In Powerful, Different, Equal: Overcoming the Misconceptions and Differences Between China and the US (2019), Peter B. Walker argues that China’s absence of public elections for top officials does not equate to a dictatorship, as is often assumed in the West. Rather, the country functions as a complex meritocratic system, where the authority of leaders stems from their proven skills, experience, and the endorsement of their peers[1]. Leadership selection emphasizes consensus-based decision-making and strict performance assessments, ensuring that officials advance based on competence instead of popularity in elections.
Historical Roots of Meritocracy
The historical roots of meritocracy in China trace back over two thousand years to the imperial examination system, which emphasized competence and moral integrity in the selection of officials. This system influenced global civil service structures, inspiring aspects of the European Enlightenment and the British civil service. In modern times, the Communist Party of China (CPC) has institutionalized meritocracy through its cadre system, promoting leaders from the grassroots to ensure experience, competence, and long-term training. Compared with Western democracies, where leaders may ascend rapidly in their 40s, East Asian meritocracy prioritizes long-term cultivation and institutional knowledge. By fostering capable administration and tempering populist tendencies, meritocracy complements social equality and underpins a stable foundation for effective policy implementation.
A key principle underlying China’s governance approach is that institutional effectiveness takes precedence over ideological purity. While Western experts often evaluate developing countries against idealized “first-best” models, China has focused on pragmatic, context-sensitive institutions—such as township enterprises and fiscal decentralization—that deliver results under specific conditions, even if imperfect. This pragmatic orientation emphasizes that systems need not be ideologically flawless to achieve practical outcomes, offering a valuable lesson for countries navigating “second-best” developmental challenges.
Neutral government is another cornerstone of China’s developmental strategy. By avoiding permanent favoritism toward particular interest groups or classes, the state can pursue long-term economic growth rather than short-term patronage. The CPC achieves neutrality through meritocratic selection, depoliticization of governance, and social policies promoting equality. This alignment of political autonomy, institutional integrity, and societal participation allows the government to invest in high-productivity sectors, even when such decisions temporarily exacerbate inequality, while remaining focused on overall societal development.
China’s path demonstrates a pragmatic, historically grounded approach to development, integrating social, political, and institutional dimensions. For other developing countries, lessons include fostering social equality, implementing meritocratic mechanisms to ensure competent leadership, prioritizing institutional effectiveness over theoretical perfection, and maintaining government neutrality to prevent interest group capture. By emphasizing pragmatism over rigid ideology, China’s experience highlights the importance of adaptable, evidence-based strategies that align governance, social structures, and economic incentives for sustainable growth.
The Structure of Advancement in China’s Political System
The rise of senior leaders in China often follows a stepwise process, with provincial leadership roles serving as key stepping stones. Many top figures, including Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping, advanced through provincial positions, reflecting how the Communist Party of China (CPC) grooms cadres through progressively greater responsibilities. Provincial leadership acts as a testing ground, providing officials with practical governance experience and demonstrating their potential for central leadership roles.
China’s political system is marked by the close integration of the Party and state apparatus. At every level, the CPC leads the government, and Party secretaries generally hold the highest authority, outranking government officials such as mayors, governors, or ministers. This dual structure, often described as a “double helix,” illustrates the parallel and overlapping roles of Party and state, where the CPC controls major decision-making, policy direction, and personnel appointments. Notable examples include the dominance of the Politburo Standing Committee in political decisions, the authority of local Party secretaries over municipal and provincial governments, and the centralized control of the military through the Central Military Commission, chaired by the Party General Secretary.
Advancement within this system is rigorous, multi-dimensional, and peer-reviewed, akin to leadership selection in global corporations. While nepotism and favoritism can occur, the high turnover and rotation mechanisms—such as the roughly 60% turnover every five years at the Central Committee level—promote accountability, prevent entrenchment, and enhance administrative effectiveness. This structured, merit-based progression ensures that leadership development remains dynamic and responsive to the Party’s strategic needs.
Comparing Hu Jintao and Xi Jinping’s Careers in U.S. Political Terms
Mapping the career trajectories of Hu Jintao and Xi Jinping into a U.S.-style political scenario highlights the importance of grassroots experience and state-level leadership in preparing for national office. Hu Jintao began his career in provincial construction and engineering departments, a path analogous to working as a city planner or regional public works director in the United States. He then advanced to serve as Party Secretary in Guizhou and Tibet, which could be compared to holding the governorships of two U.S. states sequentially, such as New Mexico and Nevada, where he developed a reputation for disciplined and pragmatic governance. This combination of technical expertise and executive experience at the state level positioned him for elevation to the national stage, ultimately becoming General Secretary and President—parallel to serving as Vice President and then being elected U.S. President.
Xi Jinping’s career, by contrast, emphasizes an even more grassroots-oriented beginning. His early years as a rural laborer in Shaanxi resemble a U.S. figure who starts as a Peace Corps volunteer or works in rural community development in the Appalachian or Midwestern regions. He later held successive positions in Fujian and Zhejiang provinces, advancing from vice mayor to provincial Party chief—a trajectory akin to serving as a city mayor, state senator, lieutenant governor, and finally governor of a major state such as California or Texas. Xi then became Party Secretary of Shanghai before ascending to General Secretary and President, which mirrors the path of a U.S. politician who governs a critical state before moving on to the presidency while also taking on prominent national security or military leadership responsibilities.
Viewed in U.S. terms, these trajectories reveal two key patterns. First, grassroots experience—even in challenging or humble circumstances—provides a foundational understanding of governance and public service. Xi’s early labor in rural areas is a rare example of such formative experience among top leaders. Second, state-level leadership serves as a crucial proving ground for federal office. Hu’s extensive “governor-like” experience in two provinces demonstrates how managing diverse regional challenges equips leaders with the skills necessary for national governance. Together, these narratives underscore a universal principle in political career development: sustained performance and credibility at lower levels of governance are essential stepping stones to executive leadership.
Accountability Without Public Elections
A common critique of China’s political system is its perceived lack of accountability due to the absence of public elections. However, accountability can be achieved through performance-based meritocracy, even without electoral mechanisms. In China, frequent turnover at senior levels often exceeds that of elected bodies such as the U.S. Congress, preventing the entrenchment of individual power.
Rotational assignments further limit the formation of long-standing power structures, while peer evaluations and centralized performance assessments provide robust internal checks and balances. Together, these mechanisms create a system in which leaders are held accountable through structured performance metrics rather than direct public voting. This illustrates that accountability does not necessarily depend on elections; it can be cultivated through organizational design and collective oversight aligned with collectivist principles.
Comparing Meritocracy to Electoral Democracy
Western observers often favor the electoral model—“one person, one vote”—because it reflects individualistic values and the principle that leaders should be directly accountable to citizens. Yet electoral democracy has inherent limitations. Elected officials may be constrained by low voter turnout, campaign financing challenges, and partisan gridlock. Winner-takes-all systems can distort representation, and finding qualified candidates is not always straightforward, often necessitating compromise.
In the United States, electoral democracy aligns with cultural values emphasizing individual choice, competition, and public accountability. In China, however, a different set of values—collectivism, societal stability, and performance-based legitimacy—renders meritocracy a more natural and effective system. By prioritizing competence and collective outcomes over direct electoral approval, meritocratic governance provides an alternative pathway to accountability and effective leadership.
Cultural Compatibility and Sustainability
China’s political system demonstrates a high degree of cultural compatibility and sustainability, reflecting the country’s historical and social context. Chinese citizens tend to prioritize performance, stability, and collective welfare over electoral participation at the national level. The government’s track record—marked by sustained economic growth, poverty reduction, and social stability—has generated strong popular support. Given these cultural and historical factors, it is highly unlikely that China will adopt electoral democracy for senior government positions, though local-level elections and limited forms of participatory governance continue to exist.
A distinctive feature of China’s political economy is the intertwining of Party and government operations. At the local level, Municipal Party Secretaries often hold more influence than mayors and directly oversee major economic initiatives. Shenzhen, for example, owes much of its transformation from a small fishing village into a technological hub to the proactive role of its Party secretaries in promoting innovation zones, infrastructure projects, and reform agendas. Similarly, within state-owned enterprises, Party committees are institutionalized, guiding strategic decisions and personnel appointments alongside corporate management. In firms such as China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), the Party committee plays a decisive role in determining investment priorities and leadership, ensuring alignment with national policies and Party objectives.
Compared with other political systems, China’s model is unique. Unlike the rigid central planning of the former Soviet Union, China combines political centralization with significant local economic autonomy. While the United States operates under federalism, it grants less direct control over economic resources and regulations at the local level. China’s hybrid system allows the central government to maintain strategic oversight while empowering local actors to pursue tailored economic development, creating a balance between stability, efficiency, and responsiveness that is difficult to replicate elsewhere.
Strategic Implications of Governance Models for Other Countries
Effective governance requires balancing state-building, nation-building, and the rule of law. State-building emphasizes competence and capacity, such as taxation and law enforcement, while nation-building focuses on legitimacy and citizen loyalty. The rule of law ensures impartial enforcement of regulations. Countries often excel in one area while lagging in others; for example, China demonstrates a strong state but limited democratic participation, whereas the United States exhibits robust democratic institutions but occasional bureaucratic inefficiencies. Understanding these distinctions is critical for assessing political stability and long-term development.
Political decay represents a gradual erosion of state effectiveness, distinct from sudden collapse. It often stems from elite capture, polarization, institutional rigidity, or failure to manage social and economic complexities. Western democracies, such as the United States, may also face governance challenges due to relatively early political advancement, where individuals can attain high office with limited practical experience. Such dynamics highlight the importance of institutional mechanisms that ensure both competence and accountability in leadership.
Meritocracy offers significant lessons for governance and development. By selecting leaders based on capability and experience rather than popularity, meritocratic systems help tame populist tendencies that can undermine long-term national welfare. Competent leaders improve government efficiency, effectively implementing policy, managing resources, and responding to crises—an advantage particularly salient in rapidly transforming economies. Furthermore, meritocracy embedded in ethical frameworks, such as Confucian traditions, promotes moral integrity, reducing corruption and reinforcing public trust.
The strategic implications of combining meritocracy with social equality are profound. Expanding educational and social opportunities broadens the talent pool from which leaders are drawn, while meritocratic selection ensures capable, impartial governance. This synergy supports stable economic growth by utilizing human capital effectively, maintaining functional institutions, and mitigating short-term political pressures. In developing countries, the primary threat to democracy may not be authoritarianism but unchecked populism. Meritocratic institutions provide a mechanism to channel political power responsibly, balancing citizen participation with competent administration and long-term policy stability.
Conclusion
China’s government operates as a meritocracy rather than a conventional dictatorship. Leadership legitimacy is grounded in performance, experience, and peer assessment, rather than popular elections. This system is deeply rooted in over 1,300 years of Chinese tradition, reflecting a collectivist cultural framework that emphasizes social harmony and effective governance.
Internal mechanisms of accountability ensure that leaders remain competent and responsive. High turnover, rotational assignments, and rigorous peer evaluations create continuous oversight and incentivize results. In this context, the concept of electoral democracy, as understood in the West, does not fully capture the Chinese model. Instead, legitimacy is derived from demonstrable performance and tangible social outcomes, illustrating that political systems are culturally specific and that governance effectiveness can be assessed through multiple criteria beyond popular voting.
References
[1] Powerful, Different, Equal: Overcoming the Misconceptions and Differences Between China and the US. Peter B. Walker, 2019