The Party's Not Over

Why China's 60th birthday is nothing to celebrate.

BY JOHN LEE | SEPTEMBER 28, 2009

On Sept. 16, the blockbuster film The Founding of a Republic was released to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, which occurs Thursday, Oct. 1. Featuring more than 100 big-name mainland and Hong Kong actors including Jackie Chan and Jet Li, one of the more poignant moments occurs when the actor playing Mao Zedong holds back tears and emotionally proclaims on the eve of the rise of a new and independent country, "The Chinese people have stood up." The film then awkwardly hurries forward to December 1978, when Deng Xiaoping heralds the era of "opening and reform" in the Middle Kingdom.

It is undoubtedly a propaganda film, as would be expected of anything conceived by the Beijing Municipal People's Political Consultative Conference. But the ambitious sweep of events over six decades is a reminder of something else: The reform period since Deng took power will be nearing the completion of its 31st year -- more than half the age of modern China.

This is significant because China's leaders since Deng have been telling the world that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will soon relinquish its dominance over the Chinese economy and society, and is assiduously laying the groundwork for fundamental economic and political reform, and eventually democracy -- but only after it recovers from the chaos and destruction of the Mao years. After all, Deng famously declared that democracy was "a major condition that emancipated the mind." But the reform period of 31 years has exceeded Mao's 27 years of terrible rule. The excuse that the party will "let go" its economic and political power but for the ghost of Mao and his terrible legacy is wearing thin.

Related

China Turns 60
An FP Photo Essay.
By Lauren Seyfried

So, first things first. Why should the party "let go" more power and instead work toward building institutions that will aid political reform and eventually democracy in China? Because in one important respect, authoritarian China is failing: While the Chinese state is rich and the party powerful, civil society is weak and the vast majority of people remain poor.

But aren't China's leaders doing a magnificent job of at least leading the country toward prosperity? After all, since Deng's reforms, Chinese GDP has grown 16-fold. And isn't this ultimately for the benefit of most of the country's people? Not in China's model of investment-led state corporatism hatched after the 1989 Tiananmen protests to preserve the economic power and relevance of the party.

Surprisingly, the greatest contributor to Chinese growth since the 1990s is not net exports but domestically funded fixed investment used to buy machinery or construct buildings and infrastructure such as roads and bridges. For example, this constituted more than half of GDP in 2008 and more than 45 percent of GDP growth in that year. Due to this year's massive $586 billion stimulus, about 75 percent of growth this year -- now touching 8 percent -- has been achieved through state-led fixed investment.

But not just the high reliance on fixed investment is striking. Where the capital goes is also all important. China is unusual in that bank loans -- drawn from its citizens' deposits funneled into state-controlled banks -- constitute about 80 percent of all investment activity in the country. Although state-controlled enterprises produce between one-quarter and one-third of the country's output, they receive more than three-quarters of the country's capital, and the figure is rising. Revealingly, state-controlled enterprises received more than 95 percent of the 2009 stimulus money. The Chinese state sector currently owns at least two-thirds of all fixed assets in the country.

Feng Li/Getty Images

 

John Lee is a foreign-policy fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in the Sydney area and a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington. He is the author of Will China Fail?.

JPWREL

10:15 AM ET

September 29, 2009

Re: China

Lee makes some important points about reforms necessary in China. From such things as financial accounting standards to a uniform application of the rule of law progress needs to be made. However, in general China probably has the best system for its particular unique characteristics. It is difficult to see how an adoption of more free wielding democratic institutions would in fact increase stability given China’s massive size?

 

EOSBORNE

11:48 AM ET

September 29, 2009

poverty and lending stats

The statistical claims in the article about the (lack of) breadth of Chinese poverty reduction and the dominance of SOEs in Chinese lending are striking. I wonder what the sources are.

 

GRANT

3:43 PM ET

September 29, 2009

The party will not reform.

The party will not reform. This is not Sinophobia, this is fact. This is fact based on two simple, easily demonstrated, and time proven facts.
The first is the matter of power. Regardless of announcements of elections to be held at an uncertain date or claims that time is needed for the country to repair from a dictator, the evidence drawn from many different nations since 1945 shows that when a military or authoritarian party takes power they do not have free elections nor do they make allowances for separate parties to develop. Part of it is fear, after all the ruling party almost definitely has done many things that could earn its leading members the death penalty on trial and they want to ensure that it never comes to that. The other is self interest, the leaders enjoy power and do not like the idea that they might not have that power someday.
The second is distance. In large nations like China and Russia there have been attempts at reform on occasion, they simply have been unable to actually spread to the people who need them the most because regional governors stand in the way. They do not admit it, in meetings with central party leaders they will always show the utmost respect, but it is a long way to Beijing or Moscow. The central leader will be in the province today, but tomorrow they will leave, their assistants will leave, and easily bribed police will remain.

It is of course cruel for me to say this, but for me this is a good thing. If Russia reformed its economic and political systems it would probably be able to reach the same heights it had as the Soviet Union. The lack of corruption would save the state countless amounts of money and create a sense of trust and partnership between the state and the populace. If China were to honestly reform (and survive the liberals and conservatives) it wouldn't have to worry about the dead and displaced from pointless, inexpertly built dams. There would be less problems from the different ethnic/religious groups, and far less chance of eventual insurgency. For the United States, Russia and China may not be easy to work with but I suspect democratic versions would be more dangerous.

 

570206SHI LEI

9:27 AM ET

October 1, 2009

You might be a prophet------ but a rookie

Don't mean to offend you. Your writing is totally ridiculous.

"The first is the matter of power" ---- Don't you think you have complete double standards without principles? Equiped with military power because of china is an independent country instead of a party. Do you really consider or understand various local tranditions and Regional Autonomy for Ethnic Minorities in China? Believe you or not , we do need one party which can put aside minor differences so as to seek common ground. US is under multi-party system. What can we see? During the election season, the articiles on this website only, i may re-edit them as another . This is what you prefer??? Right?

"The second is distance" About this point, i doubt from which age do you come . Ancient Age? You do not know the internet? You have never heard about airports ? Monitoring system is nothing in your eyes or you think chinese are too fool to show their speeches to goverments? Thanks to the developed technology, the whole world is only a "town", let along a so tiny China.

Yes, i admit China has shortages in every regard. However, China is only 60 years old. It needs more time to develop and it should take time to seek a way for improvement.
Oh, i am so sorry to mention development which is a thorn in your side.

"I suspect democratic versions would be more dangerous. " Why don't you take your weapons to come to China to rescure chinese in deep water and scorching fire? Do it just like what your are doing towards Afghanistani . You are "rescuring" or "harming"?

Live and work in peace which is a commen reqirement for every citizen regardless of nationnality.

" More Dangerous" What resource do your base on?

Beside the Tibet and Human Rights, do you have others new-style??? You are that kind of old-style.

I am proud of being chinese and feel so happy that you should apply to chinese visa when your destination is Tibet. Province and Country will never grant same authority.

 

SHERMIE BARBOUR

7:46 PM ET

September 29, 2009

Great article

Great article. Too many take a bird's eye, non-analytical view. China's absolute size can be misleading. But bear in mibnd that with a country of 1.3 billion, every gain is divided by 1.3 billion and every problem is muiltiplies by the same amount.

 

J.P. SARTRE

9:45 PM ET

September 29, 2009

Mr. Lee has hit the nail on

Mr. Lee has hit the nail on the head. The CCP isn't, hasn't, nor intends to undergo any serious self-reformation. For decades the CCP has maintained its firm grip on power while foreign scholars, politicians and business leaders have tried to convince the outside world that economic engagement with China will bring democratic reforms. The truth is, the CCP won't allow itself to be changed. Here is an interesting article on the subject: http://sublimeandbeautiful.wordpress.com/

 

DEMONIZEDCHINA

9:49 PM ET

September 29, 2009

Another Western China Expert

Stupid people like John Lee and Gordon Chang think they understand China, and there are still a lot of people who believe them. That's good for China though.

 

SHERMIE BARBOUR

10:02 PM ET

September 29, 2009

Why is that good for China?

Why is that good for China?

 

LUXUN64

1:12 AM ET

September 30, 2009

Just like...

You mean in the same way that the CCP leadership "understands" Tibet and Xinjiang?

 

DEMONIZEDCHINA

9:49 AM ET

September 30, 2009

LUXUN

I agree what you are trying to say. CCP does not understand Tibet and Xinjiang very well. Ethnic tension is one of the most difficult societal problem to handle for governments. But CCP's effort to make an ethnic unity is sincere, for the good of China, not like a lot FP articles trying to portray it as evil and bad (look at those pictures FP carefully picked out, CCP, on the other side, trying to forbid bloody pictures -- urghurs killing hans -- to be published, western media is surely not very interested in this pictures). I guess CCP will continue to preach the ethnic unity, and adjust their ethnic policies.

 

F1FAN

11:33 AM ET

September 30, 2009

Reforms may be necessary, but they won't come

China, is a monolithic state, even from ancient times, whose people rarely if ever actually take their government to task and the Communist Party in China has modeled itself perfectly as the monolithic state institution that keeps people at a tolerable level of repression.

Change comes from the bottom up and most Chinese seem to be of the opinion that change is simply another word for anarchy and that the stability of the status quo makes the repression tolerable and even necessary.

 

CHINA BOY

7:32 AM ET

October 1, 2009

i love china

taiwan ,today is your mum 60 birthday ,she tell you eat dinner.so you should go home
????????60????? ????????

 

SHERMIE BARBOUR

6:44 PM ET

October 2, 2009

Military parade

Why were ordinary citizens not invited to the parade? A country scared of its own people is a weak and vulnerable one, not a strong and successful one.

 

ADAM TSUI

11:27 PM ET

October 4, 2009

The myth of “a prosperous state and strong people”

The spectacular parade in Beijing and ubiquitous celebrations across the country tell little the truth. Frenzied crowds waving red flags, excited citizens lauding the country, we missed out a billion people still ploughing sub-standard life. For the mass. the reason to celebrate is " a rising and strong country", but anyone would refrain from mentioning the life of the majority, the true base of the wealth of the nation.
Terrible is not poverty ,but the denial and deprivation of chance to rise, under a party-led system, where the wealthy and the powerful closely allied to preserve their priveledge. The once promising de-politicized scheme was soon nipped in the bud upon feeling the activated strength and aspiration of the middle-class. After 1989, under the alleged "stablization first "policy, the country was able to maintain two decades of double-digit growth, but the glory avenue of enriching the majorty has been departed.
At the mercy of the vested interest, we're begging instead of creating our wealth. People like us can be "well nurtured" at best, but never close to being "strong"!

 

ADMMIRALKUZNETSOV@YAHOO.COM

7:19 AM ET

October 10, 2009

On the impact of "reform"

If the birth and death rates of the last years of the USSR had been maintained to the present, the combined population of the USSR's successor states would be ~40,000,000 greater than it now is.

About half of this shortfall is due to births that would have occurred but did not.

About half of this shortfall is due to "premature mortality".

The Chinese government are well aware that "reform" was an unspeakable disaster for actual people in the former USSR. No amount of Western cheerleading for reform or vituperation for refusing to reform will alter Chinese government views on the topic one iota.