Op-ed: What China’s governance model can teach electoral democracies

The following is an op-ed by Mohamed Zahid, the former head of Elections Commission.

__

A first-hand reflection on governance, participation and political leadership after a 2025 study visit to China.

A 2025 study visit to China offered more than a diplomatic tour. It opened a window into how one of the world’s largest countries understands governance, public participation and long-term national planning. Through meetings with the CPC Party School, the National Academy of Governance, National People’s Congress institutions, grassroots governance platforms, the International Department of the CPC Central Committee and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the visit provided a close look Model Can Teach at the system China describes as Whole-Process People’s Democracy.

For a visitor from the Maldives — one of the world’s smallest multi-party democracies — the experience naturally invited comparison. The contrast was not simply between two political systems, but between two different understandings of how legitimacy is built, how leaders are prepared and how governments stay connected to citizens. The question was not which model should win a theoretical contest. The more practical question was what democratic societies can learn from China’s governance practices without abandoning pluralism, elections and civil liberties.

Every political system is shaped by its own history, institutions and social conditions. Yet governance lessons do not always stop at ideological borders. In that sense, the visit to China became an opportunity to examine how democratic governance might be strengthened through better delivery, stronger institutions and broader forms of public participation.

Two different ideas of democracy

Elections as the center of accountability

In most multi-party democracies, legitimacy is rooted above all in competitive elections. Citizens choose between parties and candidates, and governments can be removed through regular voting. That arrangement gives electoral democracies several important strengths: pluralism, freedom of expression, the peaceful transfer of power and space for opposition voices. These are not small achievements; they form the backbone of democratic accountability.

But electoral politics also carries well-known weaknesses. Governments can become trapped in short-term thinking, calculating policy around the next election rather than the next decade. Political polarization can harden. Long-term reforms may be reversed after a  change in government. Populism can overwhelm planning. In many countries, administrations spend so much energy winning office that they struggle to sustain coherent development strategies once in power.

China’s emphasis on participation beyond the ballot

China presents a different framework. Instead of centering democratic legitimacy primarily on electoral competition, Chinese institutions emphasize what they call Whole-Process People’s Democracy - A model that highlights consultation, policy participation, grassroots engagement, legislative feedback, and development outcomes. The argument is that democracy should not begin and end with voting. It should continue through the full policy cycle, from consultation to implementation to evaluation.

Whether one fully accepts that interpretation or not, the model raises a serious question for electoral democracies: can citizen participation be made more continuous and more meaningful between elections? That question became one of the most striking themes of the visit.

The biggest lesson: democracy must deliver

Across meetings in China, one message appeared again and again: legitimacy is not measured only by procedure, but also by performance. Officials repeatedly returned to the idea that citizens judge governance by what they experience in daily life — public services, jobs, infrastructure, stability and a visible improvement in living standards. The point was simple: people may care about institutions, but they also care about whether government works.

For multi-party democracies, this is a warning worth taking seriously. Electoral victory should not be treated as the final objective of politics, but as the beginning of governance responsibility. Citizens increasingly expect efficient institutions and tangible results. A democracy that is representative but ineffective will eventually face a crisis of public trust. The stronger model is one that combines accountability at the ballot box with competence in office.

Citizens’ participation should not vanish after election day

Another notable feature of the visit was the institutionalization of consultation at the local level. At sites such as the Qianmen Courtyard Council and the Nanmofang Legislative Contact Station, citizen input was not presented as an occasional exercise, but as part of the routine machinery of governance. Community meetings, local consultation channels and legislative feedback mechanisms offered structured ways for public concerns to reach decision-makers.

That stands in contrast to many democracies where citizen engagement peaks during campaigns and then drops sharply after the votes are counted. The lesson is not that elections matter less, but that democratic participation should become broader and more permanent.  Community councils, citizen advisory panels, legislative consultation forums, participatory budgeting and digital feedback platforms could help create a more continuous relationship between citizens and government.

Why leadership training and long-term planning matter

The study visit also highlighted two areas where many electoral democracies remain weak: leadership development and policy continuity. At the CPC Party School and the National Academy of Governance, cadre training is treated as a permanent function of the political system. Public administration, economic management, ethics, crisis response and strategic planning are approached not as optional skills, but as essential preparation for governing.

Many political parties in democracies invest heavily in campaigning while spending far less on systematically preparing future ministers, legislators and local leaders for the demands of office. Yet winning an election does not automatically equip anyone to  govern well. Political parties that build leadership academies, policy schools and youth development pipelines are likely to produce stronger governments over time.

The same logic applies to national planning. China’s governance system places considerable emphasis on continuity, with major goals often framed over 10-, 20- and even 30-year horizons. Electoral democracies frequently struggle to maintain that level of consistency.  Changes in government can bring abrupt policy reversals, shifting priorities and a heavy bias toward short-term political incentives.  For countries like the Maldives, cross-party consensus on issues such as climate resilience, education, infrastructure and economic diversification could help protect national priorities from electoral turbulence. 

Meaningful local governance and implementation are where trust is built

China’s grassroots governance mechanisms offered another practical insight: many public concerns can be handled most effectively at the community level. Like in almost all Local government systems, China’s local institutions are often tasked with resolving disputes, gathering public feedback, responding to service delivery issues, and maintaining social cohesion. In many democracies, however, national politics dominates public attention while local governance receives far less investment and prestige.

Related to this is the issue of implementation. Throughout the visit, there was consistent attention to monitoring, performance evaluation, accountability and administrative capacity. That focus matters because many governments are capable of writing ambitious policies but far less capable of delivering them. Good governance requires more than vision. It requires institutions that can execute policy consistently, measure results and correct failure before public confidence erodes.

For democratic states, the implication is clear: stronger local councils, better service centers, more professional civil services, rigorous participatory project monitoring systems, and, more importantly, consistent policies can do as much for democratic legitimacy as any campaign slogan. Democracy feels most meaningful when citizens experience responsiveness in their everyday lives. 

What this means for the Maldives

For the Maldives, the lessons from China are not about importing a foreign political or democratic governance model. They are about strengthening democratic practice at home. Legally and implementable structures to harness citizen consultations could continue throughout the year instead of appearing only during election seasons. Political parties could invest more seriously in training future leaders. National consensus could be built around long-term priorities such as housing, climate adaptation, healthcare, education, and economic diversification. And the civil service could be further strengthened so that policy implementation improves regardless of which party is in office. 

It should also consider strengthening a multiparty democratic governance system focusing on a consultative process among parties rather than a confrontational or undemocratic competitive one. 

There is also value in maintaining political dialogue across borders. One of the more striking features of the visit was the emphasis placed on exchange, mutual respect and learning across systems. No country has a monopoly on good governance ideas. Democratic systems can remain true to their own principles while still borrowing useful practices from elsewhere. 

Learning without copying

The central conclusion from the visit is neither ideological nor simplistic. China’s governance model and competitive electoral democracy are built on different political foundations and should not be confused with one another. But comparison is still useful. It helps clarify what democratic systems may be missing, especially when it comes to implementation, continuity and participation beyond elections.

The strongest democracies are unlikely to be those that focus only on competition for power. They will be the ones that combine political accountability with state capacity, citizen voice with administrative competence and electoral legitimacy with visible public results. For small democracies such as the Maldives, that balance may be the most important governance challenge of all.

China’s experience, viewed in that light, is not a blueprint to copy. It is a case study to examine — one that encourages democracies to ask harder questions about how they govern, how they listen and how they deliver.