A very limited version of democracy has emerged, but the kind of liberal democracy the demonstrators were demanding in 1989 remains a distant prospect.
Unlike Tiananmen, the demonstrators of Tahrir Square were supported by the army, support that was crucial to the overthrow of Egypt’s Mubarak. What has happened is a military takeover and although the prospects for some kind of quasi-liberal democracy appear quite good, they are in no way guaranteed.
The situation in neighbouring Libya is much more unsettled, where tyrant Colonel Gaddafi desperate to cling to power. When he went on television on 22 February vowing to crush revolt, he referred to Tiananmen Square as a precedent.
The obvious question is this: Will the Chinese youth follow the path of their Egyptian and other Arab counterparts by reviving the Tiananmen demonstrations? Already, a call has appeared on a website outside China for weekly low-level demonstrations in 13 cities, ultimately leading to a ‘jasmine revolution.’ This has naturally caused nervousness in the Chinese government.
There are some obvious parallels between the situation in much of the Arab world and China — corruption, youth unemployment, rising living prices, serious and worsening economic and social inequalities to name a few. But China is very different from the Arab world, making a revolution extremely unlikely anytime soon.
China is a rising power with a rapidly growing economy from which a great majority have benefited. Some have benefited considerably more than others, but most are better off than what they were. Overthrowing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is also not a logical step toward solving the problems of unemployment and corruption, and could even make matters worse. It would almost certainly lead to an economic slowdown.
Economic advancements aside, it also seems that the Chinese people today talk much more freely than they have done in the past. Although ordinary life in China brings with it many restrictions, these are being reduced with the passage of time — and they are incomparably fewer than half a century ago. The press is censored but is still much more diverse and open than it used to be. Blogging has also become fashionable, with people expressing views in ways unimaginable not so long ago.
Another reason for doubting any jasmine revolution is that the government and CCP still have a great deal of support in China and there is no realistic alternative government. The advocacy of democracy in Charter 08 and the granting of the Nobel Peace Prize to imprisoned dissident Liu Xiaobo do not loom nearly as large among ordinary Chinese as Western media might suggest.
For all its corruption, the Chinese state is still very strong and well organised. It can and does tread quickly on any signs of opposition it believes threatens its rule. Its control of the internet is among the most pervasive of any country in the world.
It also has many redeeming features. It is no longer based on a single personality, such as Mubarak, let alone a tyrant like Gaddafi. It responds positively to the practical concerns of ordinary people. Despite its faults, it has led China to a high position in international affairs. And ordinary Chinese tend to regard their leaders as reasonably well-intentioned individuals. What hatred they feel toward officials is directed at local authorities — not those at the head of government.
Of course there is no reason why democracy could not coexist with the essence of Chinese culture. But the current conditions simply do not portend a jasmine revolution anytime soon.
Colin Mackerras AO is Emeritus Professor, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Australia and Chair Professor at Renmin University of China.
Unfortunately, man does not live by bread alone so that an otherwise innocuous event can push him to react disproportionately. But why would others line up behind this lone rebel? Colin’s argument overlooks preference falsification in authoritarian states. The masses are perhaps always waiting for the lone rebel. It was only he who is not sure of himself.
The argument also presumes that people who benefit economically from a regime are likely to be loyalist. But history suggests that more often than not the challenge comes from within the circle of beneficiaries. The list of such rebels is really very long. In short, the argument made in the article would have been unobjectionable if we are willing to make another assumption, namely, the Chinese are textbook Homo oeconomicus.
If economic factors indeed weighed out the rest then the American government should be running for cover after Tunisia. After all their economy, as we are repeatedly told by EAF contributors, is really very bad relative to its own performance in recent past. But US politicians or officials are not asking people to ignore the Arab protests. Neither have we seen increase in force deployment in public spaces in USA. “Surprisingly”, it is CPC that went into defensive mode despite all its economic achievements toward which Colin has rightly drawn our attention.
Further, Colin suggests that CPC has substantial mass support. But then there are many Chinas. So, which China is behind CPC? What if just one of the Chinas is prepared to stick its neck out?
“ordinary Chinese tend to regard their leaders as reasonably well-intentioned individuals. What hatred they feel toward officials is directed at local authorities — not those at the head of government”
Now think of the following: Local authorities face protests and are unable to check them. The dear leaders send in forces, which leave a few dead and a few others disappeared. It just takes this little to engender hatred toward the head of government. And all this happens in a few hours.
Last but not the least we are told that people are unlikely to rebel if there is no alternative: “the government and CCP still have a great deal of support in China and there is no realistic alternative government”. But once again history suggests that when people rebel then such strictly rational calculus takes backseat.
Now let us look at the situation from the CPC’s perspective. Does it believe that people are behind it? Does it believe that people think that there is no alternative and that in absence of an alternative they will not rebel? Does it believe that people will take its economic performance seriously when faced with a call to rebel? The answer is NO (at least following the way CPC and its media empire has responded to the developments in the Arab world). And in this big NO lies the key to change. Strong states do not fall apart due to opposition (if they did then our assumption that they are strong will not be valid.) Rather they fall apart when the rulers begin to (a) doubt their capacity to suppress the masses (even in absence of a significant change in the balance of power between the state and people) and/or (b) lose the desire to continue to rule by force.
Vikas mentioned,”Colin suggests that CPC has substantial mass support. But then there are many Chinas. So, which China is behind CPC? What if just one of the Chinas is prepared to stick its neck out?” Indeed, valid questions.
However, the same logic can apply to any other country, be it U.S.A or India. In fact, any country on this planet faces risks of collapsing some day. But people are mesmerised by the collapse of a re-rising China. In fact, it’s been 20 years and counting, that some ctitics have been working hard on predicting the doom day for China.
The very reason for U.S not collapsing right now is that it has a mature civil societal base, which consisits of three main elements: church, universities, and other civil actors. In the case of India, the caste system ensures a very low level of political consciousness and awareness among the real mass (be it low caste people, such as those considered ‘untouchable’), therefore the country still remains relatively stable despite massive extreme poverty present. (But for those who are conscious in the some eastern states of India, the state has been facing some difficult challenges in pushing them back.) Without it, India would have been drawn into a real mess.
Professor Mackerras’ article draws some reasonable conclusions about China’s political future. Certainly, living in China and seeing for himself helps his insight a great deal, unlike others who have not yet even been to the country but like to make comments, despite how convincing they look from the surface.
Jack rightly draws our attention to India’s restive regions and also to the fact that my claim regarding CPC’s stability ignores other countries. As Henry Hale pointed out, multi-national states like the USSR fall apart when the core province/constituency is no longer willing to keep the federation together. (Hale’s argument is particularly valid for multi-national states with a strong government/centre. Let me clarify that I am using strong in relation to the capacity to protect territorial/coalitional integrity rather than capacity to provide public goods.) The same applies to countries like India, China, Indonesia, and Pakistan; also to Indian provinces like Manipur, J&K, and Assam. It also applies in a weaker sense to the multi-national coalition headed by the United States or the multi-national EU. I didn’t refer to these other cases as Colin was focused on just China. But my closing note on strong states does not preclude other possibilities mentioned above.
I am not sure if I understood “very low level of political consciousness and awareness among” the low caste people, which is preventing India from being “drawn into a real mess”. The present President of India is from one of the lowest castes (so was KR Narayanan, the one before Kalam), so are the present Nat Human Rights Com chairperson and Parliament Speaker. The outgoing Supreme Court Chief Justice and University Grants Com Chairperson were also from some of the lowest castes. The chief minister of the largest province is from one of the lowest castes and is one of the strongest prime-ministerial candidates for 2014. Without adding names, I would suggest that all these incumbencies would not have been possible with “very low political consciousness and awareness among” the low castes. In any case, the lowest castes have a much better voting record than other castes.
While I agree that first hand experience is important. I am not sure if first hand experience would affect the validity of one’s observation that despite defying doomsday predictions for over “20 years and counting” CPC still feels jittery the moment protestors starting filling market squares of Swaziland and Djibouti. And that this says a lot about CPC’s self confidence and the purported impossibility of Chinese Jasmine revolution in the near foreseeable future.
Incidentally, some of those who go for firsthand experience and return with observations that do not support CPC’s position are likely to be denied visa in future. Also, to continue to be in business in China a foreigner has to restrain his critical eye. Wasn’t the US ambassador’s name blocked recently on the internet? (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/25/us-china-huntsman-idUSTRE71O11620110225) So may be foreign journalists, teachers, and businessmen face greater constraints. Would this imply that a foreigner’s first hand experience has limited value when it comes to domestic political issues of China?
Let me end by noting that no one outside China benefits from CPC’s dramatic meltdown because it will be a huge setback for global economy, raise the risk of proliferation of weapon’s of mass destruction, etc. So, most would in fact wish to see gradual changes in China. But just because no one is going to benefit from an event, etc does not imply that the event is impossible!
Firstly, by stating that ‘very low level of political consciousness… into a real mess’, I meant that the Indian people in lower castes in great part do not even know or desire that they can and should ask for more than merely voting tickets. In fact, many observers even considered these votes to be a sham, filled with corruption and empty promises, and consequently of no value for improving the living conditions of the poor mass. Vikas can certainly point out some illuminating examples of the great political achievement of the lower caste people in India. But if one asks about the percentage of lower caste people controlling power in India, (I mean ‘power’ in a much wider sense) I think my observation will prove right.
Secondly, as for CPC doing a job of unifying and governing over 1.3 billion people, it takes more than confidence,;it needs prudence and avoidance of over-confidence. Some people like to use the word ‘insecure’ to describe CPC, so as to imply a prediction of ‘China doom’ is secretly echoed within the Party. The same logic can apply to almost every other case in the world when a government takes precautious measures to prevent from whatever may happen, happening. Being over-confident and without precaution you results in terrible incidents such as Bombay Attack, It depends from what angle one looks at the subject matter: the people of the ‘glass half full’ see it as ‘prudent’, the people of ‘glass half empty’ see it as ‘insecure’.
Thirdly, first hand experience is certainly just one element among many in making a valid observation. One certainly has to be equipped with a good sense of history concerning the subject matter. All the Chinese government censorship and threats that Vikas mentioned above are possible, but they must be considered in their specific context, (e.g. it is clear that the US ambassador had an undeniable role in the little ‘gathering’ in Beijing recently) and consideration has to be given to great historic and societal context as well, given China is such a massive and diverse country, and there are many ‘unstable elements’ in play and many lessons to learn from other countries’ failures and successes.(e.g.USSR and India to name a few)