"All is not well in the People's Republic." So proclaim China-watching Hamlets around the world. They seem to have ample evidence. Six months before the 18th congress of the Chinese Communist Party when a major transition of leadership is to take place, a political earthquake is riveting the nation.
Bo Xilai, one of China's most prominent leaders, a member of the Politburo and son of one of the founding fathers of modern China, was removed from his position as party secretary of Chongqing. The actual circumstances that led to Bo's fall, whether results of power struggle or illegal conduct, are shrouded in secrecy; his ultimate fate remains in limbo -- he has so far kept his membership on the Politburo. Yet, at this stage, speculating about Bo's downfall or future is less productive than understanding the two ideological forces that form the political context in which the Bo incident could be at risk of becoming a perfect storm. So far, neither has gained dominance. But if one of them should occupy the center stage of Chinese politics, the consequences for China and the world would be disastrous.
Two extreme ideological forces have been dismayed by China's tremendous achievements since Deng Xiaoping launched his reform. On one side are the leftists who believe China has lost its socialist way in its head-long pursuit of market economics and want the nation to go back to its past of a completely state-owned economy and dogmatic Leninist rule. On the other side are the liberals who just cannot live with the fact that China is succeeding without multi-party elections and a Bill of Rights. The noises they are amplifying seem, at the moment, to be deflecting our attention from the extraordinary progress China has gained in the last three decades and the underlying consensus that made it possible.
The leftists are in tune with the general sentiments of the Chinese public in its desire for political stability and equality. An abundance of polling data show the Communist Party enjoys a high level of support among the Chinese people for its remarkable performance. Its meritocratic governance has earned substantial admiration for its leadership. During the much reported protests in Wukan, the highest banner held up by the rebelling villagers read, "Long Live the Chinese Communist Party!'
Yet, a virulent strand of populism infests their thinking. They seem to be completely blind to the unprecedented accomplishments of market-oriented reforms in recent decades and blame the byproducts of rapid economic development, such as corruption and the wealth gap, on the market economy itself. It matters little to them that even the worst-off in today's China are better off than they were a generation ago. The leftists have erroneously interpreted Bo's policies in Chongqing as a wholesale return to the Leninist past. His apparent downfall has enraged them as they see it as an ultimate betrayal by the Party.
The liberals are no less pathetic. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, they have advocated the idea that no country can succeed without multi-party elections and human rights. Year after year, they have predicted the imminent collapse of China. Year after year, China has continued to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, its economy vaulting to the second largest in the world and its people living in prosperity unprecedented in history.
The economists within the liberal ranks are in sync with the reality that market economics forms the underlying foundation of China's success. Yet, their economic position has been hijacked by political ideologues who insist on linking market economics to the political system of liberal democracy. They live in an ideological vacuum in which the market cannot function without voting. They are completely blind to the fact that a most vibrant market economy has been growing leaps and bounds under one-party rule. These liberals are pre-maturely celebrating Bo's removal as a precursor to a liberal democratic color revolution or at least a "peaceful evolution" prescribed by John Foster Dulles for the former Soviet Union. Through their euphoric celebrations of Bo's demise, it seems that they are seeking to will their wish into reality.
There is only one thing amiss from the loud pronouncements being made in the international media and Internet chat rooms by both sides: Vox Populi. In the past three decades, a powerful consensus within Chinese society has been forged: Continuous economic reforms that promote market forces is the only path that will deliver prosperity to the Chinese people; political stability grounded in one-party rule is the only guarantor against extreme populism and national disintegration; a continuously reforming and meritocratic Communist Party is the most viable political organization that can lead the nation in its renaissance. China's political system may not be ideal, but it is best among all realistic alternatives.
On the eve of Bo's removal, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao spoke to reporters at the end of the National People's Congress. With the mentioning of Cultural Revolution and political reform, his words stirred up sensational eruptions in international newspapers and online forums. But of course, such speculation is widely off the mark. Any sensible person could see that, under the current political structure and social conditions, it is nearly impossible for China to return to the Cultural Revolution. The Prime Minister's reference to it actually reflects a widely shared fear of chaos resulting from a potential subversion of the current system. The Chinese term is zheteng -- ideological struggles that risk overturning the ship. As to political reform, the Prime Minister said nothing of the sort. He pointedly said "political structural reform". The word structural, in the lexicon of Chinese politics, means reforms that make the current system work better, not fundamentally changing it.
In this highly political season, an unexpected political drama has intensified an ideological confrontation between two extreme ends of China's political spectrum. Their voices are loud. Will their tempest be allowed to disrupt China's path? If so, catastrophic consequences would ensue: another Cultural Revolution could indeed be possible with disastrous chaos worse than those that befell post-Soviet Russia. In such a scenario China, instead of being the growth engine of the world, will become its greatest burden. But this needs not be. In all likelihood, talks of a pending political implosion in Beijing are greatly exaggerated. The quiet and steady currents of China's mainstream, along with the common sense of its leadership, will almost certainly continue to guide China on its path of pragmatism and moderation. The tide of history favors the large center. And the tide of history shall prevail.
This piece was published in the South China Morning Post on April 3rd, 2012.
Good luck with that and its longevity.
No, China is not stable... it is a manipulated stability... just like most countries, but to an extreme...
Who caused the famines? Mao Zi Dong... who caused the population explosion? Mao Zi dong... the last 30 years have been due to investment from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Europe, and the U.S. ... opening up was the obvious thing to do... The Party claiming it was all their doing is the biggest lie. Just like China defeated the Japanese in the war... a lie... the war-crimes committed by the Americans fire-bombing Tokyo and the 2 nuclear bombs did that... or like the lie that The Communist military forces fought great battles with the Japanese... it was the Guomindang soldiers who fought these and died... and yes, in Wukang, thee villages held up the ideal of a real party allegiance to a an authentic party, but not a corrupt one, which they had lived under for decades... wake up!
Speculation is dished up by people who obey an allegiance to their ethnicity and where they were born, rather than to truth and justice... this is the very proof of bias!
This is China's stability: jailing crippled lawyers to keep the Xicheng demolitions going...
I bet Eric X. Li won't be visiting Ni Yulan in jail, nor writing about it.
"A Chinese court has jailed a high profile rights activist who is disabled due to police mistreatment for fraud and "making trouble".
It is Ni Yulan's third prison term since she angered officials by defending the rights of people whose homes were demolished due to new developments, including those moved because of the 2008 Olympics.
The 51-year-old's supporters believe the latest charges were further retaliation for her activism and have attacked the two year and eight month sentence as illegal, unfair and inhumane given her deteriorating health. She normally relies on a wheelchair but lay on a bed and used an oxygen machine during her trial.
Her husband Dong Jiqin was also sentenced to two years for causing a disturbance. The couple were seized during a sweeping crackdown on activists and lawyers last year, which saw many formally detained while others simply disappeared for weeks or months...." You can read, so by pasting the URL, you can read the rest, right?
He also seems bent on portraying something called "a Chinese political consensus" that surrounds the word "stability." He should have gone one step further and used the word "harmonious."
Without any freedom to express their wishes in an independent fashion, how does Eric X. Li know anything that he writes is true... there is not a contestable knowledge-base in China for Chinese citizens to mull over. And China doesn't have a true Internet, but a facade of one, a Party-sanction intranet... What are China's citizen's "true opinions" based on? True intranet ID'ing doesn't help the expression of "real opinions."
And how would a venture-capitalist from Shanghai know anyway... ? Those that have a different view to Eric X. Li find themselves in jail for "subversion of the state." Lest we forget!
Eric X. Li writes too much in the abstract.
Spending some time walking up the Hutong where Zhao Zi Yang was disappeared under house for 16 years might cure Eric X. Li of his euphoria over a so-called Chinese consensus on steady business as usual.
Since it's Qing Ming, let's remember the memory of the still dead Constitution of the PRC, shall we?
Yeah, he watches FOX News. That's all the "Truth" he needs.
Perhaps you had better re-read what I wrote, because there is nothing in it that talks about what is right or wrong with China, except a reference to China not following her own Constitution... in fact, there was nothing mentioned about "the rule of the Party" in what I wrote... just that there are other freedoms in the Constitution that are dead and have never seen the light of day. Why don't you mention these in your reply? Are you afraid of them?
And yes, I am very confident in the knowledge I access. Perhaps you should read the comments of Wen Jia Bao and Hu Deping, and others to see what the liberal elements are saying. Then go have a discussion with Zhou Yong Kang and Wu Bangguo and about stability. Or are you so young that you can't remember Zhao Zi Yang or Hu Yao bang? Eric X. Li is very acceptable to the The Party... him living and working in Shanghai is not a qualification for writing what he has... "truth through facts," shall we? So how do we get those facts squared off?