What Exactly Is “The Chinese Ideal?” A Discussion of Daniel A. Bell’s The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy. By Daniel A. Bell. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015. 336p. $29.95. China, also known as “the People’s Republic of China,” is indisputably the world’s most populous country and also a rising superpower on the world economic and political stage. In The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2015), Daniel A. Bell argues that China also represents a distinctive “model of governance” that is neither liberal democracy nor authoritarianism—a “political meritocracy.” Expanding on themes developed in a number of previous books, Bell outlines the logic of this “model;” compares it, rather favorably, to liberal democracy, especially as a regime well suited to Chinese history, culture, and political experience; and also considers, briefly, its more general relevance to the politics of the 21st century. The issues he raises are relevant to students of comparative politics, democratic theory, world politics, and U.S. foreign policy. And so we have invited a range of political scientists to comment. Baogang He doi:10.1017/S1537592715003291 The China Model engages with the grand task of reconcil- ing democracy and meritocracy, which is significant for both China and the rest of the world. The book begins with an examination of four tyrannies of electoral de- mocracy (Chapter 1), followed by a discussion of an alternative model of political meritocracy (Chapter 2), and the problems associated with political meritocracy (Chapter 3). After arguing that both electoral democracy and political meritocracy alone are deeply problematic, Chapter 4 recommends a hybrid model of democratic meritocracy. (I feel that Bell should write a new Chapter 5 to further examine the internal tensions of democratic meritocracy.) The great strength of this book, in compar- ison to current mainstream political thought, is that it articulates an ideal model of democratic meritocracy using political imagination that is not constrained by reality. It is full of political wisdom, insights, andvaluable judgment. The book provides a sympathetic understanding of China’s political development using the language of political meritocracy. Rather than adopting the language of authoritarianism to criticize China, the book uses political experience and experiments in Singapore, China, and the rest of the world to criticize electoral democracy. Thus, Chapter 1 will be extremely irritating for some liberal democracy believers. A deeper reading of his book, however, reveals that the book is not conservative, nor is it an apology for the CCP, as some commentators often assume. The book is radical in that it revives the Confucian tradition of political meritocracy and develops an ideal model of democratic meritocracy, against which the current political system and practice can be measured and criticized. To follow the Confucian tradition of remonstrating friends, I offer an empirical-based conceptual critique of Bell’s work. I believe that an ideal model of democratic meritocracy ought to be empirically based. Bell acknowl- edges that his method is based on “extensive reading in the social sciences, philosophy, and history” (p. 11)—that is, he relies on secondary sources. His book would be a classical work if it had solid empirical evidence and support. Bell examines a number of mechanisms such as examinations, the peer rating system, and social skill, but overlooks a number of mechanisms and local innovations in China such as the three-ticket system, public recom- mendation, and elections in China. These experiments demonstrate China’s efforts to reconcile democracy and Baogang He (bghe@ntu.edu.sg) is Professor of Public Policy and Global Affairs at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. © American Political Science Association 2016 March 2016 | Vol. 14/No. 1 147 Review Symposia