Chinese Economics and Democracy . Part Two

In Part One (27 November), I reflected on the Chinese political system and the economic development during the 'openning up' period of the last 30 years inaugurated by Deng Xiaoping covering political, economic, social, and cultural reforms under the achievements made at the Third Plenum of the Eleventh National Party Congress Central Committee in December 1978. Western governments that have come to power through a mix of electoral democracy, economic power brokers, vested historical institutions and societal elitist groups appear to have produced governments which have not secured their economic systems sufficiently to avoid recession, economic insecurity and national indebtedness (mainly to China). Has China, with its single party and its "participatory democracy" provided a more secure and careful economic framework appropriate for a country that had to undergo a new revolution following the death of Mao? By most economic measures, China has performed better. (Social and legal measures still badly lag the West which I shall cover in Part 3). The latest news, supporting this claim, is that the international bank valuation rankings table of 2009 based on price-to-book multiples shows four Chinese banks in the top five slots (Itaú Unibanco of Brazil was number 4). In 2000 Bank of New York Mellon was number one (now it's China Merchants Bank) and Lloyds was number two followed by four US banks. Goldman Sachs has fallen from number 6 in 2000 to number 22 in 2009. According to the FT (11 January), investors believe that the average bank is now worth no more than the value of its balance sheet. Such indicators might be construed as demonstrating that the Chinese political system with all its controls has, for all its many weaknesses, managed China's banks and economy better than the Western political regulatory systems. Discuss.

China is increasing the level of democracy and participation in its regions at different rates but its form of 'participatory democracy' is not based on 'free' elections. "It is misleading to pin democracy on free elections" writes Prof. Xiong Lee in the China Daily (28 November 2008). To what extent is it possible for the breadth of public opinion to be reflected through an election every four years when the likely winners have been pre-selected by small groups of local parties influenced by party central control (I speak of the UK, by the way). Some the UK's best and most loyal servants have not been elected but have commanded respect through their gifts and abilities. At the EABIS conference held at Cranfield in September 2008 and at a conference held at the Warsaw Stock Exchange in October this year, appreciation was expressed for the work of the Prince of Wales for initiating and framing the engagement of business leaders on societal and environmental issue based on agenda to serve the needs of the societies in which they trade. The International Business Leaders Forum and Business in the Community are two examples of his work. In the House of Lords, the noble Baronesses Scotland and Ashby wield considerable influence and neither are in their positions through "free elections". I wonder if such individuals would have submitted themselves to the brutishness of election campaigning. It is interesting to read a Chinese critique of the Western way of 'doing democracy'. Here is Professor Xiong Lei again:
"The election campaign in typical Western style, can well be manipulated by people with money and power. Individuals without due resources are unlikely to get anywhere in the power echelon unless they are well established among the political elites with considerable financial backing."
Sounds like a PPE essay title. Discuss.