This kind of meritocratic selection process is only likely to work in the context of a one-party state. In a multi-party state, there is no assurance that performance at lower levels of government will be rewarded at higher levels, and there is no strong incentive to train cadres so that they have experience at higher levels, because the key personnel can change with a government led by different party. So even talented leaders like U.S. President Barack Obama can make many "beginner's mistakes" once they assume rule because they haven't been properly trained to assume command at the highest levels of government. Leaders in China are not likely to make such mistakes because of their experience and training.

Once Chinese leaders reach positions of political power, they can make decisions that consider the interests of all relevant stakeholders, including future generations and people living outside the state. In multi-party democracies with leaders chosen on the basis of competitive elections, by contrast, leaders need to worry about the next election and they are more likely to make decisions influenced by short-term political considerations that bear on their chances of getting reelected. The interests of non-voters affected by policies, such as future generations, are not likely to be taken seriously if they conflict with the interests of voters.

Moreover, the fact that the real power holders in Western-style democracies are supposed to be those chosen by the people in elections often means that "bureaucrats" are not considered to be as important; hence, less talent goes to the bureaucracy. This flaw may be particularly clear in the American political system. In contrast, the Chinese political system does not clearly distinguish between "bureaucrats" and "power-holders" and thus ambitious people of talent are not discouraged from joining the political system at the lower levels, with the hope of moving upward.

However, Chinese-style meritocracy may not be universally applicable. For one thing, it may only be stable in a political culture that values political meritocracy: as noted above, political surveys show that people in East Asian countries with a Confucian heritage tend to value political meritocracy, but the same may not be true in other cultures. For example, the American political culture has developed a strong "anti-elitist" ethos, so it is hard to imagine support for meritocratic one-party rule. This is not to deny that there are elitist elements in the American political system (for example, recent U.S. presidents are graduates of Harvard and Yale), but political leaders tend not to be too open about such elitist characteristics. More importantly, it is difficult to imagine major constitutional reform of the U.S. political system that would encourage more meritocracy (it is possible to foresee change for the worse—e.g., more militarism in the event of another major terrorist attack on American soil—but not change for better).

There may be ways to improve Chinese-style political meritocracy. Actually, I'm not sure about this because my views are still not sufficiently well grounded in a deep understanding of the political system, so let me just ask some questions.

First, I wonder if the lack of transparency of the talent selection process negatively affects the government's reputation. If people are not aware of the selection process, they may suspect that promotion is based primarily on loyalty, guanxi (relationship), or corruption. But shedding light on the actual mechanism will help to dispel such suspicions. Once I heard from Minister Li about the rigorous selection process for the secretary general of the Organization Department of the CPC Central Committee, my respect for that successful candidate increased 10-fold! I assume other people would have a similar reaction. Of course, the very fact that Minister Li told us about the process suggests that there is a decision to increase transparency, which is a good sign.

Second, I wonder if constraints on freedom of speech inhibit meritocratic decision making. The best political decisions, of course, need to be based on complete information, but fear of negative consequences may inhibit stakeholders from expressing their viewpoints. While the CPC carries out internal polling to get as much information as possible and cadres are encouraged to constantly learn and improve, fewer barriers to the freedom of speech may improve the quality of decision-making.

Third, I wonder if the leadership selection process is biased against females. The process seems so time-consuming that it seems hard to reconcile with ordinary family life. Since females are often the main care-takers of family members, they may not have sufficient time to compete fairly with males for top government posts. We should encourage more females in government.

Fourth, I wonder if the leadership selection process allows for enough time for systematic reflection on ethical and political matters. Perhaps a few weeks at the Party school is not sufficient for leaders to read the great works in politics, history, and philosophy that deepen one's knowledge as to possibilities of morally-informed political judgments. If political leaders were encouraged, say, to take a six-month leave period with few obligations other than reading great works, the long-term effect on the ability to make morally-informed political judgments is likely to be positive.

Fifth, I wonder if there is a need for more international exposure in the selection process. The main task of the CPC is of course to serve the Chinese people. But China is now a great global power, and what it does also affects the interests of people living outside of China.

The author is a professor of political theory and director of the Center for International and Comparative Political Philosophy at Tsinghua University, Zhiyuan chair professor of Institute of Arts and Humanities, Shanghai Jiaotong University, and author of China's New Confucianism

Email us at: zanjifang@bjreview.com