China's political system has undergone a significant change over the past three decades and is now close to the best formula for governing a large country: meritocracy at the top, democracy at the bottom, with room for experimentation in between, says an article in London-based Financial Times. Excerpts:

There is a good case for popular participation at local levels. People usually know what's needed in their communities and they have a good sense of the competence and character of the leaders they choose. In fact, most Chinese participate in local-level elections.

In a big country, however, one person, one vote is problematic. From a moral point of view, citizens should vote for the common good because their votes affect not just themselves but other people as well. Yet voters tend to vote with their pocketbooks. Many cannot even do that well, since they lack economic competence. One group of voters - the rich - has a better understanding of economics and finds it easy to skew the system in its favor.

So how should leaders be chosen at the central level? Ideally, the process should be meritocratic: the mechanism should be explicitly designed to choose leaders with superior competence and virtue. Over the past three decades or so, the CPC has gradually transformed itself from a revolutionary party to a meritocratic organization.

When it comes to political systems, Western opinion leaders are still stuck in a narrative of dichotomy: democracy versus authoritarianism. But the competition in the 21st century, as scholar Zhang Weiwei says, is between good and bad governance. China has developed the right formula for choosing political leaders that is consistent with its culture and history and suitable to modern circumstances. It should be improved on the basis of this formula, not Western-style democracy.