying safety net and starting point for all humans. No human should be denied the basic necessities: food, housing, education, and healthcare. From this point of basic existence, the ambitious will ascend and the unambitious will languish, neither having a legitimate scapegoat for their failures. But such a system can’t be tainted by inheritance, which transmits an unfair advantage. True and pure capitalism would be unbridled competition between competitors beginning on equal footing, not situations in which brilliant but impoverished people must kowtow to silver spoons in order to get their ideas heard. The chief compliant against such a system is that generational wealth is necessary for capital formation to occur, but this is a myth. Just look at the case of Bill Gates! Capital will flow naturally to the best ideas!
What Makes Us Follow?
Does the fact that someone has obtained a majority vote ensure that everyone is going to follow them? Is the popular vote a true source of legitimacy? Psychologists would argue that charisma is a greater motivator for devotion to a leader. Those who dominate by charisma are not obeyed by statute, but because people believe in them. Such leaders live for their cause.
Consider the Catholic Church, which is an organization responsible for about one-fifth of humanity. The Catholic Church is not lead by an official elected by the entire congregation of the faithful. Should a leader be focused on a desire to please others or focused on what ought to please others? Should leaders be business magnates primarily focused on making a profit or should they be more focused on social harmony? Are leaders supposed to just serve only the people in the territory they represent or should they also be serving future generations and those located elsewhere who are affected by their decisions?
And why must we even vote for people? Could we not just as easily vote for a platform? The reality is that we are lulled into believing that we possess democratic authority to vote for persons who espouse a particular platform, only to see that person abandon the platform once elected. American politicians can say anything during the election process but cannot be held accountable once elected, at least not for four years or more, during which their transgressions may be forgotten.
Ultimately, any system of governance, be it meritocracy or democracy, will hinge upon the credibility of the selected leader, regardless of how he is selected. The fallibility of any system of governance is commensurate with the fallibility of mankind. In the absence of an incorrupt man, there may invariably arise emotionless machine governance, or governance by artificial intelligence, an algorithm, an anti-human. The only way around this is for our motivations to somehow transcend from self-comfort and personal income to the betterment of the human race. We must look for our reward, not in the gratuities of this life, but in the advancement of humanity.
We must evolve a maturity beyond the tendency to follow the biggest and best looking boy on the playground and instead begin to think about whether we ought to be out on the playground at all, but rather, preparing for an on-coming storm.
My Vocabulary Words for this Book:
Ossification – process of becoming rigidly fixed and hardened, as in bone formation or unwavering conventionality
Dearth – an insufficient quantity
Nuanced – multiple layers of meaning
Truism – an obvious truth
Hegemony – dominance of one social group or nation
Vitriolic – strong like acid, capable of eating away
Platitudes – trite or obvious remarks
Xenophobic – fear of foreigners or strangers
Holistic – organic function
Malfeasance – wrongdoing, misconduct, unlawful act.
Dystopian – As bad as can be – the opposite of utopian (less)
It is absurd for a society not to have its best people at the head of its leading institutions. The theme of this book is how such people are best identified and elevated into prominent positions. This book is essentially an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of political meritocracy versus open democracy.
To resist meritocracy is like a plant insisting on exposing its roots to sunlight and burying its leaves; or like a football team putting its cutest player at running back instead of its fastest. There are innate intellectual differences among people.
A meritocracy distributes wealth according to ability rather than by class or family background. Meritocracy tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment and awards those superiorly endowed. It is an idea of elevating the worthy and diminishing the pedigree-based order that prevails in the world today.
Is Democracy Really Sacred?
It is quite enlightening to take a step back and critically examine our democracy. Most Americans are so busy brandishing open praise and worship for their democracy that they rarely think of it critically.
There are two major problems with democracy: First, the majority of people don’t always act in their own self-interest. Second, even if the majority of the population sincerely wanted to maximize their self-interest, most lack the knowledge that would allow them to do so.
The reason so many lack knowledge is the fact that common people need to work hard to maintain their standard of living and, as a result, simply don’t have time to educate themselves in political matters. The people who most need education to overcome cognitive biases are the ones least likely to read articles and books designed to be helpful. Collective wisdom works only to the extent that the crowd is collectively wise.
Acquiring political knowledge is costly and difficult and it does the common person little immediate good. As a result, most individuals express their political preferences without informing themselves fully beforehand. Therefore, much voting in the United States is little more than irrational decision-making. Seventy-nine percent of Americans cannot identify their state senators. Most citizens cannot identify the congressional candidates in their district.
The uncomfortable truth is that the only way to reduce the political influence of ignorant voters is to deprive them the vote. People should have a right for political power held over them to be exercised by competent persons and in a competent way. Universal suffrage often violates this right. Leaders worry too much about the next election and make decisions influenced by their chances of getting reelected.
Perhaps the greatest impotence of electoral democracy occurs because there is no direct representation for future generations. It is recklessly optimistic to expect that voters will sacrifice their own interests to benefit people fifty years from now. Voters often opt for instant gratification and have no patience for politicians who would impose present pain in order to achieve future good. No better example of that exists than the bankruptcy of Greece, where politicians gave the people everything they wanted, without ever expecting the bill to arrive.
Living in harmony with other people and nature just isn’t the main priority of Western politics. Instead, Western politics commonly involves the demonization of political opponents and mean-spirited political speeches that poison social relations. If what we really want is a procedure that is fair to all, we might be better off just flipping a coin?
Do We Really Want the Masses to Dominate?
Americans think that electoral democracy is a universal political good, not only for us, but also for the rest of the world. Americans think this without recognizing the educational levels of the countries where they chose to export democracy. In her recent book, World On Fire ,Amy Chua explains the disastrous consequences that arise when free market democracy is deployed in poor, developing countries. Chua provides example after example of how, in such circumstances, the less educated masses achieve control of assets they are unable to manage and dispense political violence upon the usurped minorities. The will of the people may not always be moral; it might just as easily endorse racism, imperialism, or fascism.
Tocqueville wrote that the chief danger of democracy is that the less affluent majority will use its political power to expropriate wealth, which is exactly what Chua factually demonstrates happens time and time again when democracy is forced upon third world countries. Conversely, the more lasting scenario is the dominance of the affluent minority via manipulation of the system in ways designed to perpetuate their control of the state of affairs.
Why Are The Masses So Ignorant?
Tocqueville writes: “In all the nations of the world, the greatest number has always been composed of those who did not have property, or those whose property was too restricted for them to live in ease without working.” And yet, this huge majority, these masses, these workers, allow themselves to be taxed astronomically, their prodigy barred from education by exorbitant expense, and their noses firmly secured in day-in, day-out toil that persists unto death for most of them. Keeping them uneducated and in toil makes them too busy and too tired to worry about politics or ideological motivations they really don’t understand. Indoctrinated with largely mythical Horatio Alger type stories of rags-to-riches, they are besieged by the comparative inadequacies of themselves and their families, never stopping to think that they are simply too busy seeking basic sustenance to ever play the game of entrepreneurial-ship touted by the ultra-conservatives.
The reality is that the United States has less social mobility than most every other industrialized democracy in the world; and yet, in one of the grand ironies of American public opinion, the United States is still the place where merit is preached the loudest, remarkably, among the most impoverished. Especially in the South, the conservative poor are indoctrinated with a patriotic fervor that somehow ignores their personal impoverishment and instead polarizes them against social programs, minorities, and immigrants. All the while, they subconsciously kowtow to the wealthy, as somehow more deserving.
The losers do not blame the system as much as they ought to because the electoral system provides an element of illusory control. They fail to recognize that big business interests mobilize and pressure policy makers to influence the structure of markets to their advantage. The impoverished are more inclined to believe that any hard worker will succeed as opposed to the hard evidence of social scientists. They are, in fact, so brainwashed as to find openly repulsive the mere mention of the word “socialism” and to mistakenly blame foreigners for their unemployment and impoverishment. Meanwhile, the self-perpetuating elite provide their own children with the social skills, financial support, connections, and cultural knowledge to sustain economic dominance.
The reality is that anyone with insufficient income for subsistence, housing, education, and healthcare should not pay taxes. What logic is there in taking earned funds from someone just to return the same funds in the form of social welfare? All this does is diminish the integrity such persons would have from paying their own way. It destroys their sense of self-worth.
But the government wants impoverished people to beg for assistance, for educational grants, student loans, food stamps, subsidized housing and on and on. This lets the government throw out its chest and boast about how generous are its social programs; while, in fact, it is only giving back that which it has taken. No better example exists than social security, which is only a partial return of funds confiscated from taxpayers over a working lifetime. If the government would just stop raiding the Social Security fund, it would be more than capable of funding all of its various benefits. How could social security be going bankrupt when people pay into it for far longer than they take out of it? The reality is that, if the funds were indeed left alone to grow, with compound interest, the extent of benefits would be astronomical, allowing for people to retire earlier and receive more compensation! The social security budget is raided for the sheer purpose of thwarting those goals and keeping laborers busy producing in the economy. Similarly, limitations on retirement fund contributions are capped in order to restrain people from retiring too soon and keeping the work force at work.
The United States vs. China
To a large part, the discussion in this book contrasts the political systems in the United States against those in China. As you know, the U.S. selects leaders through the process of popular voting. In contrast, China uses a rigorous examination system and performance assessments.
The theory underlying capitalism is essentially meritocratic; but in practice it becomes tainted because of our tendency toward monarchy, birthright, connections, nepotism, bribery, and corruption. Is there any better example of hereditary monarchy than the candidacy of Jeb Bush, in the footsteps of his brother and father? It is remarkable that the people of the United States, a country founded in revolution against a hereditary monarchy, would even remotely consider a third Bush for President.
However, many of these same tendencies of corruption occur in the Chinese system. My perception, after reading this book, is that the United States is better at rewarding economic merit while the Chinese are better at rewarding political merit. In the United States, top leadership has the motivation to help reduce income inequality, but lacks the ability to do so, stymied by lobbying efforts and pressure of Congress to enact measures that benefit the wealthy. China has the opposite problem: the top leadership has greater ability to enact measures designed to reduce the income gap but lack the motivation to do so. Top Chinese leaders tend to be wealthy personally and linked to families with tremendous assets.
It is interesting to note that, to a surprising degree, the United States has built meritocracy into its political system. Examples of such meritocratic institutions are the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve, and the military. These are powerful systems in the United States government wherein leaders arise largely by education and demonstration of their abilities. These systems help to protect us from simple-minded voters who can easily be swayed by emotive arguments or demagogues. However, the possibility of someone like a Hitler, rising to power in a democratic atmosphere, should always cause us to pause in reflection.
But Which System Is The Best?
Both systems are flawed. China isn’t doing much better than the United States in terms of income inequality, which has worsened in both systems over the past two decades.
Unquestionably, democracies have the best economic record in comparison to all other forms of government ever tried in the world. Nevertheless, it is very interesting to see how China is tweaking its governmental forms through experimentation. In seeking a better way, China is using electoral democracy at certain levels, but with pre-qualification of the candidates. This is in contrast to the United States, where the most popular get elected and the most economically successful get wealthy. We must understand that our system must evolve and that if it remains static it will eventually die. Perhaps this is no better said than by T. Boone Pickens in this recent essayon Linkedin.
Many cases exist of college drop-outs, like Bill Gates, bringing huge companies to bear in capitalistic societies. This doesn’t mean, however, that the system in the U.S. is not similarly plagued with nepotism, favoritism, corruption, and hereditary favoritism. Perhaps no greater disgust for such feeble beneficiaries and their silver spoons has been shown than in Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged ,which exposes the sickness inherent to societies that distribute significant rewards on any basis other than merit. Such societies are likely to go the same way as the football team that insists on having the coach’s son run the football instead of its fastest player.
But how to do this? The only real solution is an underlying safety net and starting point for all humans. No human should be denied the basic necessities: food, housing, education, and healthcare. From this point of basic existence, the ambitious will ascend and the unambitious will languish, neither having a legitimate scapegoat for their failures. But such a system can’t be tainted by inheritance, which transmits an unfair advantage. True and pure capitalism would be unbridled competition between competitors beginning on equal footing, not situations in which brilliant but impoverished people must kowtow to silver spoons in order to get their ideas heard. The chief compliant against such a system is that generational wealth is necessary for capital formation to occur, but this is a myth. Just look at the case of Bill Gates! Capital will flow naturally to the best ideas!
What Makes Us Follow?
Does the fact that someone has obtained a majority vote ensure that everyone is going to follow them? Is the popular vote a true source of legitimacy? Psychologists would argue that charisma is a greater motivator for devotion to a leader. Those who dominate by charisma are not obeyed by statute, but because people believe in them. Such leaders live for their cause.
Consider the Catholic Church, which is an organization responsible for about one-fifth of humanity. The Catholic Church is not lead by an official elected by the entire congregation of the faithful. Should a leader be focused on a desire to please others or focused on what ought to please others? Should leaders be business magnates primarily focused on making a profit or should they be more focused on social harmony? Are leaders supposed to just serve only the people in the territory they represent or should they also be serving future generations and those located elsewhere who are affected by their decisions?
And why must we even vote for people? Could we not just as easily vote for a platform? The reality is that we are lulled into believing that we possess democratic authority to vote for persons who espouse a particular platform, only to see that person abandon the platform once elected. American politicians can say anything during the election process but cannot be held accountable once elected, at least not for four years or more, during which their transgressions may be forgotten.
Ultimately, any system of governance, be it meritocracy or democracy, will hinge upon the credibility of the selected leader, regardless of how he is selected. The fallibility of any system of governance is commensurate with the fallibility of mankind. In the absence of an incorrupt man, there may invariably arise emotionless machine governance, or governance by artificial intelligence, an algorithm, an anti-human. The only way around this is for our motivations to somehow transcend from self-comfort and personal income to the betterment of the human race. We must look for our reward, not in the gratuities of this life, but in the advancement of humanity.
We must evolve a maturity beyond the tendency to follow the biggest and best looking boy on the playground and instead begin to think about whether we ought to be out on the playground at all, but rather, preparing for an on-coming storm.
My Vocabulary Words for this Book:
Ossification – process of becoming rigidly fixed and hardened, as in bone formation or unwavering conventionality
Dearth – an insufficient quantity
Nuanced – multiple layers of meaning
Truism – an obvious truth
Hegemony – dominance of one social group or nation
Vitriolic – strong like acid, capable of eating away
Platitudes – trite or obvious remarks
Xenophobic – fear of foreigners or strangers
Holistic – organic function
Malfeasance – wrongdoing, misconduct, unlawful act.
Dystopian – As bad as can be – the opposite of utopian (less)
Feb 17, 2019Roman Baiduk rated it it was amazing
It has long been a generally accepted fact that we live in an era of crisis of liberal representative democracy. The China model is an attempt to analyze a political alternative to the classical Western democracy: a meritocratic system which is used for many years now in China by the ruling Communist Party. While the author himself recognizes the fact that it is highly doubtful for the Western population to accept any other system than 'one person - one vote' (even facing the dismayal incompetency of the democratically elected populists), this book could be a thought provoking insight into the alternative ways of political thinking, something that could become - who knows? - an escape from the current cul-de-sac of the Western electoral policies. (less)
Aug 24, 2017Chiangchou rated it did not like it
I have nothing to say. Eulogizing the Confucius political system and teeming with imagination about Chinese politics.
Dec 16, 2017Ilona Buts rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Автор вихваляє меритократію, адже, на його думку, принцип "одна людина - один голос"поганий тим, що тисячі політичнонеосвічених людей обирають лідера.
Jan 06, 2019Baijia Huang rated it really liked it
It is at least thought provoking and forces us to think if democracy is really the perfect system or is it just the least evil one.
Nov 06, 2015Damon rated it it was ok
The book is fairly well written, but poorly argued.
I was initially excited to read a book that evaluates, and then makes suggestions to improve upon, the Chinese political structure. Bell starts his book out with a chapter arguing that electoral democracy in a one-man-one-vote system is not a system that leads to optimal outcomes. Bell limits his discussion to the meritocracies of China and Singapore, and then limits electoral democracy to that of the United States, and points out many of the flaws in the US political system. Here the reader is left wondering why Bell focuses almost exclusively on American democracy, rather than taking examples of other electoral democracies, such as Germany or South Korea, that have managed to avoid many of the problems he points out in the United States. As an aside, some of the references that Bell uses are incredibly weak, though I do appreciate that there is a thick notes section. For the remainder of the book, Bell discusses mostly the virtues of an idealized version of the Chinese system, and some methods to bring the current system in line with the idealized version.
Bell concludes with ways to strengthen Chinese meritocracy and to realize the idealized version of the China model. Bell's suggestions, however, are the weakest part of his analysis. He suggests more of an emphasis on the Confucian classics for exams to imbue aspiring party members with virtue and completely ignores real incentive structures. He also suggests that China continue to do what it is doing in experimenting and implementing workable changes throughout the system.
This book attempts to be a defense of China's political meritocracy against other political models at the same time it attempts to make suggestions for its improvement. Sadly, it is weak on both counts. (less)
I was initially excited to read a book that evaluates, and then makes suggestions to improve upon, the Chinese political structure. Bell starts his book out with a chapter arguing that electoral democracy in a one-man-one-vote system is not a system that leads to optimal outcomes. Bell limits his discussion to the meritocracies of China and Singapore, and then limits electoral democracy to that of the United States, and points out many of the flaws in the US political system. Here the reader is left wondering why Bell focuses almost exclusively on American democracy, rather than taking examples of other electoral democracies, such as Germany or South Korea, that have managed to avoid many of the problems he points out in the United States. As an aside, some of the references that Bell uses are incredibly weak, though I do appreciate that there is a thick notes section. For the remainder of the book, Bell discusses mostly the virtues of an idealized version of the Chinese system, and some methods to bring the current system in line with the idealized version.
Bell concludes with ways to strengthen Chinese meritocracy and to realize the idealized version of the China model. Bell's suggestions, however, are the weakest part of his analysis. He suggests more of an emphasis on the Confucian classics for exams to imbue aspiring party members with virtue and completely ignores real incentive structures. He also suggests that China continue to do what it is doing in experimenting and implementing workable changes throughout the system.
This book attempts to be a defense of China's political meritocracy against other political models at the same time it attempts to make suggestions for its improvement. Sadly, it is weak on both counts. (less)
The argument that Mr.Bell has put forward is nothing more than some wheezy, cut-and-dried standing dish in political science. Regardless of whether this argumentation makes sense or not, the writing of the book clearly shows the deficiency of scholarship and the self-contradictiveness within the author's logics. Mr.Bell, however, did make some sounding points by simply combining what has already been done and pointing out that "nobody is doing the same as I do".
Overall an anticipated but disappointed book, failed to analyzing the so-called "China Model" thoroughly and deeply, only to yield the impression that the author does not know what he is talking about. (less)
Overall an anticipated but disappointed book, failed to analyzing the so-called "China Model" thoroughly and deeply, only to yield the impression that the author does not know what he is talking about. (less)
No comments:
Post a Comment