Which Political System Is Appropriate for China? An Exchange on Electoral Democracy and Political Meritocracy

Dao https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-025-09986-7 Which Political System Is Appropriate for China? An Exchange on Electoral Democracy and Political Meritocracy Daniel A. Bell1 · Qianfan Zhang2 Accepted: 11 March 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Abstract Which political system is appropriate for China in the foreseeable future? In this dialogue between two scholars with different interpretations of the Confucian tradition, Zhang Qianfan 張千帆 argues that political leaders should be selected by means of electoral democracy, whereas Daniel A. Bell argues that they should be selected according to superior ability and virtue. They justify their arguments by appealing to contrasting views on human nature, political culture, and the role of the state, and draw some practical implications from Confucian-inspired moral and political theories. Keywords China · Confucianism · Electoral democracy · Political meritocracy · Human nature · Political culture 1 Introduction The following exchange grew out of Daniel A. Bell’s response to Zhang Qianfan’s 張千帆 critique of his book on the China Model, which advocated “political meritocracy” (Bell 2015, Zhang 2020). While there have been several critiques and debates since the publication of Bell’s book (e.g., Huang 2019, Li 2019, Kim 2023), Zhang’s critique is more far-reaching because it challenges the very validity of dichotomizing democracy and meritocracy, arguing that electoral democracy overall is the best polity to achieve merits of government and prevent power abuses. In fact, the authors * Daniel A. Bell * Qianfan Zhang 1 Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong, 10F, Cheng Yu Tung Tower, Centennial Campus, Pokfulam, Hong Kong 2 School of Law, Peking University, Beijing, China 100871 Vol.:(0123456789) Daniel A. Bell and Qianfan Zhang had a brief exchange as early as 2012, when Bell offered a critique of Zhang’s 2012 Chinese book on human dignity (Zhang 2012, for the English version, see Zhang 2016; Bell 2012), which sharply distinguished Confucian moral philosophy from its political theory in terms of relevant values to the world today. Bell’s critique, expanded in the exchange below, essentially argued that Western electoral democracy is fundamentally defective and Confucian political meritocracy has unique contributions to offer to cure these defects. The current exchange also marks a major shift of focus on the neo-Confucian debate. While other participants to the debate seem primarily interested in conceptual issues or constitutional designs at the theoretical level,1 Bell and Zhang are more concerned with the practical implications of moral or political theories claiming Confucian heritage. Although political philosophy rarely engages with empirical studies, they both believe that the time for pure theoretical exposition and designs in the castle has long passed, and it is time for neo-Confucians to take seriously the practical feasibility of their interpretative understanding of classical texts in real political life. They do differ sharply, of course, on the judgment of political performance of various systems, tracing to their profound difference in views on human nature and the functions of the state that shape their understanding of the Confucian texts. The dialogue below touches on a variety of foundational issues highly relevant to the future of neo-Confucianism. Is there a separate regime type called “political meritocracy,” which so many neo-Confucians seem to have taken for granted? Who should have the right to define “merits” of a government—the few virtuous in the government or the multitude it is supposed to serve? Does electoral democracy necessarily fall short of meeting the meritorious standards? Is an ordinary voter fit for casting a responsible vote representing the personal interest while paying proper consideration for the common long-term interest of the community—the very “merit” that Confucians keenly look for? What are the prerequisites to making a politically responsible citizenry? Can Confucian ideals still offer anything constructive for moral and political education of citizens? Who shall be entrusted with the primary responsibility of civic instruction? Is the state or a state-affiliated institution justified to give moral instruction to its citizens in their adulthood? Do government officials necessarily possess superior moral and intellectual qualities compared to ordinary citizens? What is the legitimate function of a state anyway—protecting and providing for the poor and weak, or cultivating its citizens with moral virtues, or ensuring the state to be on the right path as envisioned by the virtuous few? If electoral democracy does not always work, is there any viable alternative, for example, a merit-oriented examination system, that can effectively select officials with desired merits? How can unelected officials be made accountable to their people and prevented from abusing their powers? These are the foundational questions that have not been fully addressed in the existing literature to date, nor in our own previous works (Bell 2015, Zhang 2020). While the following exchange can merely scratch the tip of the iceberg, we hope that 1 For a recent review, see Kim 2023 and relevant references therein. Which Political System Is Appropriate for China? its publication will promote serious debates about neo-Confucian political theory on a new ground. The future of neo-Confucianism critically depends on serious reflections on the premises, deficiencies and lasting resources in the Confucian political tradition. 2 Debates on Definitions, Human Nature, Political Culture, and Institutional Performances Bell: We have been intellectual sparring partners for over a decade (Bell 2012) and I’d like to respond to Professor Zhang’s long and detailed critique of my book The China Model (Zhang 2020). His excellent article focuses on some key political controversies and I need to clarify, update, and reconsider some earlier views. Zhang’s article is an unusual combination of pessimism regarding human nature and utopian political theorizing. And his critique of my work rests on dichotomies that I do not endorse. Zhang tends to compare the worst of the Chinese political reality with the potentially best outcomes of electoral democracy. It’s more appropriate to compare like with like—the ideal of political meritocracy with the ideal of electoral democracy, or highly imperfect political realities in China with highly imperfect political realities in large countries at similar levels of economic development. 2.1 Is Electoral Democracy a Form of Political Meritocracy? Bell (continued): Let me begin with some definitional points. Zhang argues that electoral democracy is a form of political meritocracy. It’s true that, historically speaking, elections were meant to inject a meritocratic check on the selection of leaders by sortition. Sortition is pure democracy because everyone has an equal opportunity to be se (...truncated)