When I was in middle school, I learnt from the history books that keju ( a competitive examination system to select government officials in imperial China) had done more harm than good ever since 15th century. That is why I was a little surprised to find a foreigner trying to draw on this system to put forward a political proposal for China’s future. In his Beyond Liberal Democracy, Daniel A. Bell, a professor of political philosophy teaching and living in Beijing, tries to show how a bicameral structure can be built based on the influence of a competitive examination system in Chinese history.

The basic idea is that an upper house composed of people selected through a nation-wide competitive system will be awarded substantial power to restrict the power of a lower house composed of democratically elected representatives. Democracy, in terms of ‘free and fair competitive elections under universal franchise for occupants of those posts where actual policy decisions are made,’ is far from being perfect. The demands of modern and complex society are sometimes beyond the abilities of ordinary people and the will of the majority may harm the interests of the minorities. Taking into the consideration that less than 6 percent Chinese have received higher education and Han Chinese, the major ethnic group in China, account for 92 percents of the whole population, the democracy in China may not work the same way as some western observers hope.

For instance, because of the powerful influence of the historical experience in the past, most Chinese will not accept the separation of Taiwan. Democracy in Taiwan has already led candidates to challenge mainland by verbal attacks, and worst of all, by visiting the Yasukuni War Shrine in Japan where major war criminals in Second World War are mourned, in order to get advantage in the election. It will not be too difficult to foresee in the future that democracy in mainland China will also lead to the adoption of similar tactics. In the worst scenario, both sides will suffer great loss. This is why an undemocratic upper house where people do not need to consider the attitudes of the voters can make things better by making independent, wise and moral decisions.

Of course, it may not be appropriate to assume that integrity has anything to do with how much education one has received or whether one can score high in the examinations. An upper house composed of people selected through a competitive examination system may not be much different from an upper house comprised of people selected by drawing lots. Still, why shouldn’t we find some wise guys if other factors are all out of control? Objections may be raised that people who can beat exams are not necessarily real wise but examinations are still a more reliable or the only feasible way to find some talent where candidates are presented in millions.

I am not sure how readers would judge this kind of proposal as such an upper house is far from any definition of democracy. But it seems fine to me. It does not mean that I am devoted to this proposal but such an undemocratic upper house is an acceptable alternative to me. It is really difficult to put oneself in other’s shoes if you do not share their way of thinking. For instance, I strongly believe that adult children should be legally forced to support their parents and I can still remember how surprised I was when I heard for the first time that it is not true all over the world. But this worldwide fact that adult children are not legally obliged to support their parents does not shake my belief at all. In the same vein, I can imagine how surprised some readers may feel when they read this kind of proposal for an upper house which is not supposed to play ritual roles but to enjoy substantial power.

‘It is truly interesting,’ some readers may say, ‘but we are more interested in how a democratically elected lower house can be realized.’ Well, to be frankly, I do not know. But I do know what I am concerned about, the difficulty to find a job, the soaring price of housing, the expensive cost of medical care, the corruption…Can democracy turn China into Luxembourg who enjoys the highest per capital GDP in the world or into Finland who ranks first in Transparency International annual report or can it help students to find jobs after graduation? Perhaps such an ambitious expectation should never be held and we should pay more attention to our counterparts who have similar social and economic conditions, India for example. When I complained about the corruption in China to an Indian friend, however, he told me that corruption is everywhere in India. Perhaps we should wait and our patience will be finally paid as democracy will in the end bring prosperity and minimize corruption. The long-term benefits will overweigh the short-term cost, as I was told by an Italian professor of politics after he gave a lecture in Beijing. Even if it is true, there is still one problem left which ironically represents the influence of Western thought in the past twenty years, that is, why should I sacrifice the interests of my generation including me for the benefits of the next?

Although I personally prefer abstract political theories including the above proposal put forward by Daniel A. Bell, it does not follow that I do not care about the real life. One and a half years ago, it was only several months before the graduation and everybody was busy searching for a job. Most people were not in cheerful mood. One day, I received a phone call in my dormitory and a female voice with a foreign accent said, ‘listen to me, the government will collapse…’ It was sad that I did not know what she was going to say as I hanged up the phone. I should apologize for my rudeness but I hope the readers can understand a man who lacks adequate experience to respond to such announcement like ‘you are fired’ or ‘you can never find a job.’ Perhaps next time she should begin with ‘listen to me, I am offering you a job.’