In China or US, government must hear the people
Paul Letters says whatever the quality of the leaders, an electoral system has clear advantages
Does China pick better leaders than the US? Well, probably - but that's missing the point. During this period of leadership transition for two of the world's most powerful nations, the London-based Intelligence Squared organised a debate in Hong Kong on the motion, "China picks better leaders than the West". The US and Chinese political systems and national leaders were dissected, lambasted and praised, but when we consider selection versus election, the focus should be on those at the bottom of the pyramid - the people.
Despite the oddities of a form of government that elected Adolf Hitler in 1933 and rejected Winston Churchill in 1945, Westerners are conditioned from childhood to value democracy - indeed, never to question its merits. Many grow up to vote looking at their own bank balance and ignoring the interests of future generations, although others weigh factors such as the future burdens of national debt and environmental damage.
The US political system is as unusual and idiosyncratic as China's model. The candidate who wins the popular vote may not become president - this rarely happens but when it did in 2000, the difference was unusually stark: Al Gore won the popular vote, promising alternatives for oil, but the (Electoral College) victory went to George W.Bush, who delivered war for oil.
With varying effectiveness, liberal democracies are premised on the assumption that leaders may need restraining - therefore the legislative and legal apparatuses check and balance their power. American challengers campaign with promises of "change we can believe in" (Barack Obama, 2008) and "real change" (Mitt Romney, 2012), but when executive power is checked by legislative opposition, the compromises required to govern ensure considerable continuity.
Conversely, China's leaders promise stable continuity, while radically transforming the nation.
America benefits from the rule of law, minimal financial regulation and the creative space and incentives to stimulate innovation. The protection of individual rights is elevated above the People's Republic's prioritisation of collective rights.
China's leaders no longer derive their legitimacy from ideology but from results. The system allows for long-term planning. The few select their leaders on behalf of the many - as was the case for almost every nation at some stage of their development. But it is no longer a Social Darwinist matter of the strongest megalomaniac pushing his way to the top. There are constraints - such as the 10-year term limits for president and premier - and there is a filtering system for getting there.