RECENTLY, the Shanghai Daily carried comments by Chinese leaders to the effect that China did not intend to carbon-copy Western forms of government, but that China must continue to pursue its own unique course by supporting governmental structures best suited to China's unique history and culture.

In the West, much is made of the assumed virtue (and supremacy in concept) of democratic states. But I believe any such discussion can be made more useful by beginning with the perceived purpose of government.

If government is intended primarily to protect the rights of the wealthy elite, then even a democratic form is meaningless. If, on the other hand, citizens desire to attain balance and harmony among the basic rights and interests of all, then those forms and structures which best enable that to happen are to be preferred.

For most of Western history, territories were ruled by kings; nation-states as we know them were a much more recent development. Kings were thought to rule by "divine right" (eg, in the name and authority of God), and were formally charged with the welfare of all of their people (as they interpreted that mandate, of course).

Initial steps towards more "democratic" structures (as we view them today) were really efforts to both circumscribe the powers of those kings as well as to enhance the status of merchant and land-rich classes. As societies became more complex, and more of their components demanded a "voice," governmental institutions evolved to both reflect and channel these new realities.

The word "democracy" comes from the Greek word for "people," demos. The philosophical concept is that in a democracy "the people rule." Throughout history, however, there have been problems with, and conflicts over:

Precisely who are "the people"? How do you determine what the people (or their various components) "want"? Is what the people "want" right or best for all, and who makes that determination, and with what authority?

As China grapples with numerous issues, including continuing to refine the performance of its government at all levels, perhaps some of what we have experienced in the West (specifically, the US) could be of use.

Those Americans we have come to call "the Founders" of the United States (meaning those most influential in designing the Constitution of the Republic) were very learned men keenly aware of the "lessons" of history.

They attempted to build a more just government based upon the lessons they drew from the experiences of previous republics, including that of ancient Rome and the failed parliamentary monarchy in Great Britain (as they saw it) of their time.

They had many concerns about whether any democracy could long survive, however. While they believed that self-government could easily flourish in smaller settings (such as villages and counties), they were gravely concerned about how representative democracy could realistically function over greater distances and more intricate structures.

Powerful interests

They anticipated the struggles between competing economic, social, and political forces. While they hoped to harness them in a manner sufficient to achieve the "greater good," they were wary about what their reading of history taught them - the inevitable rise of powerful interests which would tend to control government for their selfish purposes.

The same "factions" which James Madison hoped would counter-balance each other were also those which, in the case of Great Britain, had coalesced around the monarchy and, in making such an alliance, worked to frustrate any greater democratic impulses of the Parliament.

Alexander Hamilton, for one, saw history's course as strongly warning that democracies tended over time to degenerate into either demagogic states (where the "masses of the people" followed populist leaders playing upon their lesser instincts) or some form of oligarchic states which were effectively ruled by powerful economic elites. The United States has witnessed the reality of both of these variances since its founding.

In addition, there are two other aspects of the form of democracy that have caused more difficulty than our Founders anticipated.

The first is the constant state of electioneering that makes it very difficult to conceive, let along achieve, long-range goals.

The original goal of frequent elections had been to keep "the people" in control of their governments by mandating regular accountability elections. But the communication media in the 18th century was profoundly different than today's. Today, campaigning and political posturing never ends.

This has serious implications for actual governing: we must plan for future events, and not be concerned solely with immediate concerns. Such future planning sometimes calls for moving - and leading - beyond what the public may feel comfortable with. The kind of long-range planning so demanded by our times - in energy, the environment, cooperative international ventures - seems to be beyond what our current government can even attempt to discuss, let alone devise and implement options.

Wealthy elites

The second factor is related to the demagogic/oligarchic problem: with the wealthy elite able to amass staggering sums of money to support "their" causes and the candidates supporting them, a large segment of the demos has no effective way to voice its concerns - this is especially so for those who are poor or effectively disenfranchised.

In other words, those for whom addressing "social justice" issues would mean the most in improving their station in life are precisely those whose "voice" is either muted or nonexistent. The United States has a two-party system, of course (and other minor or issue-specific parties often play a more significant role in local elections), but no party effectively represents the needs of the "left out" levels of society.

So what might any of this have to do with China? While the form of China's government structure is not "democratic" as in Western models, the functioning of your government - and its declared policy objectives - suggest that a broader point of view is necessary.

Your newspaper's pages reflect an energetic society of involved citizens, including netizens, who seem to feel quite free about criticizing various government policies and practices. A vigorous press, which gives voice to the powerless as well as the powerful, is one of the necessary institutions without which any government intent upon serving all of its citizens will struggle.

Further, your next five-year plan, coupled with the pledges of government officials at many levels, suggests the serious intent for greater inclusion of those presently failing to "catch up," as well as recognizing that much must yet be done to address the environmental consequences of rapid development and increasing urbanization.

This is truly impressive. The differences between our peoples' aspirations are less than some would make it seem. The desire for a more inclusive and just society, for achieving a sustainable balance between "development" and preserving the environment, and a wish for lasting peace unite us.

I also think the West needs to better understand China's oft-repeated wish that different states respect each other and allow for other models of development. "One size," indeed, "does not fit all."

(The author was a member of the Iowa state House of Representatives. He also served in the Iowan executive branch. He retired in 2004. His email: gloster@iowatelecom.net)