作者：贝淡宁 （Daniel Bell) ）李世默 （Eric Li） 2012年11月11日THE FINANCIAL TIMES
The coverage in the western media of leadership changes at the Chinese Communist party’s 18th congress has been almost uniformly negative. Critics say corruption pervades the upper echelons of the party, policy issues are not publicly discussed and the Chinese people are completely left out of the process.
There is some truth to such criticisms but they miss the big picture. The Chinese political system has undergone a significant change over the past three decades and it comes close to the best formula for governing a large country: meritocracy at the top, democracy at the bottom, with room for experimentation in between.
There is a good case for popular participation at local levels. People usually know what’s needed in their communities and they have a good sense of the competence and character of the leaders they choose. In fact, most Chinese participate in local-level elections.
In a big country, however, one person, one vote is problematic. From a moral point of view, citizens should vote for the common good because their votes affect not just themselves but other people. Yet voters tend to vote with their pocketbooks. Many can’t even do that well, since they lack economic competence. One group of voters – the rich – has a better understanding of economics and finds it easy to skew the system in their favour.
To remedy the problem the economist Bryan Caplan proposes tests of voter competence, but that’s a non-starter in democracies because nobody wants to give up the vote once they have it. Hence, it really is the end of history, but in the bad sense that no improvements are possible once the system of one person, one vote is in place.
There is a deeper problem with democracy. It confers voting rights only to adults within national borders. But it’s not just voters who are affected by the policies of the government: non-voters such as future generations and people living outside the country are also affected. In Europe and the US, the public repeatedly votes for lower taxes and higher benefits, recklessly mortgaging the future of their countries. And let’s not mention global warming.
So how should leaders be chosen at the central level? Ideally, the process should be meritocratic: the mechanism should be explicitly designed to choose leaders with superior competence and virtue. Over the past three decades or so, the CPC has gradually transformed itself from a revolutionary party to a meritocratic organisation.
Today, universities are the main recruitment grounds for new members. Students need to score in the top percentile of national examinations to be admitted to an elite university that grooms future leaders. Then they compete fiercely to be admitted into the party. Only high-performing students who have undergone thorough character checks are admitted.
Those who want to serve in government then usually need to pass government examinations, with thousands of applicants competing for a single spot. Once they are part of the political system, further evaluations are required to move up the chain of command. They must perform well at lower levels of government and pass character tests. Then there are more position-specific exams that test for specialised skills.
The advantages of Chinese-style meritocracy are clear. Cadres are put through a gruelling process of talent selection and only those with an excellent performance record make it to the highest levels. Instead of wasting time and money campaigning for votes, leaders can seek to improve their knowledge and performance. China often sends its leaders to learn from best practices abroad.
Yes, meritocracy can only 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 a different party. Hence, less talent goes to the bureaucracy, because the real power-holders are supposed to be chosen by the people.
In practice,Chinese-style meritocracy is flawed. Most obviously, there is widespread corruption in the political system. Term and age limits help to “guard the guardians”, but more is needed to curb abuses of power, such as a more open and credible media, more transparency and an effective legal system, higher salaries for officials, and more independent anti-corruption agencies.
When it comes to political systems, western opinion leaders are still stuck in a narrative of dichotomy: democracy versus authoritarianism. But the competition in the 21st century, as the scholar Zhang Weiwei writes, is between good and bad governance. The Chinese regime has developed the right formula for choosing political rulers that is consistent with China’s culture and history and suitable to modern circumstances. It should be improved on the basis of this formula, not western-style democracy.
The writers are a professor of political theory at Tsinghua University and a Shanghai-based venture capitalist
西方媒体关于中国共产党第18次全国代表大会领导层换届的报道几乎都是负面的。批评人士表示，腐败在共产党高层蔓延，政策问题得不到公开讨论，中国人民被完全挡在这个过程之外。
这些批评是有一定道理的，但它们忽视了大格局。过去30年，中国政治体制经历了重大变革。它已近乎成为治理大国的最佳方案：高层精英管理，底层实行民主，两者之间有实验的空间。
地方参与有着充分理由。人们通常知道自己所在的社区需要什么，他们对于自己选择的领导人的能力和人格有着很强的判断力。实际上，多数中国人参与地方选举。
然而，在一个大国，一人一票的制度是有问题的。从道德的角度来看，公民应为共同利益投票，因为他们的选票不仅关系到他们自己，还影响到其他人。然而，选民往往从自己的财务利益出发来投票。很多人甚至无法很好地做到这一点，因为他们缺乏经济知识。一个选民群体——富人——对经济有着更好的理解，他们很容易设法让这个体系有利于自己。
为了解决这个问题，经济学家布莱恩•卡普兰(Bryan Caplan)提出对选民能力进行测试，但这在民主国家是行不通的，因为一旦人们拥有了投票权，就没有人想放弃这个权利。因此，这真的是历史的终结，但它不是一件好事，因为一旦实施了一人一票的选举制度，就不可能作出任何改进。
民主有着更深层次的问题。它只把投票权赋予本国范围内的成年人。但政府政策影响到的不仅仅是选民：非选民（例如未来的世世代代以及生活在这个国家以外的人们）也会受到影响。在欧洲和美国，公众一再投票支持降低税收和提高福利，不顾一切地给国家的未来增添负担。更别提全球变暖了。
那么，应如何选举中央领导人？理想的方案是，这个过程应该是择优的：其机制应当明确旨在产生具有卓越能力和品德的领导人。过去30来年，中国共产党一直在逐渐把自己从一个革命党转变为一个精英管理组织。
如今，大学是新党员的主要招募地。学生需要在全国考试中获得高分，才能被培育未来领导人的顶尖大学录取。接着，他们会通过激烈的竞争获准入党。只有表现优秀、并经过全面人格测试的学生才能获准入党。
那些希望在政府部门任职的学生通常需要通过政府考核，数千名申请人争夺一个职位。一旦他们成为这个政治体制的一部分，要向更高的领导岗位晋升，还需要进一步的评估。他们必须在政府基层表现优秀，并通过人格测试。接着，还有更多专门针对职位的考试，用来测试具体的技能。
中国式的精英管理有着明显的优势。党员干部需要经历严格的人才选拔过程，只有那些表现优秀的人才能升入最高层。领导人可以不把时间和金钱浪费在争夺选票上，而是可以寻求增长知识和提高绩效。中国经常派遣领导人到国外学习最佳实践。
没错，精英管理只能在一党制国家的环境中发挥作用。
在多党制国家，政府基层的表现并不能保证在更高层有所回报，而且不具备强大的激励措施来培训干部，让他们在更高层获得经验，因为关键人员可能随着不同党派领导的政府的变化而更迭。因此，进入官僚部门的人才更少，因为真正握有权力的人理应由人民选举产生。
在实践中，中国式的精英管理也存在缺陷。最为明显的是，政治体制内部腐败泛滥。任期和年龄限制有助于“防备监护人”，但还需要采取更多措施来遏制滥权，例如一个更开放和更可信的媒体，增强透明度以及一个有效的司法体系，提高官员薪资以及更独立的反腐机构。
谈到政治体制，西方的观念领袖仍限于二分法的叙述：民主与威权主义。但正如学者张维为所写到的那样，21世纪的竞争是在良好和糟糕治理之间展开的。中国的政权找到了挑选政治统治者的恰当模式，符合中国的文化和历史，也切合现代环境的需要。中国的体制应在这一模式（而非西方式的民主）的基础上加以改善。
本文作者分别为清华大学政治理论教授和驻上海风险投资人
译者/梁艳裳
中国许多政府官员和知识分子已经认识到多党民主在当前不是中国最好的解决办法。中国太穷、太不稳定、太腐败、或者太脆弱，如果现在实行民主会受到外国列强的欺侮。
.jpg)
