When Imperial China Had a Vietnamese Prime Minister: The Surprising Origins of Meritocracy—And Why It Outperforms the West More Than Ever
Political legitimacy arises from competence and the implementation of the popular will—rather than from money and endless election campaigns.
(Illustration by Felix Abt)
Political legitimacy is earned through competence and the ability to translate the popular will into effective governance—not through wealth, lobbying, and perpetual electioneering.
The article also addresses the implausible claim that China seeks to resurrect a modern coercive tribute system — a narrative no more credible than the familiar tropes of an omnipresent social credit system or a wholly censored internet.
Meritocracy and Equal Opportunity: Not a Western Invention — China Was Centuries Ahead
Long before the West even seriously discussed equal opportunities, sophisticated concepts of meritocratic selection already existed in China. The Tang Dynasty state, in particular, is considered an early example of a system based on merit and competence. This offers interesting insights for today’s world, which is torn between Chinese meritocracy and Western plutocracy, as well as between a lived democracy of the Chinese type and a formal Western democracy that is limited to periodic elections and routinely fails to represent the interests of the population.
Harmony Over Conquest: The Chinese Governance Ethos Explained
Over 2,000 years ago, Sun Tzu (孫子) wrote in The Art of War that the highest form of strategy was to “subdue the enemy without fighting.”
This principle, foreign to the West and seeking to renounce violence, reflects a fundamental truth: the Chinese political tradition values harmony and competence over domination and dogma. Unlike the missionary zeal that traditionally characterizes Western foreign policy, which China perceives as aggressive, China’s concept of Tianxia – “All under Heaven” – envisions a world governed by moral example, not by coercion or conquest.
Professor Daniel A. Bell emphasizes that this principle of harmony (hé, 和) extends beyond philosophy into practical governance. It is not about uniformity, but about reconciling diverse interests peacefully, both domestically and internationally.
The Canadian scholar Daniel A. Bell is widely regarded as one of the leading experts on Chinese political thought and contemporary governance. He is best known for his work on Confucianism and political meritocracy. Bell has taught at several prestigious institutions, including Tsinghua University, the University of Hong Kong, the National University of Singapore, Princeton University, and Stanford University. He is widely recognized for offering nuanced, context-sensitive interpretations of China's political system and governance model.The Secret to China’s Longevity: A System Built on Merit
If China has endured and thrived for millennia, it is not by accident. Its survival owes much to a unique political architecture rooted in meritocracy — a concept formalized during the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE) but inspired by Confucius centuries earlier. While aristocratic Europe still clung to bloodlines, China developed a bureaucracy that judged candidates by knowledge, ethics, and performance.
The Tang’s imperial examination system, or Keju, allowed anyone — including peasants, foreigners, and even women in rare cases — to rise based on merit. This wasn’t an abstract ideal. A peer-reviewed study of epitaphs from Tang elites found that elite lineage had virtually no effect on success in the exam. In terms of social mobility, Tang China resembled 1960s America — a time when the American Dream was still somewhat real.
Daniel Bell describes the evolution of the Chinese governing system as “political meritocracy.” While many officials at the local level are democratically elected from a pool of diverse candidates, leaders at higher levels are selected through a rigorous process that assesses their competence, moral character, and performance across multiple prior roles. The result is a leadership cadre equipped to address complex challenges in economics, technology, and sustainability— a modern echo of the Tang-era ethos, adapted to the demands of the present.
Definition of Meritocracy by Wikipedia (Screenshot Wikipedia)
As we will see later, democracy with Chinese characteristics functions in a way that is often misunderstood and misrepresented. I will examine this in more detail below.
Critics often cite China’s internet censorship as definitive proof of an authoritarian state. However, this narrow view misinterprets how the system actually operates: it pairs targeted information management with systematic public feedback and highly responsive political action. By embedding citizen input directly into policy decisions, these mechanisms achieve a level of state accountability that Western systems must emulate to become truly democratic themselves. Read the full analysis in my article here.
In another separate piece, I have also debunked the propaganda myth of a “social credit system.”
Foreign Prime Ministers, Female Innovators, and the Dawn of Confucian Feminism
Among the system’s remarkable outcomes: Khương Công Phụ, a Vietnamese scholar, rose to become Prime Minister of China. Japanese prince Abe no Nakamaro and Korean philosopher Choe Chiwon also passed the imperial exams and held high office.
The system itself was formalized under Wu Zetian, China’s only female emperor — a powerful testament to women’s intellectual potential, even in an era when the bureaucracy remained entirely male-dominated. This legacy continues to have an impact today, as women increasingly assume leadership positions within Chinese institutions.
Perhaps this, too, reflects a deeper historical continuity: more than four millennia ago, a female-led society in ancient China flourished for over ten generations (about 250 years). Located in Fujia, Shandong province, it is the oldest known matrilineal society in the world, as revealed by DNA and radiocarbon dating published in Nature.
Confucius and Plato: A Tale of Two Meritocracies
Confucius envisioned a society where ability and virtue — not birth — determined leadership. Plato, who lived 150 years later, also promoted a meritocratic ideal, but retained hereditary privilege in his political vision. Confucius rejected hereditary rule, recognizing its tendency to breed corruption, decadence, and dynastic collapse — a cycle he sought to break through education and moral leadership.
He called for rulers to be practical, generous, and just — people-centered in the truest sense. He famously declared: “In education, there should be no class distinctions” (Analects, 15.39). And he insisted that trust — not force — is the foundation of any legitimate government. If something must be sacrificed, he said: abandon the army before the grain, and the grain before trust.
Bell highlights that Confucian emphasis on moral leadership and long-term planning still informs contemporary Chinese governance. Decisions are made with the future in mind, not merely for electoral cycles or short-term gain.
A Model That Inspired the Enlightenment — and Alarmed the British Aristocracy
China’s imperial examination system left a deep mark on European modernity. The British adopted this meritocratic model for their colonial administration in India in 1832, and finally for their own civil service in 1846—much to the horror of the nobility, who saw their traditional privileges and exclusive grip on government power slip away.
Thinkers like Voltaire were openly inspired by China’s governance. He translated Chinese plays and lauded Confucian values for their rationality and moral clarity. A statue of Confucius even graces the U.S. Supreme Court building, alongside Moses and Solon — representing the foundational thinkers of the world’s great legal traditions.
Meritocracy vs. Plutocracy: A Tale of Two Systems
China’s modern examination system, the Gaokao, continues the legacy of the historic Keju, ensuring that entry into elite institutions like Tsinghua University — which trains many of the country’s top leaders — is fiercely competitive. Out of 10 million high school graduates each year, only 3,000 secure admission.
Professor John L. Thornton, former Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asia, who over the course of his career also met numerous leading Chinese politicians, explains it as follows:
“The CCP functions more like a meritocratic elite than a traditional party — akin to the historical mandarin class. It’s performance-based, much like the U.S. military.”
Thornton emphasizes that only the most capable individuals ascend within the party and government. In contrast, Western political systems increasingly rely on billionaire-funded campaigns, media narratives shaped by elite interests, and a declining trust in democratic institutions. As the voices of the dwindling middle class grow quieter, governance in the West is drifting toward oligarchy and away from true democracy.
While most political leaders in the West come from backgrounds in law and finance, China’s leadership is largely composed of capable engineers and scientists, builders of things rather than administrators of things.
David Bell underscores that China’s system blends meritocracy with limited local democratic mechanisms. Mid-level governance experiments allow officials to be tested on multiple criteria, such as economic performance, poverty reduction, and environmental sustainability. This ensures that leaders are genuinely competent and adaptable.
While most political leaders in the West come from backgrounds in law and finance, China’s leadership is dominated by engineers and scientists — individuals who rose through a meritocratic system that selects for competence and are trained to build, solve, and innovate rather than merely administer. (Screenshot: Wall Street Journal headline)The Role of the Communist Party Explained
In the West, political legitimacy comes from noisy elections, charisma, and fundraising; anyone can rise quickly with the right media moment.
In China, however, village committees (村委会) and, in some cases, town councils are elected. Residents can vote directly for their representatives in the village or neighborhood, thus choosing candidates they know and can therefore evaluate.
These low-level representatives can then advance through a quiet, corporate-like system run by the Communist Party’s Organization Department—an enormous HR apparatus that manages millions of officials through data-driven performance reviews rather than public elections. Over decades, leaders climb a strict 30-year ladder from village posts to provincial leadership, overseeing populations the size of entire countries, and are evaluated on hard metrics such as GDP growth, poverty reduction and social stability, and environmental targets.
This system cultivates highly experienced technocrats and shields governance from populism. However, it also fosters conformity, risk aversion, and historical abuses tied to narrowly focused Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). While highly efficient at solving known problems, this structure has neither prevented nor actively fostered creativity and disruptive innovation—which seem to occur regardless of the state apparatus. Consequently, China’s governance is not a personal dictatorship—as Western narratives often claim—but an institutional, meritocratic system grounded in "performance legitimacy."
Western observers often misinterpret China as fragile or primitive. In reality, it operates less like a traditional state and more like a powerful, meritocratic corporation playing a long-term strategic game.
In this context, it is important to emphasize that criticism is permitted, while defamation is prohibited and punishable under Chinese law. This applies to everyone—from ordinary citizens insulting one another to individuals making false accusations against Chinese leaders. Yet Western narratives often distort this fact and portray it as particularly “dangerous” to criticize Chinese leaders, while overlooking the broader legal framework.
A Revival of China’s Allegedly Repressive Tribute System?
As with many aspects of China that are poorly understood in the West, numerous commentators—including investor Ray Dalio—misinterpret China’s historical tribute system (朝贡, chaogong) by viewing it through a Western geopolitical lens rather than on its own historical terms. In the Financial Times and on his Substack, Dalio argues that China is reviving a modern version of this system in Asia.
However, that claim depends on a flawed reading of how the original tribute system actually worked.
Western observers often imagine the tribute system as something akin to medieval European feudalism:
Smaller states paid tribute upward to China.
China provided protection and political dominance in return.
The relationship was maintained through hierarchy backed by coercive power.
This characterization is largely incorrect.
China got the glory; its neighbors got the profits
In reality, the tribute system worked almost in reverse. Rather than extracting wealth from peripheral states, China often transferred wealth to them. The system was built around an exchange of prestige for material benefits:
Tributary states offered largely symbolic gifts.
China rewarded them with far more valuable goods and privileges.
The relationship was designed to exchange recognition for economic gain.
This arrangement was captured by the concepts:
得名 (dé míng) — China gained prestige, recognition, and legitimacy.
得实 (dé shí) — Tributary states gained tangible economic benefits.
In other words, China received status while foreign states received wealth.
This approach dates back to the founding of the Ming dynasty under the Hongwu Emperor. The guiding principle was:
厚往薄来 (hòu wǎng bó lái)
Literally: “Give generously, receive modestly.”
This was not an accidental feature of the system, but its central organizing principle. China deliberately gave more than it received, as profit maximization was not the goal. The aim was to maintain a regional, peaceful, and harmonious order in which China’s neighboring states voluntarily recognized its central position.
How the Tribute System Worked
Tributary states received benefits on three levels.
1. Immediate Rewards
Foreign envoys would present tribute items such as:
Local specialties
Exotic products
Symbolic gifts
These offerings were intentionally expected to be inexpensive and easy to obtain.
In return, the Chinese court frequently bestowed gifts whose value far exceeded the tribute itself, including:
Silk
Brocade
Porcelain
Tea
Silver
Cash payments
The value of these rewards could be many times greater than the original tribute.
2. Trading Rights During Tribute Missions
Tributary delegations were granted the right to trade while visiting China.
Their entourages could conduct business with approved Chinese merchants through official institutions such as the Hui Tong Guan guesthouse. This made tribute missions highly lucrative commercial ventures.
3. Access to Chinese Markets
This was the most valuable privilege of all.
During much of the Ming period, maritime trade was tightly restricted. Tributary status often provided one of the only legal pathways into the Chinese economy.
For many neighboring states, access to China’s vast market was worth far more than the ceremonial aspects of the relationship.
A System So Profitable That People Tried to Exploit It
The economic incentives were so attractive that people began gaming the system.
Fake Countries
Some individuals reportedly invented fictional states and appeared at the imperial court claiming to represent them. Their objective was simple: obtain the economic privileges associated with tributary status.
Chinese Merchants Disguised as Foreign Envoys
An even more amusing example involved merchants from Fujian.
They would:
Sail to Southeast Asia.
Obtain minor official titles from local rulers.
Return to China claiming to be foreign representatives.
Import commercial cargo under the cover of a tribute mission.
In one tribute mission from Java in 1438, several delegates were later discovered to be Fujianese Chinese.
The Credential System
As fraud became increasingly common, the Ming government introduced a verification system known as:
勘合 (kānhé)
Its purpose was to authenticate:
The legitimacy of tribute envoys.
The existence of the states they claimed to represent.
Competition to Become a Tributary
Participation in the system was so valuable that states and political factions competed fiercely for access. Examples:
Japan’s Experience
Japan was allowed only a limited number of tribute missions.
Control over those missions meant control over highly profitable trading opportunities. Two powerful Japanese clans—the Ōuchi and the Hosokawa—engaged in intense rivalry over who would receive official recognition.
The Ningbo Incident (1523)
The rivalry culminated in the Ningbo Incident.
Competing Japanese delegations arrived in Ningbo and disputed the legitimacy of one another’s credentials. The confrontation escalated into violence, resulting in:
Fighting on Chinese soil.
The deaths of Ming officials.
Significant disruption and terror among local residents.
The underlying issue was straightforward: both factions wanted access to trade with China.
The incident ultimately contributed to the collapse of official Ming-Japanese trade relations.
Why Many Critics Get It Wrong
Critics often portray the tribute system as a structure based on coercion and intimidation. Historically, however, it functioned because:
Participation was rewarding.
Access to China was valuable.
China offered benefits rather than threats.
States frequently competed to enter the system rather than being forced into it.
The tribute system was rooted in a distinctly Confucian principle:
以德服人
“Win people over through virtue.”
Its emphasis was on moral authority, generosity, and benevolence rather than direct coercion.
The Modern Parallel
A tribute-like system may indeed be reemerging in Asia, but not in the way many Western critics describe.
Modern China exerts influence primarily through:
Trade
Investment
Economic opportunity
Countries are drawn closer because participation is profitable. In this respect, the logic resembles the historical tribute system’s reliance on attraction rather than coercion.
The modern analogy can be summarized simply:
The historical tribute system relied on rewards. Its punishment was not military force but exclusion from those rewards.
Put differently:
The carrot is trade.
The stick is taking away the carrot.
Examples often cited include:
Trade restrictions on Japan amid tensions over Taiwan.
Economic pressure on Australia following disputes over COVID-19 investigations.
In both cases, the mechanism was economic rather than military.
Why China’s Domestic Consumption Matters
This interpretation has an important strategic implication.
If China’s influence depends on making economic relationships attractive, then:
China must remain a valuable trading partner.
Other countries must feel they benefit materially from engagement with China.
For that reason, expanding domestic consumption is not merely an economic objective. It is also a strategic necessity.
If China runs persistent trade surpluses without providing sufficient benefits to its partners, the attraction-based logic underpinning the system begins to weaken.
If a modern tribute system is emerging, it is not one built on coercion but on economic gravity. Historically, China's influence stemmed from making participation rewarding; today, trade and market access serve a similar function. The challenge for Beijing is therefore not how to force countries into its orbit, but how to remain valuable enough that they choose to stay there.
Ultimately, rather than indulging in historical revisionism, Ray Dalio and the Financial Times might have asked a more illuminating question: How has China historically responded when faced with sustained external pressure and existential threats? Since they did not, I explore that very question in my article, "Under Siege, the Turtle Hardens Its Shell: China's Strategy of Calculated Retreat and Future Rise—A Civilizational Reflex Forged Over 4,000 Years." In it, I examine the deep strategic reflex that has defined Chinese statecraft for millennia — and continues to shape its response to today’s geopolitical challenges.
Democracy with Chinese Characteristics: Two Illustrations from Contemporary China
China’s political system is often reduced by outsiders to simplistic narratives that fail to capture how it actually functions. Yet a closer examination reveals a far more nuanced reality—one featuring institutions and practices that do not fit neatly into conventional Western categories.
Two examples—the exercise of oversight powers by a local People’s Congress in Zhejiang Province and the rise of a migrant worker to the National People’s Congress—illustrating China’s “whole-process people’s democracy” or democracy with Chinese characteristics.
The People’s Congress System in China
Every administrative level in China has a People’s Congress (人民代表大会, rénmín dàibiǎo dàhuì), which serves as a representative body within the country’s political structure.
Representatives are selected through a multi-tiered system:
At the township, district, and county levels, representatives are directly elected by voters in local constituencies.
At higher levels—including prefectural cities, provinces, and the National People’s Congress—representatives are elected by the People’s Congress at the level immediately below them.
The powers exercised by local People’s Congresses are not uniform across the country. Their authority over government spending, appointments, and policymaking varies from region to region.
Zhejiang’s Stronger Oversight Powers
Zhejiang Province is widely regarded as one of the regions where People’s Congresses possess comparatively strong oversight authority.
This situation is often linked to reforms introduced by Xi Jinping during his tenure as Zhejiang’s provincial Communist Party secretary in the early 2000s. During that period, Xi promoted a framework known as “Do Practical Things for the People” (为民办实事, wèi mín bàn shí shì).
The central principle behind this framework was that elected representatives in local People’s Congresses should play a meaningful role in determining how public funds are allocated. Over time, this evolved into a more formalized system in which representatives vote on major government investment projects.
The Huangyan District Vote
A recent case in Huangyan District, part of Taizhou in Zhejiang Province, demonstrates how this system operates in practice.
The Huangyan District People’s Congress reviewed sixteen major government investment projects proposed for 2026. While most were approved, representatives rejected two significant proposals:
A sports center project.
A large-scale irrigation project.
Together, these projects were valued at more than one billion yuan, and approximately 80 percent of representatives voted against them.
Message on X from Lianhe Zaobao
Importantly, rejection does not mean permanent cancellation. Instead, the proposals are returned to the relevant government departments for revision.
Before resubmission, those departments must:
Address the concerns raised by representatives.
Conduct additional reviews and consultations with experts.
Revise the projects where necessary.
Present the revised proposals for future consideration.
This demonstrates how local democratic accountability functions within the country's institutional framework.
An Example of Democratic Oversight
This episode highlights a form of democratic practice that many outside China may not realize exists.
In this case:
Representatives exercised genuine oversight authority.
They were able to block major government spending proposals.
The executive branch could not simply proceed despite their objections.
Government agencies were required to respond to criticism and seek approval again.
National Attention and Debate
What made the Huangyan vote particularly noteworthy was that it attracted significant attention within China itself.
Not all People’s Congresses across the country exercise comparable authority, and the incident sparked nationwide discussion. Major Chinese media outlets reported on the vote, transforming what began as a local political event into a broader national conversation.
Many observers questioned why similar oversight powers were not being exercised as visibly or as effectively elsewhere. At the same time, China’s history of local experimentation suggests that innovations pioneered in one region can attract national attention and, in some cases, eventually be adopted more widely.
The Deleted Zhejiang People’s Congress Post
An unusual aspect of the story was that the Zhejiang People’s Congress reportedly deleted its original WeChat post discussing the vote.
However, there is little evidence that this constituted an attempt to suppress the story. Numerous state-affiliated media organizations continued reporting on the event, and it remained widely discussed in the public sphere.
No official explanation was provided for the deletion. One plausible—though entirely speculative—interpretation is that Zhejiang officials became uncomfortable with being placed at the center of a national debate about why congresses in their province appeared more willing or able to exercise oversight than those in other regions.
Publicizing Zhejiang’s example may have been interpreted as implicitly criticizing provinces whose People’s Congresses were less assertive in exercising similar powers.
From Factory Gate to National Legislature
Another example of democracy with Chinese characteristics was described by commentator Jerry Grey, a long-time resident of China, on my YouTube channel. His statement is corroborated on Chinese social media. He told the story of a woman whose life took her from a poor province to a factory gate in Guangdong Province and later to the National People’s Congress in Beijing.
A Migrant Worker Arrives in Guangdong
The story begins in rural Gansu Province, nestled in northwestern China. At just seventeen years old, a young woman left her hometown behind, traveling thousands of kilometers to the booming manufacturing hub of Dongguan.
She had no university education and few formal qualifications. Like millions of migrant workers who contributed to China’s economic development, she arrived seeking opportunity.
Her first job was as a security guard at the entrance of a clothing factory. While her responsibilities involved monitoring goods and personnel entering and leaving the facility, she spent her limited free time learning how the factory operated.
She taught herself sewing, machine operation, and production processes. Her initiative was rewarded with successive promotions—from machine operator to senior operator, then into quality control after proposing improvements to factory procedures.
Eventually, she became the factory’s operations manager.
Her rise reflected a principle often emphasized in China: that practical experience, initiative, and demonstrated competence can create opportunities for advancement regardless of educational background.
A Problem Facing Millions of Families
Despite her professional success, she encountered a challenge familiar to many migrant workers.
Under the Chinese household registration system (Hukou), migrant workers often had difficulties registering their children at public schools outside their place of residence. As a result, many families were separated, with children returning to their hometowns to live with grandparents while parents remained in distant cities for work.
When her son reached school age, she was confronted with this reality.
Rather than accepting it, she began searching for solutions.
She contacted schools, sought information about enrollment requirements, and explored ways of satisfying local regulations. Unable to afford certain fees and facing numerous administrative hurdles, she volunteered at local schools. She helped manage traffic during student arrival and dismissal times, worked in school cafeterias, and assisted with other activities.
Through persistence and community involvement, she eventually succeeded in enrolling her son in a local school.
Turning Personal Experience into Public Service
What followed transformed a personal challenge into a public contribution.
Drawing on habits she had developed during her years as a security guard, she carefully documented every step of the process. She recorded requirements, obstacles, paperwork, and practical solutions.
Other migrant-worker families soon began asking how she had managed to keep her child with her rather than sending him back to Gansu.
She shared her notes.
The information spread among friends and coworkers. Factories began distributing copies to workers. What began as a personal guide evolved into a practical handbook that helped many migrant families navigate school enrollment procedures.
By solving a real-world problem and sharing the solution, she improved the lives of people far beyond her own family.
From Community Advocate to People’s Congress Representative
Critics of China claim that those who question the system are punished. But her efforts caught the attention of members of the Guangdong Provincial People’s Congress, who recognized that her experiences mirrored the challenges faced by millions of migrant workers.
She was invited to participate in the provincial parliament, where she was able to help represent the concerns of migrant worker families.
Her influence continued to grow.
Eventually, national-level representatives recognized the value of her experience and invited her to become a delegate to the National People’s Congress, China’s highest legislative body.
Each year she traveled to Beijing to participate in national meetings, bringing with her the perspective of someone who had personally experienced the challenges facing migrant workers.
The journey was remarkable. A teenager from a rural village in Gansu who began her working life guarding the gate of a factory eventually became a representative in China’s national legislature.
In May 2026, the State Council issued guidelines calling for basic public services to be provided according to a person’s place of residence rather than their household registration, a reform widely regarded as one of the most significant changes to the hukou system in decades.
While it would be impossible to attribute such reforms to any single individual, her story illustrates how concerns experienced by ordinary citizens can be elevated through representative institutions and ultimately contribute to broader policy discussions. The challenges she faced were shared by millions of migrant workers across China, and the subsequent reforms reflected a growing effort to address those concerns at the national level.
It demonstrates how democracy with Chinese characteristics works.
Rather than emphasizing competition between political parties, the system focuses on identifying capable individuals who emerge from communities, workplaces, and social organizations. These individuals gain recognition by solving practical problems, serving the public, and demonstrating competence.
In this conception of democracy, representation is measured not only by how representatives are selected but also by whether they maintain close connections with ordinary citizens and effectively channel public concerns into policymaking.
The examples of the Huangyan District vote and the migrant worker who became a National People’s Congress delegate are illustrations of how participation, oversight, community engagement, and problem-solving influence governance within China’s political framework.
These two cases illustrate the complexity of the Chinese political system and the impossibility of reducing it to simple narratives.
China can simultaneously exhibit several characteristics that may appear contradictory to outside observers:
Local representatives can be elected and exercise meaningful oversight over government spending.
Such powers may stem from reforms initiated by Xi Jinping himself.
The media can openly praise examples of challenging oversight of authorities by elected representatives.
At the same time, some government bodies may be reluctant to draw excessive attention to differences in how such powers are exercised across regions.
Continuous Citizen Engagement vs. Periodic Voting
Whether one accepts the concept of “democracy with Chinese characteristics” or not, these examples demonstrate how democratic participation is conceptualized in China. Rather than a system of periodic voting followed by long intervals where elected officials ignore voter concerns to prioritize personal or donor interests, this model operates as a continuous process. It actively connects citizens, representative institutions, public oversight, community engagement, and government decision-making on an ongoing basis. Some call it genuine rather than formal democracy.
The broader lesson is that China’s political reality contains significant regional variation, institutional complexity, and evolving practices that do not always fit neatly into conventional political categories.
Resilience Through Reinvention
China’s structural framework has also shown resilience in navigating widespread economic shocks, particularly regarding structural corrections in the housing sector.
In recent years, China has actively reduced its dependence on an overheated real estate market and redirected capital toward high-value manufacturing, artificial intelligence, advanced technologies, and green energy.
The statistics indicate that from 2018–2019 onward, credit was systematically reallocated away from real estate and toward the manufacturing sector, in line with China’s strategy of fostering technologically advanced industries.
While some Western analysts have characterized this transition as risky, more neutral observers view it as evidence of a long-term strategy aimed at building a more sustainable and innovation-driven economy. It also reflects the party’s political principle that apartments are for living in and not for speculation.
Within China’s meritocratic model of governance, leaders are expected to look beyond short-term political pressures and focus on long-term national development. This enables policymakers to pursue structural economic transformations whose benefits may take years—or even decades—to fully materialize. In contrast, Western politicians, even those genuinely concerned with the common good, often remain stuck in short-term thinking and action due to relatively short election cycles.
The results of this system are often surprising. Even Elon Musk, who questioned the competitiveness of Chinese automakers in a 2011 Bloomberg interview, recently acknowledged their remarkable progress:
“Chinese car companies are the most competitive in the world… If no trade barriers are put in place, they’ll demolish most competitors.”
His remarks reflect the extent to which Chinese firms have evolved from followers to global leaders in several advanced industries, particularly electric vehicles and clean-energy technologies. Without China’s system of government, this might never have happened.
Western Mockery, Eastern Ingenuity
When China cracked down on its bloated private tutoring industry, Western media accused it of stifling opportunity. But David P. Goldman, a U.S. expert on China, praised its rigorous public education and digital regulations aimed at curbing youth addiction and inequality. Children under 8 in China are limited to 40 minutes a day of supervised screen time — a far cry from laissez-faire digital chaos in the West.
As China improves education for all, wealthy elites who move their children abroad are making space for motivated students from modest backgrounds. Confucius would approve.
Professor Bell further notes that China’s rise is driven by both historical-cultural values — such as long-term planning and state responsibility for poverty alleviation — and modern policy frameworks that incentivize officials while promoting economic liberalization. This combination has produced sustained, inclusive growth without resorting to coercion abroad.
What We Miss When We Don’t Read the Source Material
Western media is flooded with commentary on China’s leadership. Curiously, virtually no one is discussing the Chinese president’s latest book, despite its English release already a year ago. A quick search reveals zero reviews on both Amazon and Goodreads.
Yet, the text offers several counterintuitive insights that directly challenge mainstream assumptions:
On Accountability: Xi asserts the Communist Party must “readily accept oversight by other political parties, the judiciary, the public, and the media” to break the fatal rise-and-fall cycles of past dynasties.
On Legitimacy: He views political power as an internal discipline. It is maintained through constant self-reform and moral governance.
On History: Rejecting the narrative that foreign enemies alone caused China’s “century of humiliation,” Xi blames internal failures—specifically the Ming dynasty’s isolationism, which locked China out of the Industrial Revolution.
On Self-Correction: The book adopts a surprisingly self-critical tone. Xi acknowledges that intense anti-corruption campaigns can inadvertently “intimidate members into inaction.”
The Solution: Rooted in the tradition of Confucian meritocracy, he advocates the "Three Distinctions" framework (三个区分开来三个区分开来, Sān gè qūfēn kāilái). First introduced in 2016, this core political principle balances strict discipline with administrative initiative. It deliberately shields officials who innovate and make honest, well-intentioned mistakes from the severe punishments reserved for willful corruption and personal gain.
The Big Picture: This text exposes a massive blind spot in Western analysis. While ideological purists continue to issue sweeping judgments based on zero primary evidence, the actual source material reveals a complex, self-critical governance strategy. It is mandatory reading for serious analysts—though completely useless to the dogmatic critics who have already made up their minds without reading a single page.
Why Meritocracy Is a Global Imperative
While China anchors its social contract in education and competence, the West confronts profound institutional decay. Western leaders are routinely hoisted into office by wealth, charisma, and populist appeal rather than genuine merit, locking in their loyalty to elite donors. Amid evaporating public trust and soaring inequality, the ancient warning from Confucius himself rings true: “A government without trust cannot stand.”
The modern lesson from China’s Confucian model is that meritocracy is an absolute necessity. Professor Bell highlights that Chinese governance is context-dependent, historically rooted, and focused on long-term, peaceful outcomes. Western skepticism typically reflects a misunderstanding of this philosophy, driven by the flawed projection of Western values onto Chinese culture.
This misunderstanding drives the Financial Times’ ironic claim that the West is falling behind because China lacks democratic accountability.
The reality is reversed: China succeeds because it focuses on material public outcomes like infrastructure, poverty reduction, and higher living standards. Western democracies are losing ground because they forgot who they answer to. If the West hopes to reverse its decline, it must restore its commitment to competence, character, and equity in public life—though whether its ruling oligarchs will permit such a shift remains a separate matter entirely.
This institutional focus on material outcomes is made possible by a highly structured governance framework. Rather than relying on Western-style electoral cycles, China utilizes a distinct multi-tiered model that balances local feedback with rigorous national standards.
Summary: The Three Tiers of Chinese Meritocracy
Political theorists like Professor Daniel A. Bell describe China’s system of political meritocracy through a distinct formula: “Democracy at the bottom, experimentation in the middle, and meritocracy at the top.”
1. Democracy at the Bottom (Grassroots Level)
Direct elections occur at the village and neighborhood levels. Citizens vote directly for local representatives who manage immediate community affairs, public services, neighborhood infrastructure, and day-to-day governance.2. Experimentation in the Middle (Provincial Level)
Provincial and regional governments serve as vital testing grounds for new policies before nationwide rollouts. Higher-ups evaluate intermediate officials on their ability to pilot innovative solutions for complex socioeconomic challenges—such as poverty reduction, urbanization, and industrial transformation.3. Meritocracy at the Top (National Level)
Senior national leaders, including members of the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Politburo, ascend through rigorous institutional evaluation rather than popular electoral campaigns. Reaching the highest levels of state governance typically requires decades of administrative experience and a proven track record of maintaining economic growth, effective management, and social stability across multiple regions.
Meritocracy, Plutocracy, and the Battle for Global Legitimacy
The rivalry between the United States and China has evolved beyond economics and geopolitics. It is increasingly a contest of competing visions of political order—between Chinese meritocracy and Western oligarchy or plutocracy. Unlike the United States, whose foreign policy has been characterized by the drive to impose its political and economic model internationally, China presents itself as an advocate of national sovereignty, civilizational diversity, and the right of every nation to choose its own path of development without external interference.
The outcome of this contest will not only determine which model enjoys greater international legitimacy but will also shape the character of the emerging world order. Given the economic growth of the global majority and the waning political influence of the West, this order is likely to shift away from the dominance of a single hegemonic power toward a multipolar system in which influence is more evenly distributed and no nation can unilaterally dictate the rules to others.
At the same time, increasing tensions, profound political instability, and widespread, violent unrest in the West, triggered by millions of disaffected citizens, are to be expected.
The era of unchallenged Western dominance is nearing its end. The future favors nations that earn legitimacy through competence and shared prosperity, maintain stability via sovereignty, and expand influence through cooperation — rather than ideology, extreme wealth concentration, coercion, or hegemonic pretensions.
▪ ▪ ▪
(Die deutsche Version dieses Artikels finden Sie hier)
▪ ▪ ▪
Read my related articles addressing Western stereotypes of China:
The Myth of Digital Silence in China
Why the Orwell comparison distorts a system that combines censorship with structured public feedback and political responsiveness—aspects the West ought to embrace.
Everyone Thinks the South China Sea Is About Trade & Resources. They’re Looking at the Wrong Map.
The real story begins 4,000 meters below the surface, where nuclear deterrence, submarine warfare, and great-power competition converge.
Gold and Chains: Travel Report From Tibet
(Published by CovertAction Magazine)
Vibrant monasteries, villages, the local language, and a woman I met who had three husbands—places where culture is not merely preserved—not suppressed—but actively lived.
Tibet — From Empire to the Present Day (Part I)
(Published by Forum Geopolitica)
This first part traces that history — from the 7th-century Tibetan Empire to the present day.
Tibet — Daily Life, Faith, and Culture (Part II)
(Published by Forum Geopolitica)
This second part takes us into daily life: a polyandrous family, debating monks, bilingual classrooms.
Tibet — “Cultural Genocide” or Living Culture? (Part III)
(Published by Forum Geopolitica)
This third part examines the political controversy head-on: is the accusation of “cultural genocide” serious analysis, or weaponised narrative?
She Has Three Husbands — Life Outside Lhasa, Tibet
Xizang (Tibet) Today: Vibrant Monasteries, Bilingual Education, and a Living Culture That Challenges Narratives of Cultural Suppression
The Morality of Power: War, Virtue, and the Pursuit of Harmony in Asian Statecraft
A Cultural Legacy That Measures Power by Restraint, Not Expansion
The Collapse of Nationalist China: Corruption, Military Defeat, and the Limits of American Power
From U.S. Billions to inevitable bankruptcy: how Chiang Kai-shek’s corrupt regime paved the way for Mao’s victory and why the ghost of that lost war still haunts Taiwan today.
Chongqing: Opportunities and Identity on the Move
Beyond the Headlines: How Language and Entrepreneurship are Shaping the Real Lives of China’s Minorities.
From Democracy to Suppression: How Taiwan’s Government is Silencing Opposition
With Mass Arrests, Media Control, and Judicial Crackdowns, is Taiwan Still the “Beacon of Democracy” it Claims to Be?
The Taiwan “Idiocy”: Why Game Theory Rules Out a 2027 Invasion
While the Pentagon warns of a looming 2027 conflict, the strategic “payoff matrix” tells a different story.
Travel Report and Reflections on the Potala Palace, the 50-yuan note, and the true meaning of liberation in Tibet
The Plan to Break Up China: Xinjiang, Separatism, and the Three-State Blueprint
How intelligence agencies, radical groups, and Western narratives converged on a single geopolitical objective
👉 Must read: Past the Propaganda: Xinjiang as It Really Is
An on-the-ground account challenging stereotypes — meeting Uyghurs, experiencing traditions, and seeing a region beyond the narrative
London High Court: Allegations Of Forced Labour In China’s Xinjiang Province Unproven And Defamatory
Washington’s economic and propaganda war against China suffers a severe setback
Why India Can’t Catch Up to China—Yet
Rapid growth hasn’t closed the gap, but strategic partnerships could give India a turbo boost
China’s Shadow Banking Paradox: The System Everyone Fears—but Without Which China Cannot Live
It’s the massive ticking bomb that everyone can see. Yet, somehow, it hasn’t exploded.
The Quiet Rise of a New Global Payments System
BRICS, CIPS, and the gradual end of the dominance of the US dollar – a fundamental change that the West apparently overlooks – to its own detriment.
Revelation Story: How Germany and Japan Tried to Derail China’s High-Speed Rail Rise
A behind-the-scenes look at sabotage, supply blockades, and how China turned crisis into technological independence.
Inside the Secret Battle Between a Rising China and a Declining Superpower
The Collapse of the “China Collapse” Narrative
I spent several weeks in China, expecting to find signs of a current or impending crisis. Instead, I witnessed a future taking shape at breakneck speed.
Rerouting Global Trade: The Rise of the Eurasian Corridor
Bypassing US Maritime Chokepoints Through Steel and Strategy
China’s Breakthroughs Are Ending Diseases—And Threatening Big Pharma’s Business Model
Meritocracy and shared prosperity drive innovations that Western healthcare systems can’t match.
Oligarchic Rule in the West Contrasts with People’s Representation in Vietnam and China
Vietnam and China Expose the Rot at the Heart of Western “Democracy”
From Guerrilla Wars to Victory Parades: Why China, Russia, and North Korea Stand Together Today
The forgotten role of Chinese and Korean resistance in WWII explains today’s alliances—and why the West keeps misreading them.
China’s Silent Checkmate: How Rare Earths Are Crippling Israel’s Missile Defense
Iran’s missiles are flying. Israel’s interceptors are dwindling. But the real game-changer? China’s hold on rare earths.
Debunking the Myth of China’s “Social Credit” Dystopia
Behind the West’s most persistent political fantasies — and why the truth is more bureaucratic than Orwellian.
Two Competing Systems: China’s Subways Serve People — Western Subways Fail Them
Subways Don’t Lie: China Rising, West Declining
Revelation: Repressive China Suppressed A Popular Toy Bear — Or Was It the Western Fake News Media?
How the Media Misuse Sport as a Propaganda Weapon in the Information Warfare
Western Media Rely on Dubious Sources in Smears Directed Against China
▪ ▪ ▪