A Howard W. French questioned, on International Herald of Tribute on November 2nd, 2007, if the deeply rooted American values of democracy and check-and-balance are really superior. What if Beijing is right?

I have long explained to people that China's current governance model has existed for over 2200 years. The system experienced ups and downs over these centuries and had a bad phase from mid-1800s to early 1900s. Before that, it was the most powerful and prosperous country in the world.

Jared Diamond, in Guns, Germs, and Steel, tried this China puzzle with a geographic slice. He observed that, culturally and geographically, China is homogeneous and uniform, as contrast with Europe be heterogeneous and diversified. What's most interesting to me is America's entrance to this great social experiment few hundred years ago. In a few centuries, would some comparative governmental historians make a conclusion?

A centralized, non-elective government can make fair, but not just, decisions, faster. It can sacrifice few for many — economically right decisions but sometime not humane. To avoid debilitating corruptions, China has a power transfer scheme that has worked quite well for the past 30 years.

Are democracy and freedom-of-speech good for all civilizations all the time? Americans viewed this very question as religiously condemnable. You can hardly blame them. Their mere few hundreds years of experience had hardly been tested by any serious challenges: except for now.