Why can't China have a hybrid democratic settlement?

Currently, China's politicians are involved in the 19th Party Congress in Beijing. It is at this time, every five years, that the Communist Party of China elects its top leadership. It does involve the National People's Congress (NPC) - a body of representatives elected in a cascading series of polls down through the Party membership to the local level, but which in fact has no power at all - as well as the top leaders such as the Premier, Xi Jingping. Overseas, people watch to see how the dice fall as the real deliberations of the leaders in China takes place in complete privacy, away from the public gaze.

The Party has said that it will never have a Western system of rotating governments of different parties, but there remains a latent appetite in the community for democratic power, and the opportunity to voice opinions in public on political matters. You see the strength of this appetite in the rivers of wealth leaving China for safe havens in places like Australia's property market. So far, the Party has remained firm in its opposition to a democratic process to oversee the peaceful transfer of power from one set of leaders to the next, despite the popularity of this system in virtually every other country in the world.

But what about if we allowed the Party to retain absolute control over part of the political machinery, such as the executive, and lay the legislature open to election by the general populace? This sort of hybrid system worked well enough in Britain for hundreds of years - in fact, you could say that it continues to work in Britain today, as well as in countries where the Queen of England remains the head of state, such as New Zealand, Canada, and Australia - and still allowed the emergence of other sources of power in society.

Political parties per se emerged in Britain in the years after the so-called Glorious Revolution in 1688. On the king's side were the Tories - the name apparently means "bog runner" in Gaelic - and on the side of the landed interest were the Whigs. In parliament throughout the 18th century and well into the 19th these two parties worked to determine government policy and to settle other issues such as the distribution of spoils deriving through corruption from the business of government. But the king remained at the top and continued to wield considerable power throughout this period. It wasn't really until the 20th century that the monarch's practical influence was reduced to a largely ceremonial function.

For hundreds of years, therefore, during which government was run by the King in Parliament, Britain rose to economic and strategic heights never seen before since Roman times. And a similar fate could await China if it decided, for example, to give the electorate the power to choose representatives as people living in Westminster-system countries do all over the world today. The NPC would under such a settlement become a truly representative body, and China's standing in the global community would consequently soar to unrivaled heights. Imagine how important such a development would be in terms of its strategic effect ...