My country, China, is now considering of a tough but necessary reform on the country’s political system. It is common admitted that China must transform to a new political system as long as the country wants to make a everlasting progress in future. The deeds, which are about how countries with modern social institution beat and eliminated countries carrying on moldering political, are not rare on Chinese middle school history textbooks. Though the change of China is a common accepted prospect, the debate about whether advanced system can give us a stronger country has never stopped since later Qing Dynasty, even up to now. The focus is: why savage people could often beat civilized people in human’s history?

What is often used as evidence doubting the usage of relatively more modern system is the sufferings of Song Dynasty (A.D. 960 ~ A.D. 1279). Chinese set up social welfare led by central government at that time, and over 70% of global business then was related to China. Additionally, a bureaucratic system and civil servant enrollment system were established in Song era. But unfortunately, Song couldn’t keep the northern barbarians on military and was then eliminated by them. Same tragedies were not hard to find in western history. Ancient Rome, a nation created so many modern social systems in history, was ruined by German, one of the most scaring savage peoples in the world then. Some historians collect all the similar stories together and reckon that a powerful strength of a country is more important than advanced social institution.

However, with the wheel of history going on, the tragedies happening on China tell the other side of history. In 1840, the UK, a country with GDP only 1/10 of Qing Dynasty of China then, sent merely 4,000 men of their navy and launched a war with China. China opened domestic market and paid 114 million £ as indemnity. Later, France, Russia, Japan, America and other countries with modern political regime fought wars with China. Of course, Chinese armies lost wars most of the time and paid billions £ of indemnity. But all these countries had less GDP of China at that time. And the men in western countries’ army were not as many as the men in Qing army. It seems to tell us that advanced social system over weighs national strength. However, another question comes: Did more GDP and more army mean more powerful?

Some experts trying to get along with all opinions are like to say both of them are important, which is a standard debate result in Chinese style. But the result can’t solve anything. Actually, advanced system is always going in advance to a powerful national strength. This rule can also be applied to the tragic history of Song and Rome. Both of these countries had relatively more rational social institutions at that time. But the problem is: both of two nations didn’t obey the good system they set at earlier age. Chinese people and officials were trapped in “universal corruption”. They bought and sold official positions regardless of the official selection process set by the government. Army and businessmen considered how to make money from illegal trades. The corruption society had little combat effectiveness and it’s no wonder why Song was eliminated. Same scene was on in Rome. Soaring inflation destroyed this country and its system. If Song and Rome had held on the spectacular political system, they would have been really strong nations instead of being ruined by savage.

But can good institution brings strength? The answer is yes. The collapse of USSR is a confirm. After Brezhnev era, the government official system was extremely corrupted. And the state-instructed economic system caused lack of goods. People’s life was rather tough. However, USSR was still the second largest economy and the second military country in the world. The military industry and projects standing for the country’s political dignity make up all the strength of the country, which was regarded as the power of Soviet Union then. But as I see USSR then was a rather weak country, without too much strength as they used had in Stalin era. Because the strength of the country can’t be judged by visible data. Just like the example of China in late Qing Dynasty. Those countries with little GDP and small scale army might be stronger than a big balloon. To compare the country’s strength, we have to know what it contained.

A country’s power is not merely related to GDP, population, natural recourse and land area, but related far more on the quality of economic growth. In late Qing era, though China was the biggest economy, but over 90% of it consisted of agricultural farming. Even today, China is the second largest economy, but over 50% of it consists of real-estate. Though western countries’ can’t manage to run GDP with 8% annually, they use new technology to motivate economic growth. Thus, China is still a weak country but western powers are still powers. Apart from the quality of economic growth, the second factor is the ability to coordinate national recourse. In short, the capacity of government. In China, Brazil and other new booming countries, the government can order the recourse of both human and goods to set up a huge project within a short time. But if same project is set in a western developed country, the government will organize many debates about its rationality and hold for a long time before it is started. It seems the governments in new market countries are more effective than developed countries. That is a big false. Speed can’t be equivalent to effectiveness. The construction in China and other new countries is rather fast, but the supervisor of quality and recourse is extremely weak. The government has few methods to make it dependable and the corruption of the construction and contractors is almost unknown to central government. Of course, the projects are the face of a country and government know little about whether they’re harmful to nature and residence. As for the arrangement of quality guarantee and reparation, at least it is in mess in China. But in developed countries, the long debate can prove its rationality, trying best to reduce its harm to residence and environment. And after its initial, government can handle the process and quality of the construction and arrange all the reparation and supervisor of it. This is what I call the “capacity of government”. The capacity of government means the government can properly arrange and supervisor the recourse used in the national construction. And the next factor of national power is a relatively feasible and beneficial human recourse distribution system. It is well-known that Gaokao and family relationship has made China lose too many talented people. The people useful can’t be arranged to a good place but the people useless are usually put at a high place. Same problem is existing in other developing countries. A country with good human recourse distribution can mobilize the potential strength of a country at any time. The last but biggest factor to make up national strength is the place the country on global industrial chain. Brazil will surpass Germany on term of GDP within 10 years. But Brazil can’t surpass Germany totally at that time. But Germany exports the highest manufacturing technology to other countries and allow developing countries like Brazil earn more from low-profited manufacturing. Same relation is between China and Japan. China’s GDP is 1.5 times of that of Japan. But Japanese technology and component almost occupy China’s manufacturing, which is a industry contributing a large part of China’s GDP. The country controlling global industrial chain control global economic activities, despite of low GDP. It is same to a common factory: the workshop produce the total revenue but board of director produce nothing. But the technology and production system is set by the board. Thus the board earn most profits.

The four factors above make up a country’s strength, most of which are invisible from economic report from government. But all these factors must be set by a government with an advanced modern political institution. That’s why China can’t make it and western countries can currently. And it also explains why Chinese economists, socialists and higher government officials are so eager to change the political system in China. This idea is universal for all countries. That a country is powerful than another doesn’t mean it has higher GDP, higher production and more army but more feasible social system. A good system can’t bring the country more GDP, but a powerful national strength. That’s why system is always going earlier than strength.