China’s maladies don’t look terminal

For months, political commentators have told us all that was bad about the American political system: far too much money; too much polarization; too many right-wing nutbars; too little discussion of difficult issues, such as the debt and deficit and income inequality.

Actually, the immense amounts of money bought almost no votes and there’s far less polarization among ordinary Americans than was generally supposed. The best man, Barack Obama, won and handily so, giving him a mandate to act decisively now.

It being easier to write about impending doom than about signs of spring, the pundits have switched to a new target. It’s not about some different American failing, though. It’s about a different country — China.

Starting last week and continuing this week, China will, not elect which is a contradiction in terms in a one-party state, but rather select those who will run it for the next 10 years. Already chosen, but for the formality of informing the people, are the new president, Xi Jinping, and the new premier, Li Keqiang.

Once again we are being told that all, or a great deal, is woeful: too much corruption, by far; too much income inequality (again); comprehensive secrecy and no transparency at all; little rule of law and far too much that of the police and security forces; gross neglect of the environment. Perhaps the commonest word in descriptions of China’s future is “crisis.”

Maybe, just as America is extraordinarily resilient, so may be China.

That anyway is the provocative thesis of two observers living there, the venture capitalist Eric Li and the political scientist Daniel Bell.

In the London-based Financial Times, they claim that China’s creaky old Communist party, which runs everything, has over the last 30 years “gradually transformed itself from a revolutionary party to a meritocratic organization.”

Those are fighting words since we take for granted that our system of liberal democracy enables the best and brightest to rise to the top.

Not necessarily, according to Li and Bell. In democracies, they write, “the public repeatedly votes for lower taxes and higher benefits, recklessly mortgaging the future of their countries.”

Conversely, in China’s (claimed) meritocracy, aspirants to power “compete fiercely to be admitted to the party,” first seeking entry to elite universities against the thousands of applicants to a single spot, then going through “a gruelling process of talent selection,” afterward often being sent abroad “to learn from best practices.”

This praise is given out too easily, Many at the top are “princelings” filling spots once held by their fathers. But it is a recreation of Confucius’ classic mandarin system, which worked pretty well for several thousand years.

And this version is working. Some time before Xi’s term ends in 2022, China’s economic output will surpass America’s. The first steps to make incomes less unequal are being taken. About 90 per cent of Chinese people now have at least a minimalist healthcare system; most farmers receive small, very small, pensions, and lowcost housing is being built at breakneck speed for city-dwellers

Not that the term “crisis” is misplaced. Factory workers’ salaries are nearing their limit as even poorer countries compete in export markets. Entrepreneurship is being chocked off by subsidized state industries and by uncontrolled corruption. The success of illegal microblogs — one, Sina Weibo, has more than 300 million users — confirms that China is made up of individuals, not puppets.

But Li and Bell may have a point when they judge that China “has developed” a formula that “is consistent with China’s culture and history and suitable to modern circumstances.”

For America, the challenge is going to be to do as well. Richard Gwyn’s column appears every other Tuesday. gwynr@sympatico.ca