What sort of political arrangements would 1.3 billion Chinese make for themselves if they could write a real constitution?

The Chinese Communist Party, which claims 66 million members, puts on a good grass-roots show. On Nanjing Road, a main Shanghai drag, I watched as party members sat at booths, receiving comments and dispensing advice and simple health care, such as blood-pressure testing. Meanwhile, the People's Liberation Army offered other free services to all comers; uniformed soldiers sharpened knives, fixed watches, even cut hair.

Providing a few symbol-rich public services isn't the same, of course, as holding elections. In government-speak, this is democracy with ``Chinese characteristics'' - which is to say, it is not a democracy.

But it's not obvious what would happen if China held true multiparty elections. The Chinese know that the Communist Party, for all its faults, has succeeded in reversing an economic and political slide that lasted for five centuries. The Chinese flag is respected. Foreigners are again bringing tribute to the Middle Kingdom - some US$500 billion (HK$3.9 trillion) in foreign direct investment since 1980.

The other source of legitimacy for the party is nationalism. The Beijing government reclaimed Hong Kong and Macau in the 1990s. For the first time since the 16th century, no foreign colonies exist on Chinese soil. That means a lot in a land where the words ai guo zhe - love of country - are heard as often as ``God Bless America'' in the United States.

But will the party be able to hold onto its power monopoly? Observers here say that greater pluralism is inevitable - although revealingly, they don't want to be quoted by name.

But if democratization does come to China, how might it affect America? The United States, which has made ``liberty century'' its watchwords, might not be entirely pleased by what foreign democrats choose to do with their newfound power.

When democrats gained power in the Philippines, for example, they shut down two US military bases that had stayed open during decades of dictatorship. And the government of newly liberated Ukraine is withdrawing troops sent by the former neo-communist regime to help the US secure Iraq.

And what of the politics in opened-up Iraq and Lebanon, where pro-Iranian Shiite fundamentalists hold huge numbers? Moreover, as witnessed by Russia, democratic progress isn't necessarily permanent.

In China, absent honest elections, there's no way to know the truth for sure, but it seems that the party's single biggest foreign-policy plank - the reincorporation of Taiwan back into ``The Motherland'' - is a political winner among ordinary Chinese.

Which is to say, the United States, which supports Taiwan's continued independence, has probably found itself on the wrong side of China's emerging political majority.

Indeed, America seems to have done even more to alienate mainland Chinese opinion. George W Bush lobbied strenuously to preserve the arms embargo enacted by the United States and the European Union against China 16 years ago. But the EU decided to lift its embargo anyway, yet another reminder that democratic countries can choose to take anti-American positions.

So what will happen to Taiwan? The mainland Chinese say they don't want a war for reunification. But at the same time, they have made it clear that they expect the Taiwan issue to be settled, in their favor. And even if the Chinese Communist Party were to disappear tomorrow, it's hard to imagine a popular government giving up on regaining Taiwan and staying popular. Democracy is a great goal. But there are other goals in politics, such as security and prosperity.

The Chinese seem to have stumbled onto a political formula providing more wealth and well-being without much political freedom. The United States may lament China's undemocratic status quo, but it might lament even more the altering of that status quo.James Pinkerton is a Newsday columnist