People of all countries hope that their governments offer good governance. But the quest for the ideal government that offers good governance has not been very successful. Winston Churchill is reputed to have said, “Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” But that famous quote has certainly been proved false by now. Electoral democracy per se has not been able to contain abuses of power and serve the basic interests of the people. A careful and objective study of public governance in America and in China would give us food for thought.
Governments wield power. Lord Acton (1834-1902), reputed as one of the most learned Englishmen of his time and called “the magistrate of history”, wrote: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Surprisingly, he did not applaud electoral democracy. On the website of the Acton Institute can be found some of his observations about democracy.
“Democracy generally monopolizes and concentrates power.”
“The common vice of democracy is disregard for morality.”
“For it is a most striking thing that the views of pure democracy ... were almost entirely unrepresented in (the American) convention.”
The problem with electoral democracy is that while appealing to most people because it gives them a false sense of empowerment, it ignores the weaknesses in human nature. Bad people covet power for their own good. But good people who want to serve the country can hardly compete with bad people in elections. This is why preventing abuses of power is much more important than universal suffrage. In 2010, I published a book with Professor Brian Bridges, my political science colleague at Lingnan University, titled, Public Governance in Asia and the Limits of Electoral Democracy (published by Edward Elgar). We wrote in the introduction: “If there is a lack of effective public governance, positions of power would easily be used to serve the self-interest of the powerful at the expense of the public … An important theme of this volume is that governance is paramount … Preventing those in power from abusing their power is fundamental to upholding democracy.”
Recent developments in China and America have strengthened my belief that good governance trumps universal suffrage. Although it is nice if people get a sense of empowerment by having the vote to elect leaders, what really matters is whether their governments deliver such things as universal healthcare, education, freedom from discrimination, freedom from violence, adequate accommodation and employment opportunities.
In a recent unpublished article I and my co-authors argued and presented evidence that there is no irreconcilable “clash of civilizations” between the East and the West as Samuel Huntington suggested, because there are great minds both in the East and in the West, not only in ancient times but also in modern times, who know what connects humanity. Unfortunately, because of the advent of an adversarial culture in the West in the past five centuries, great minds in the West are routinely sidelined. Lord Acton is one. John Rawls (1921-2002), who stressed “justice as fairness”, is another. Jane Mansbridge, who wrote Beyond Adversary Democracy (published in 1980) and Jason Brennan who wrote The Ethics of Voting and Against Democracy, both published by Princeton University Press, are contemporary great minds in the West who understand human nature and who tout good public governance over electoral democracy.
Both the World Bank (Worldwide Governance Indicators) and the World Justice Project (Rule of Law Index) listed the necessary qualities for good public governance. The former listed the following six: voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence/terrorism, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. The latter also listed six: government powers are effectively limited by the legislature; government powers are effectively limited by the judiciary; government powers are effectively limited by independent auditing and review; government officials are sanctioned for misconduct; government powers are subject to nongovernmental checks; and finally, the transition of power is subject to the law.
These indicators suggest that governments with good governance should be politically stable, respond to people’s needs effectively, regulate effectively, and have laws that ensure fairness and efficiency in the private market and an absence of corruption among government officials, as well as a transition of power subject to the law. None of these indicators require the ballot box.
Recent developments in China and America have strengthened my belief that good governance trumps universal suffrage. Although it is nice if people get a sense of empowerment by having the vote to elect leaders, what really matters is whether their governments deliver such things as universal healthcare, education, freedom from discrimination, freedom from violence, adequate accommodation and employment opportunities. China is not just good at manufacturing and tech. China protects the environment and practices ecological preservation. China still has many shortcomings, but our leaders keep trying to serve the country better. How about America? Four years ago, the transition of power according to the law was threatened by some people who were eventually convicted, but President Donald Trump pardoned them as soon as he took office as US president for a second term. The US not only supported Israel’s ruthless destruction of Gaza, but vetoed the two-state solution which could bring peace, justice, and fairness to the Middle East. President Trump should make good use of his opportunity to play fair as a great statesman.
The author is an adjunct research professor at Pan Sutong Shanghai-HK Economic Policy Research Institute and Economics Department, Lingnan University.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
