选贤任能的中国治理模式，为什么要比西方的民主政治优越？ [美国媒体]

Why is China’s model of governance (meritocracy) superior to western democracy?

选贤任能的中国治理模式，为什么要比西方的民主政治优越？



Thomas Watkins
Answered Thu
I'll give you two ways in which the Chinese government functions superiorly to a western style government.
1 - Long term planning.
This may be perhaps my biggest grievance with the western democratic style of government you reference. Holding an election every 4–5 years means that governments spend significant time and resources on re-election.
In fact, in many cases it seems like re-election is the only real concern the government will have. They will spend money they don't have, and take on massive deficits to satisfy campaign promises they shouldn't have made. The bill won't come in for another couple of generations, so why should we care right?
Large issues and large projects cannot be addressed in the short timescales between elections. The Chinese government avoids this problem, and is hence better equipped to govern responsibly in the long term.
2 - Populists/demagogues
Elections are glorified popularity contests. National elections and high school elections have more in common than one might think. Voters are nothing if not predictable. Those who know this can take advantage of it to quickly make themselves a name by peddling a simple and emotionally driven message. People eat that shit up like it's breakfast. Hence, democratic governments often fall victim to a form of mob rule. And the people who are good at winning elections are not necessarily good at governing.
The Chinese government is non-democratic, and hence does not need to pander to voters for the sake of staying in power. This eliminates the opportunity for populists to seize power.
Perhaps one of the most successful populists in political history.

中国政府职能比西方政府优越的方面，我能列出两点：

1 长期规划。

这也许是我对西方民主政府的最大不满。每四到五年就选举一次，意味着政府会花大量的时间和资源来谋取连任。

实际上，在许多情况下，连任似乎是政府唯一真正关心的问题。他们会花掉大量不属于他们的钱，承担巨额赤字，兑现他们在竞选时不该做出的承诺。这个法案，可能几代人之后就不管用了，所以我们为什么要去关心呢？

每次选举的间隔时间都很短，那些大问题和大项目，都就无法得到解决。中国避免了这点，因此它更有能力承担长期的负责任的治理。

2 民粹主义者/蛊惑民心的政客  

选举是关乎荣耀的人气比赛。国家选举和高中（学生会）选举的相同点，可能比你想的还要多。如果结果不可预测，选民就什么也不是了。知道这点的那些人，就可以利用它，通过兜售一条简单而情绪化的口号，使他们迅速打出名声。而人们，就像吃早餐一样吃那些狗屎口号。因此，民选政府往往会陷入暴民统治之中。而且那些擅长选举的人，并不一定善于执政。

中国是非民主的，因此不必为了执政而去迎合选民。这就消除了民粹主义者夺取权力的机会。

也许，他是政治史上，最成功的民粹主义者。



Frank Zako, mental traveler
upxed 17h ago
It will take another 15–30 years before the word ‘superior’ can be properly discussed. I do believe that time will come.
It is true the Chinese model has shown some advanteges at this point over the predominant Western model:
Quality of decision. When the government is run by people who really want to make China strong, they have good people to make good and long term decisions without the disruption from the less educated, short term goal oriented voters who always want somethng fast but never like to sacrifice for long term goals. Situation in India is a great contrast. The democracy of mass mob often becomes the trap of long term strategic goal no matter how good it is.
Effective policy structure. When a major policy or plan is set at the top, governments of all levels must follow. It allows the government to clear ways for any policy barriers at local level swiftly.
Focus： to do anything well, you must be able to focus and concerntrate. China has been able to do that in most of its major goals with great focus and without much internal disruption. So even if starting from the same point on a large scale national project, no one can compete with China on execution.
No policy reversals due to politics. The Obamacare and its repealing is one of the best examples how the policy reversal leads to huge waste of social and economic resources. Policy change or adjustment is vital for coping with changes, but policy reversal for politics is a total waste of which the taxpayers are the main victims and no one is responsible for it. And this is an intrinsic characteriscs by design for the Western democracy that’s very hard to avoid.
A true surprise to most Westerners. Chinese goverment constantly has among the highest trust rating by its average people polled by Gallup or Pew. By the Western principle or by any Western experience, Chinese government must have a very low, if not the lowest, trust rating since it does not have the democracy! This simply proves one thing at the minimum: the Western understanding about China is enormously wrong.
People should be aware that the fast growth of China in the last 30+ years was not under the optimum governing of CCP. The leadership of Jiang Zeming and Hu Jintao were quite lame and that was the period when the Chinese currption got really bad. almost out of control by the time Xi got in the office.
This means that, after the incredible swift eradication of corruption by Xi JP, the next phase of China’s development will most probably be even better and substantial, propelled by the much healthier governing and new wave of strong innovation in science and technology which is only at the beginning of taking off.
A key for China to maintain its governance advantage is to establsih an effective sytem to prevent the large scale of currption occurred earlier from happening. Some kind of effective check system must be in place regardless its form Otherwise things can go bad quickly when leadership changes. CCP is working very hard on this very challenging problem. If the new leader in 2013 were not Xi JingPing, a massive breakdown was very hard to prevent due to the sickening corruption grown in the previous 25 years.
Overall, we can summerize that the key advantage of Chinese model is little or limited politics compared with the Western vote centric party politics,but good focus on its tasks when it runs relatively well, the key potential problem is that the lack of effective check system can derail the process much more easily than the Western model when the leader at the very top has major flaws, such as Jiang ZeMing who allowed or even cultivated the rampant corruption for his selfish personal and family interests.
In the long run, I believe China will become more democratic when it gets richer, but it won’t be a copy of current Western system, it will very likely be something very Chinese who have been great in navigating their own way. This has been so true even in their effort of establishing the socialist country early on amongst the communist countries.
As suggested by Martin Jacques, in the West, the govt is considered an intrusive force to private interest and personal freedom, but in China, the govt has largely been considered as the head of the family for a very long time, not some kind of enemy by default. This is a profund cultural difference and it will take quite some time for Westerners to really understand.

可能还需要15-30年，才适合去谈论“优越”这个词。我相信那一天终会到来的。

中国模式在以下几点中，确实要比西方的主流模式优越：

1 决策的质量。

当政府是由那些真正想让中国变得强大的人来管理的时候，他们就会让杰出的人才，做出良好的、长期的决策，不必受到那些教育程度低、短期目标为导向的选民的干扰，因为那些选民只想快速地实现目标、不愿为长期目标做出牺牲。印度的情况与中国的情况，形成了强烈的反差。无论长期战略目标有多么的好，大众暴民的民主经常会成为民主的陷阱。

2 有效的政策结构。

当中央制定出一项重大政策或规划时，各级政府必须遵循。它允许地方政府，为了执行政策扫清任何的障碍。

3 聚焦的点。

想做好任何事情，你必须集中精力和保持专注。中国在大部分重要目标中，都能做到这点，没有太多的内部干扰，重点突出。所以，即便同时开启一项大型国家项目，也没有国家，能在执行层面与中国竞争。

4 政策不会因为政治的原因发生逆转。

奥巴马的医改政策被废除，是政策逆转的最好例子，它造成了巨大的社会资源和经济资源的浪费。政策的改变和调整，对应对变化至关重要，但因为政治的因素造成政策逆转，则完全是一种浪费，纳税人成为了主要的受害者，而且没人会为此负责。这是西方民主设计的一个内在特征，而且很难避免。

5 真正让大多数西方人震惊的。

根据盖洛普咨询公司和皮尤研究中心的调查数据显示，中国政府在普通民众中的信任度，在世界范围内一直处于最高水平。按照西方的原理和任何的西方经验，中国政府的信任度即使不是最低，也应该很低啊，因为它没有民主啊！但结果不是这样，这至少证明了一件事情：西方对中国的理解是非常错误的。



人们应该认识到，中国过去30年的快速增长，并不是在中共的最佳治理之下。之前的治理乏善可陈，腐败猖獗，XI接手的时候几乎就要失控了。

也就是说，在XI难以置信地快速根除腐败之后，中国的下一个发展阶段，很可能会更好、更扎实，这是由更健康的治理环境推动的，也是由新一轮的科技创新浪潮推动的，而且这个创新浪潮才刚刚开始。

中国保持其政府治理的优势，关键就是要建立一套有效的制度，防止早期就发生的大规模腐败。不管以何种形式，必须建立一种有效的监察制度，否则领导换届的时候，形势就会急转直下。中共正在非常努力地解决这个极具挑战的问题。如果现在的领导不是XI，很可能因为之前日益猖獗的腐败问题，中国会出现大规模的崩溃。

总之，我们可以总结出，与西方以选票为中心的政党政治相比，中国模式的主要优势，就是中国的政治很少受到选票的影响，当它运行相对较好的时候，它就会聚焦在任务本身。中国模式的核心潜在问题，就是缺乏有效的监察制度，当领导人存在重大缺陷的时候，它就会比西方模式更容易在过程中脱轨。

从长远来看，我相信当中国变得更富裕的时候，它会变得更加民主，但它不会是西方目前民主制度的复制品，它很可能极具中国特色，走他们自己的路。在所有的共产主义国家中，中国人在早期建立社会主义国家的努力中，情况就是这样的。

正如马丁·雅克所言，在西方国家，政府被视为侵犯私人利益和个人自由的力量；但在中国，长期以来，政府很大程度上被认为是家长，而不是默认的敌人。这是一种深刻的文化差异，西方人需要相当长的时间才能真正理解。

Paul Smritinandan, PhD student at Purdue University
Answered 11h ago
It is misleading to think that China’s model of governance is superior to western democracy, or, any other forms of governance. Each demography is well suited towards a particular form of governance. So, what do I mean by this? More than 90% population of China identify themselves as Han Chinese. Roughly, all members of a particular ethnicity share common beliefs and values. So a one-party government model works well for China, since any policy change will resonate well with the entire Han-Chinese community. Compare this against some Western country, say UK or USA. Since there are so many different ethnicity, a one-party government will not be able to pass a policy that can resonate well with all the different ethnicity. Each demography or ethnicity will have its own sense of culture and values. For countries with many different ethnicity, democracy seems to work well. 

“中国的治理模式，优于西方民主或其他任何形式的治理”，这是一种误导。每个群体都有适合自己的特定治理模式。我想表达什么意思呢？中国90%以上的人口，都认为自己是汉族人。粗略地说，一个特定民族的所有人，都有着共同的信仰和价值观。因为任何政策的变化，都能引起汉族人的共鸣，所以一党执政的政府模式会在中国运行良好。

相较一些西方国家，比如英国或美国，因为种族众多，一党制的政府无法通过一项能够与所有不同族群产生共鸣的政策。每个族群或种族，都会有自己的文化和价值观。对于种族众多的国家，民主似乎会运作地更好。

Mo Chen  lives in China (1989-present)
Answered Thu
It’s not.
Democracy is the political system that we knew for a fact *works*.
It’s far from a perfect one, but it works.
The Chinese government… there is not yet a definitive conclusion that whatever it is trying, is *Superior* to the west. The CPC government is not static, it has its reforms and evolution at a rate no slower than China’s economic growth.
Why do you feel that it is superior?
Because our politicians don’t have the luxury of spending months and millions of taxpayers’ dollars on debating which or how many signs we should put on public restrooms and who goes which public restrooms; or how or what kind of damage to the athletes’ brain is done in popular professional competitive sports.
We don’t have the luxury to debate -
> whether we should control guns. We just ban guns. Period.
> whether we should invest in infrastructure. We just invest. Period.
> whether poor cities should receive subsidies. We just subsidize them. Period.
….,etc.
Many things are just not meant for debating and voting. Yet, over the years you made it sound like everything should be debated and voted upon.
Really?
Your Charismatic TV star politicians have broken democracy, and you are letting them.
China’s rule is not superior. The fact is that YOU LOST YOUR WAYS.

不是那样的。

民主只是一种政治体系，我们知道它是可以“正常运行”的。

它远非完美，但是它可以正常运行。

中国……无论它在尝试什么，说它比西方优越，目前还没有这样明确的结论。中国政府不是静态的，它改革和发展的速度，并不比中国经济增长的速度慢。

你为什么会觉得它优越呢？

因为我们的政治家，不会奢侈到花几个月的时间和纳税人的几百万美元，去辩论我们的公共厕所应该竖哪个牌子、竖多少牌子，去辩论变性人应该去哪个厕所，去辩论流行的职业竞技运动会对运动员的大脑产生怎样的损害。

我们不会奢侈到去讨论：

>我们是否应该管控枪支？我们禁枪，就这样。

>我们是否应该投资基础设施？我们投资，就酱。

>我们是否应该补贴贫困城市？我们补贴，就酱。

……等等

许多事情不是用来辩论和票选的。然而，多年以来，你们使得民主听起来，就是一切都应该进行辩论和票选。

真的吗？

你们那些充满魅力的电视政客明星，已经将民主破坏了，而你们却还在放任他们。

中国的统治并不优越。实际上，是西方自己迷失了方向。

Andreas Mihardja, PhD from Georg-August University of Göttingen (1969)
Answered 11h ago
Meritocracy or democracy, all will work and function well if the leaders are superior. The problem in any government is choosing or electing the leader. Choosing is the meritocracy and electing is the democracy system. 
Choosing the leader is according to a certain criteria sent and approved before choosing the leader. In prehistoric times it is the person, who is the strongest and who can lead his group into prosperity. Nowadays it could be = who is the smartest and who is the more social minded and who has the best experience in life / government. This is the meritocracy system according to the Confucius system. This system will produced superior bureaucrats that could run a country like a smooth running machine. However these people are not always superior leaders since they normally lack some important social features like appealing to the public.
In a democratic system the person who want to be a leader try to sell him/herself to the public, that they have the best features to be the leader. In this system sales persons “liars” with the best social features could become leaders. It is very seldom that the chosen one is the ideal leader. Leaders with the smartest mind and have the bureaucratic knowledge to run a country could be out maneuvered by these sales people. Sales people could sell water as whiskey and spreading money like cookies and will do anything to be elected.
The Chinese system is a combination of both the meritocracy and the democracy. Understanding the principles of the founding fathers of the PR.China is only possible by understanding the spirit of their leaders. In this case we must understand PM Zhou En Lay since he is always the political brain and indoctrinator of China. Mao is the social charismatic person and Zhou is the brain that runs the machines. By understanding Zhou we could have a glimpse of his views.
PM Zhou is from an magistrate family [meritocracy] that become a real communist in Europe When he studied in the European continent. He studied the French revolution and why it happened. He studied the doctrines of Karl Marx and many more philosophist from Germany. He followed the democracy movements in the UK and that of the USSR. He came to Germany - Berlin, when this country was occupied by UK and French. From what I have heard from the people in Germany he is not a person with many words. But strangely when he enters a group debating hot topics everybody stopped talking and listen to him. This is not only among Chinese student of his time but also among any other group of students. That is Zhou’s leaderships character. Zhou was able to mingle among the Germans themselves during a time when Germany was enslaved by other European. [According to German sources he had his only son from a German girl. He took care of his son and girl friend during his tenure until the end.] Zhou in Europe was the Chinese recruiter for the country.
The bases of his government system is therefor the old Confucius government doctrines of Meritocracy and the western style democracy like the Swiss canton system and the communist system of centralized government discipline. So if somebody is is talking about meritocracy yes some elements of it is in the Chinese system but most of democracy features he took from the Swiss canton system. This system is more or less the system used in electing the representatives to the national peoples congress. During his tenure he understand China needs a charismatic leader not influenced by western or Russian communist doctrines and Mao is the only person that fit this feature.
All the other leaders, like Deng or Chu Teh, etc are all educated in the west. Zhou is the comintern of the KMT and the communist party. The leadership of China is based on the emperor system but replaced the leadership by a group leadership so no dictator could emerge. The bureaucracy of the government from the National congress is just constructed to save time and money to govern the legislative part as efficient as possible. He added a branch of government the military next to the Judicial, executive and the legislative branches of government. The president is the supreme commander of the army. The chairman/president is the leader of the executive branch.
The day to day activity of the government is run by professionals sexted by the meritocracy system and are supposed to be non political [ big question mark here] The election of the leadership is not by direct election by the people but by their representative in the national congress based on their merits in the party and the country. So on paper it looks almost perfect by in reality manipulation of the system is done anytime and all the time.Pres. XI tried to get rid of this cronyism. This is the reality and it is still occurring behind the screen.
So it is not always sunshine and happiness in these leadership elections. Therefore if there are no correction in the system - even this sophisticated system of China could fail in the future. Crooked or fanatic leaders could emerge and cronyism could take the upper hand. No system is fool proof. This is human nature to try to take the opportunity that benefits for themselves - this is already implanted in our genes. The Chinese system works now, because the Chines people want peace and prosperity and will support any leader that give them their wishes. Pres Xi tried to control this excessive abuse of power to prevent a collapsed of the system. Money is flowing everywhere at any time with the development of China and weak leaders could become tempted. Pres. 

安德烈亚斯   德国哥廷根大学1969届毕业生 哲学博士

只要领导人足够优秀，无论是选贤任能，还是民主投票，都会运作良好的。选择领导人或者选举领导人，是任何政府都要面对的问题。选择的话，就是选贤任能；选举的话，就是民主选举。

选择领导者，是根据之前形成的特定标准来挑选的。在史前时代，领导者往往是身体最强壮的那个，能够带领他的部落走向兴旺。在今天这个时代，领导者往往是最聪明的，更善于交际的，拥有最好的人生和从政经历。选贤任能这种精英制度，遵循的是儒家体制。这种制度，可以产生优秀的官僚，他们管理国家就像一台平稳运行的机器。然而，这些人往往不是优秀的领导者，因为他们缺乏一些重要的社会特征，例如吸引公众的能力。

在民主制度中，想要成为领导者，就必须尽力向公众推销自己，这就使得他们具备了成为领导者的最佳特征。在这种制度中，最具社交能力的销售型“骗子”能够成为领导者。选出来的领导者，很少有人是完美的。那些最聪明的领导者，虽然具备了经营国家的官僚知识，但在选举中，很可能被这些销售型的人耍花招踢出局。销售型的人，他们能将水卖成威士忌，撒钱就像发饼干一样，为了被选上，无所不用其极。

中国的制度，是精英制和民主制的结合。要想理解中华人民共和国建国先贤的原则，就需要通过了解他们领导人的精神理念。在这种情况下，我们必须了解周恩来总理，因为他曾经一直是中国政治的大脑和教导者。毛主席是社会魅力型的人物，周总理是运行国家机器的人物。通过了解周总理，我们就可以窥探到他的理念。

周总理来自于一个官宦家庭，在当地算是精英了。他在欧洲大陆学习的时候，成了一名真正的共产主义者。他研究了法国大革命及其发生的原因，他也学习了马克思和许多德国哲学家的学说。当他的国家被英国和法国占领的时候，他来到了德国柏林。从德国人收集的消息来看，他不是一个夸夸其谈的人，但奇怪的是，一旦他进入一个正在辩论热门话题的小组，每个人都会停下讨论，听他说。这种情况，不仅仅发生在他那个时代的中国同学中，也发生在其他学生群体中。这就是周恩来的领导角色。当德国被其他欧洲国家奴役的时候，周恩来还是能够跟德国人打成一片。在欧洲时的周恩来，在为他的国家招募人才。

因此，他的政府制度的基础，就是旧儒家的精英统治学说+西方式的民主制度（如瑞士的州政府制度）+共产主义政府集权制度。所以，如果有人谈论选贤任能这种制度的话，是的，其中一些因素确实带有中国特征，但其中大部分的民主特征，是他从瑞士的州政府制度中学来的。这种制度，或多或少地被用来选举全国人民代表大会的代表。在他任职期间，他知道，中国需要一个不受西方或苏联共产主义教条影响的魅力领袖，而毛主席是唯一符合这种特征的人选。

所有其他的领导人，如邓小平、朱德等，他们都在西方受过教育。而周恩来则参加过国民党的共产国际和共产党。中国的领导层，是建立在君主制度的基础上，但往往是一个领导层取代另一个领导层，这样就不会出现独裁者了。政府的官僚机构来自于全国代表大会，这样的设计只是为了节省时间和金钱，尽可能有效地管理立法部分。他在政府的司法、行政、立法分支外，设立了一个军事部门。主席是军队的最高指挥官，也是行政部门的领导者。

政府的日常活动，是由精英制度选定的专业人员来执行的，而且被认为是不带政治性的（这里存有疑问）。领导层的选举，不是直接由人民来选举的，而是由人民在全国代表大会的代表来选举的，而这些代表是基于他们对党和国家的功勋被选出来的。

在领导层的选举中，并不总是充满阳光和幸福。即使是在中国这个复杂的系统中，如果不进行修正，它将来也有可能会以失败告之。歪曲或狂热的领导人可能会出现，任人唯亲可能会占上风。没有一种制度是愚蠢的。抓住机会进行修正，会给中国带来好处，这是人类的本性，这已经根植于我们人类的基因之中。中国的制度现在正在奏效，因为中国人想要和平和繁荣，并支持任何能够给予他们希望的领导人。随着中国的发展，资金随时随地都在流动，软弱的领导人可能会受到诱惑。

Erica Wong, studied Political Science & International Relations at Tsinghua University
Answered Fri
There are benefits and drawbacks to both systems. Because of the rise of China since the late 1970s, there are many who are examining the Chinese system of governance to see what can be learned and the inevitable contrasts with democracy. Daniel Bell, the Tsinghua university professor has written extensively on the topic. The China Model for example.
However, the recent mania is really being driven by the obvious failure of democracy in the United States of America. The “founding fathers” despite putting all kinds of checks and balances in place have not been able to prevent a large uneducated group in the USA from electing a charlatan as President. That this has occurred as a very competent and strong Chinese leader has emerged has made the contrast all the more noticeable.
Some of the obvious advantages of the Chinese meritocracy are competence of the leadership, less red tape in order to achieve goals, longer time horizons and therefore more strategic thinking with 10 year rule, plus an ability for a government to make choices that aren’t supported by the majority but which are deemed advantageous to the country as a whole.

这两种制度都有优点和缺点。因为中国自1970年代末期崛起后，导致许多人都在研究中国的治理体系，想看看能从中学到什么，这也就不可避免产生了对比。清华大学的教授贝淡宁，在这个话题上写过大量的文章，例如《中国模式》。

然而，最近美国的狂热，真的是由美国民主的明显缺陷导致的。“国父们”尽管制定了各种制衡措施，但还是无法阻止美国一大群没受过教育的人，选出一个骗子当总统。当一个非常有能力和强大的中国领导人出现的时候，使得这种对比更加引人注目。

中国精英制度的一些明显优势，就是领导层的能力强，为了实现目标，会减少各种繁文缛节，拥有更长的时间视野，以及长达十年的战略思维，再加上政府作出决策的能力。虽然决策有时候不被大多数人支持，但对整个国家来说还是有利的。

Kelvin Tee, works at Public Hospitals
Answered 9h ago
The Chinese always claim that their current system works for them better than any outside system. It’s got Chinese characteristics. But if you look at it closely it is just doing what the west did, which Is to limit decision making to the elites. Universal suffrage has only been practiced in the west for less than 100 years. Before WWI, only 25% of adults in the UK had voting rights. When America was founded, only the rich, landlords and the founding fathers could vote for the next president.
Now the west is replicating the mistakes which the Greeks found 2000 years ago which is to allow ordinary folks to decide on stuff. Why do we choose doctors to perform surgery instead of randomly voting for a guy to do it? Why do we pick people to play in our basketball teams? Democracy in itself is a strange concept. How would you expect the ordinary guy to understand whether we should have TPP or Brexit?
The CCP is only replicating a thousand year tradition in Chinese history. Officials for centuries needed to undergo national exams. They got promoted based on their merits in work. But the CCP has replaced the emporer with a bunch of carefully sexted leaders. Xijinping has almost 30 year experience in public office before being chosen for the job like other top guys in the politburo while Donald trump was reading a scxt to pretend he was caring for the gun victims. The quality of political debates and leaders has dropped dramatically in the west.

中国人总是声称，他们现在的制度比任何外在的制度都要好，它具有中国特色。但是，如果你仔细观察，你会发现，它只是在做西方做过的事情，那就是将决策权局限在精英阶层。普选权的落实在西方也只有不到100年的时间。一战以前，英国只有25%的成年人拥有投票权。美国成立时，只有富人、地主、和建国人士才能投票给下一任总统。

现在，西方正在重复2000年前希腊人犯过的错误，那就是让普通人来做决定。做手术，我们为什么要选择医生来做，而不是普通人呢？打篮球，我们为什么要选择篮球队员去打，而不是普通人呢？民主本身就是一个奇怪的概念。你怎么能够指望普通人，搞明白我们是否应该拥有TPP或者退出欧盟呢？

中共只是在复制中国历史上上千年的政治传统。世代以来，官员都需要参加国家考试。他们是基于工作的优异表现才得到提拔。但同时，中国已经用一群精心挑选的领导人取代了君主制。XI在进入政治局之前，已经拥有了近30年的从政经验，而此时的川普总统，还在读着剧本般的讲稿，假装他很关心枪支的受害者。西方的政治辩论的质量和领导人的素质，已经急剧下滑了。

Jenny Kim
Answered Sun
There are some very good answers here - but I’d just like to say a few other points:
China’s model, when applied to many Western countries, probably won’t work so well. As Robin Daverman pointed out in his answer, China’s model is fundamentally anti-establishment and pro-elite. Given the rage against the ‘elite’ - however nebulous the concept has now become - in Western liberal democracies, this model would cause an absolute uproar. Think the mandarins in Whitehall in the UK seizing power and reversing Brexit. Not to mention, democratic traditions are already pretty entrenched.
A massive criticism about democracy is that it produces politicians who are bound by special-interest groups and, possessing a constant incentive to seek re-election, tend to support/ implement policies that are beneficial on the short-run but bad in the long-run e.g. high level subsidies to inefficient industries, high spending on wasteful infrastructure projects. Now, some have suggested that the China model would… counter this. That is not necessarily the case. China has a promotional system too, where provincial officials with the best performance statistics (e.g. economic growth, unemployment) get a higher chance of promotion. This can also encourage local officials to spend a ton of money, falsify statistics, do publicity stunts etc. to make themselves look good. Provincial governments vastly overspend the revenue they receive and resort to land sales as a result - this could be problematic for the future.
One advantage of the China model for China I can think of is that it suppresses nationalistic populism and ethnonationalism (Han Supremacy) to a certain extent. Had China become a democracy overnight, there’s no doubt there’ll be a lot of people clamouring for a war with Japan or America - or enough people to incentivise politicians to campaign for wars. Now some generals and online nationalistic bloggers tend to say a lot of inflammatory things but the CCP likely won’t start any reckless wars for the sake of nationalistic sentiments.

这里已经有一些非常好的答案了，我只说下面几点吧：

1 中国模式，套用到西方国家的时候，可能不会有那么好的结果。正如罗宾说的，中国模式从根本上是反体制和挺精英的。在西方，由于人们对“精英”的愤怒，“精英”这个概念已经变得模糊。在西方自由民主国家，精英这种模式绝对会引起骚乱。看看英国白厅的那些官员，他们曾试图夺权扭转脱欧的进程，结果还是失败了。更不用说，民主传统在西方国家已经根深蒂固了。

2 对民主大肆批评的结果，就是会产生受特殊利益集团束缚的政治家，而且有持续寻求连任的动机，倾向于支持和实施对短期有利但对长期不利的政策，例如对效率低下的企业提供高额补贴，在浪费性的基础设施项目上支出巨大开销。现在，有人认为中国也会如此……回应这个想法。情况可能并非如此。中国也有一个晋升系统，只有那些统计数据（如经济增长率、失业率）最好的省级官员，才能获得更高的晋升机会。当然，这也可能会鼓励地方官员，造成大量的财政支出，伪造统计数字，进行浮夸的宣传等等。省政府的财政支出，可能会远超它的财政收入，这时候它就会诉诸于出售土地，这在将来可能是个大问题。

3 中国模式的一个优点，我能想到的，就是它在一定程度上压制了民族主义（大汉族主义）和民粹主义。如果中国一夜之间，变成了大汉族主义的民主国家，毫无疑问，很多人就会叫嚣着跟日本或美国开战，会有足够多的人，去激励政治家为发动战争而竞选。现在，中国的一些将军和网络民族主义者，会在网上发布很多煽动性的话语，但是中共可能不会为了民族主义情绪而发动任何鲁莽的战争。

Robin Daverman, World traveler
Answered Fri
This contradicts the official Chinese stance. The official Chinese stance is that all political systems require constant improvement and patch-up, each country should figure out what’s best for itself, so far the CCP has been good at self-correction. And by the way, there’s no such thing as “China Model”.
I can agree with this. Different countries have different history, culture, and different primary concerns, so they ought to be different. There’s no “better” or “worse”, but “what’s suitable”. The biggest calamity in the West in recent history was WWI and WWII, essentially started as a piff among royal cousins, that ended up grinding millions of young men, athletes, artists, scientists, into hamburger over a couple inches of dirt. Battle of Verdun Democracy became a matter of principle in the aftermath, as a way to prevent things like this happening again. And if not, at least get a fair shakedown from the ruling class afterwards. 
The biggest calamity in China in the last 2,000 years have been foreign invasion and internal anarchy. Both types of events easily wiped out 30% - 50% of the population. In the Sichuan province, less than 2.5% of the local population survived the Mongol Invasion. So China favors stability and strong central government. Also, keeping the most populous country over a huge piece of territory has been no small task. Nothing but the strongest internal consensus will do. So you have meritocracy.
There’s no need to make either variant into a religion. Just check to see if they are doing the job, and whether they need any patch-ups as societies evolve.
But you need to be careful here. China’s “meritocratic system” is basically National Exam as entry criteria to public service, and KPI-based promotion system afterwards. China has been using this basic government system for ~ 2,000 years. Even when it was the most prosperous country in the world, there has never been a single country that copied this system, and the chance of any country copying this in the future is infinitesimally small! That’s like asking, why can’t we copy Cheetah to Australia and why can’t we copy Koala Bear to Africa. The Chinese system basically evolved through 2,500 years (from -700 BC to now) of changing social conditions, which did not happen in other places. The vast majority of the people in other countries don’t even know what this “Chinese system” is. Instead, what I see is all sorts of political scoundrels, all over the world, using “China” as an excuse to strengthen the power of the current ruling class. This is, in fact, exactly what the Chinese system designed to ELIMINATE on a permanent basis!
National Higher Education Entrance Examination
You see, in order for someone to excel and climb to the top in the Chinese system, you need two things: you need to be super-smart, otherwise you can’t get to the top of your class; you also need to have practical experience and extraordinary work ethic, otherwise you can’t get promoted through the KPI-based system. Well, it turns out that Intelligence has a strong tendency of regression to the mean, and people who grew up in adverse conditions tend to work harder, and understand human nature and society as a whole in a more profound way. So super smart scholar-officials from relatively poor families ended up being the mainstay of China’s bureaucracy.
Thus if you look through China’s two thousand years of record of famous cabinet ministers and prime ministers, two-generation is extremely rare. Three generation is unheard of. The competition is too fierce to allow the likes of Marlboro / Spencer / Kennedy families to come into existence. This should not surprise you. Look, how many famous soccer players can pass their “superior bloodline” to their kids, even though physical traits are the most genetically inheritable, when you have a fairly obxtive criteria of being able kick the ball into the goal? Not many? Has there been even one? Or what about a father-son-grandson Olympic gold medal winners in 100 meter dash? Well, there you go. This is also why movies such as the Star Wars have such poor showing in China. This “inherited noble ability”-concept is such extraordinarily anti-common sense BS to the Chinese that it’s just too weird for popular consumption!
The Chinese system is by far the most fundamentally ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT governing systems out there. It’s designed as a peaceful periodic transfer of power - to people who are smarter, and more capable, than the current cohort. So there’s no way any ruling class in any country serious wants to adopt the Chinese system. If someone is serious about trying the “China model”, first they need to educate the citizens so that everybody is qualified to take the National Civil Service exam. Then they must recruit only from the very top 5% into government service. Then they must have everyone starts from the bottom, and only promote those who can hit KPIs based on hard numbers, like GDP growth + # of college graduates + lower crime statistics + renewable energy growth +… Is there anybody doing this? No? Well then, what “Chinese Model” are you talking about? And the hard-earned power you have, you can’t keep it in the family, you can’t pass it on to your children, you lose it as soon as you fail to perform at the highest level. Which political elite would advocate for such a system for himself?
When people say they want to try the “China model”, they are not talking about the real China. They are talking about this Authoritarian China Avatar that’s created by the Media, like you can be an unaccountable dictator or something. In reality, Xi can’t make any Politburo decision unless he can persuade at least 5 out of the other 6 Politburo members, who are all elected on their own merit and can not be fired by Xi. Because Politburo decisions require 7:0 or 6:1 consensus. Can you imagine if Mr. Trump has to persuade Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders to agree with him in order to get any decision out? Yeah, it’s like that. It would have been extremely painful for Mr. Trump. The other side of the coin is, if, say, Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sanders, all agree to push for a Campaign Reform plan, and work hard for it, that would be really powerful and will sail through the Congress too. You may even call that “authoritarian”, but that “authority” comes naturally from this level of political consensus. 
Among the ones who talk about “giving the China model a try”, there may be a few very slightly genuine ones in Africa. Usually because their country is so poor and desperate that they will endure the pain and try anything. The rest are all talking about this hypothetical China with an authoritarian ruling class, instead of the real China where great men arise out of ordinary people, and great families usually drop back to being just ordinary after 3 generations. This is when “democracy”, as it is practiced in most countries right now, is already doing a fantastic job rewarding selfishness, keeping the rich rich, and keeping the powerful powerful.

罗宾  世界旅行者

你这个提问，与中国的官方立场是相矛盾的。中国的官方立场，是所有的政治制度都需要不断地改进和补充，每个国家都应该找到最适合自己的制度，迄今为止，中共一直都擅于自我修正。顺便说一下，并没有“中国模式”这种东西。

我也同意这种立场。不同的国家，有着不同的历史，不同的文化，不同的关切，所以，它们本来就应该不一样。不存在“更好”或者“更差”，只存在“最适合什么”。

西方近代史上，最大的灾难，就是一战和二战，基本上都是皇室表亲“啪”的一声，开了第一枪，结果就是几百万的年轻小伙子丧生，里面有运动员、艺术家、科学家等，他们只能躺在那几片棺材板里，长眠于几英寸的土地里。凡尔登战役后，民主成了一个原则问题，它可以防止此类事情再次发生。即使它没起作用，至少统治阶级进行了公平的重组。

过去两千年间，中国最大的灾难就是外敌入侵和内部的无政府状态。这两种类型的事件，任何一个都能轻易抹掉中国30%-50%的人口。蒙古入侵时，四川只有不到2.5%的人口活下来。所以，中国崇尚稳定和强大的中央政府。而且，在这片巨大的土地上，支撑一个人口最多的国家，并非一件易事。所以，你得选贤任能。

没有必要将两种政体变成宗教。只需看看它们是否在正常运作，它们是否随着社会发展需要进行修缮。

这里需要敲下小黑板：中国的“选贤任能制”，个人是要参加国家考试的，这是进入公共部门的基本门槛，之后，便是基于绩效考核的晋升制度了。

这样的政府基本制度，中国已经贯彻了约2000年。即使是在中国是世界上最繁荣的国家的时候，也从来没有单一的国家复制这种制度，在未来，其他国家复制这种制度的可能性也是非常小的！

这就像在问，为什么我们不能把猎豹复制到澳大利亚？为什么我们不能把考拉复制到非洲？中国的政治制度，是经过2500年（从公元前700年至今）的时间演变而来，这在其他地方是从来没有过的。其他国家的绝大多数人，甚至连“中国制度”是什么都不知道。

恰恰相反，我看到的，是世界各地的各种政治流氓，以“中国”为借口来加强当前统治阶级的力量。这一点，实际上正是中国制度旨在永久消除的。

维基百科：中国高考



了解了“中国高考”，你可以看到，一个人要想在中国制度中脱颖而出，你需要做两件事：第一，你需要超级聪明，否则你无法在班级中名列前茅；第二，你需要拥有丰富的实践经验和非凡的职业道德，否则你没法通过绩效考核来实现晋升。

当然，事实证明，智力有很强的回归平均值的倾向，但在逆境中成长的人，往往会更加努力，往往能以更深刻的方式了解人性和整个社会。所以，来自相对贫困的家庭、超级聪明的学者型官员，最终成为了中国官僚机构的中流砥柱。

如果你去纵览中国过去两千年，那些着名的内阁大臣的名单记录，你会发现，两代当朝是非常罕见的，三代当朝更是闻所未闻。中国的竞争太过激烈了，没法形成万宝路、斯宾塞和肯尼迪这样的家族。这一点上，你应该不会感到奇怪。

当你有一个公平客观的进球标准时，看看，有多少着名的足球运动员，能够将他们的“优良血统”传给他们的孩子呢（即便身体特征是最具遗传性的）？不多是吧？能找出一个吗？

或者，你能在奥运会100米短跑项目中，找到祖孙三代都是金牌得主的吗？不能，对吧？这下你懂了吗？

这也是诸如《星球大战》这样的电影，在中国票房不好的原因。这种“通过继承得到高贵能力”的概念，对中国人来说，是非常反常识的，让中国大众花钱去消费它，也就太奇怪了！

迄今为止，中国的制度，是从根本上最反体制的统治制度。它被设计成和平的周期性权力转移，转移给那些比现在当权者更聪明、更有能力的人。所以，任何一个国家的统治阶级，都不可能认真地采用中国的制度。

如果有人真的想尝试“中国模式”，首先，他们需要让公民受到教育，让每个人都具备资格参加国家公务员考试；其次，他们必须将排名前5%的人，招聘到政府部门；然后，这些人必须从基层做起，只有硬性指标达标的人才能的得到升职，那些指标比如：GDP增长率+大学毕业生人数+低犯罪率+可再生能源增长率+……

有国家这么做吗？没有？那你还谈什么“中国模式”呢？而且，你辛辛苦苦得到的权力，你不能留给家族，也不能传给你的孩子，一旦你的政治生涯失败了，你就会失去它。试问，哪一个政治精英会为自己国家倡导这种制度呢？

当人们说，他们想要尝试“中国模式”的时候，他们谈论的不是真正的中国。他们谈论的是媒体创造出来的威权主义中国的化身，比如你可以成为一个不负责任的独裁者什么的。实际上，XI一人不能做出任何政治局的决定，除非他能说服其他6位中央政治局中的5位，而他们都是凭借自身优点被选出来的，XI是没法解雇他们的。因为政治局的决定，需要达成7:0或6:1的一致意见。

你能想象，川普必须说服希拉里和桑德斯，同意他的观点才能做出决定吗？对，就是这样。如果真这样，川普将会痛苦不堪。凡事有利有弊，有利的一面就是，如果川普、希拉里和桑德斯，他们都同意推动竞选改革的计划，一起为之努力，那形成的力量将是非常强大的，在国会中也会顺利通过这个计划。你甚至可以称之为“威权”，但这种“权威”是由政治共识自然产生的。

那些谈论“尝试中国模式”的人中，可能非洲有几个稍微真实的例子。通常是因为他们太贫穷和太绝望了，以致他们愿意忍受尝试任何事情的痛苦。其他的都是在用专制的统治阶级来谈论假想中的中国，而不是那个真正的中国。真正的中国，伟人通常都是来自普通人，杰出的家族，往往在三代以后就会被打回原形。

而在当今世界，大多数国家都在践行“民主”，在“褒奖利己主义、让富者更富、让强者更强”的方面，民主发挥着难以想象的作用。