Wake Up and Smell the Jasmine

Instead of stomping out every faint sign of unrest, Beijing should get ahead of the curve and embrace real political change.

BY NICHOLAS BEQUELIN | MARCH 1, 2011

If anything, however, the lesson the rulers in Beijing are drawing from the Middle East is that they have it right. The kinds of challenges they face -- cooling off the economy while creating millions of new jobs every year, rebalancing growth and reducing disparities, urbanizing tens of millions of rural migrants every year, and building a welfare state -- are not inherently political. They are technocratic. The only political debates within the party leadership are about timing and priorities within the existing system, not about if or when to start a democratization process.

In fact, the crackdown witnessed over the past few weeks is more a show of force than anything else: The party is confident it can arrest, detain, disappear, and put under house arrest an ever-growing number of activists without having to pay a price in the international community. And, unfortunately, Beijing seems to be correct about this.

After all, what penalties have been imposed on the Chinese government for having detained Liu Xiaobo's wife since October without legal justification, an unprecedented event in the entire history of the Nobel Peace Prize? Is the Chinese government paying any price for the thuggish treatment of the blind legal activist Chen Guangcheng, imprisoned at his home since he was released from prison last September? Has any foreign government expressed public concern at the alarming news that Hu Jia, the health rights advocate and laureate of the 2008 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, will also suffer house arrest when he is released from prison this June? Has any government expressed public disquiet at the enforced disappearance of no less than four prominent rights lawyers -- including Teng Biao, a 2007 recipient of the French Republic's human rights prize and a lecturer at one of China's top universities? The list could go on, but the answer is always the same: No.

The silence of the international community actually encourages Beijing to continue to lower the threshold of tolerance it has for activists in the country, contributing to the rise of the security apparatus in recent years. The battle lines are increasingly clear: the security barons, who oppose legal reforms, versus the citizens who are increasingly demanding precisely such change.

And here lies the real source of anxiety of the Chinese leaders: Nothing short of a communications revolution is taking place on their watch, radically transforming social attitudes and expectations. Mobile phones and the Internet are profoundly transforming how citizens see themselves and their degree of tolerance for the arbitrariness shown by the state. Legal awareness is turning into legal activism, and growing expectations reflect the fact that China can no longer shut out its citizens from the global community and from major international developments. The Great Firewall is hardly an impermeable barrier these days.

For the political police, this revolution is creating growing headaches. Stationing a few policemen at the door of a dissident and monitoring his phone was enough to silence him in the past, but today nothing short of a kidnapping will effectively take an activist off the grid. Twitter has become the virtual heart monitor of civil society activists across the country; a silence of a few hours is enough to spread the news of a likely arrest by the police. In that sense, the large-scale clampdown prompted by calls for a Jasmine Revolution shows that the police are beginning to lose the information battle.

Even if the kind of mass popular protests witnessed in the Arab world in recent weeks are still far off in China, the growing chasm between the facade of a "harmonious society" and a much more checkered reality will inevitably lead to greater social volatility. As the Chinese government faces the inevitable weakening of its control over information, there is a great risk that it will choose to further empower the security apparatus to crack down on protesters, civic activists, and legitimate expression of dissent. The fact that the total budget for domestic security is now as high as the budget for national defense, according to a study by Beijing's Tsinghua University, certainly points in this direction.

The real antidote to either an uprising or a dangerous crackdown would be to rekindle a legal reform process that would open the way to genuine respect of the fundamental rights of Chinese citizens and the progressive curtailment of the arbitrary power of the state. That is something that has become, if not an immediate demand, at least a shared longing in Chinese society. The rulers in Beijing would be well advised to take note before today's murmurs of unrest turn into a roar.

PETER PARKS/AFP/Getty Images

 

Nicholas Bequelin is a Hong Kong-based senior Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch.

JACKO XINJIANG

8:57 PM ET

March 1, 2011

It seems that off-shore

It seems that off-shore commentators and the handful of mainland dissadents cannot come to grips with recent surveys from the Pew Research Centre showing that over 80 percent of mainland Chinese are happy with the direction of the Chinese govenment and also approve of government internet control.
it must be a great disappointment for Bequelin and others to see that Beijing and Shanghai with a combined population greater than Egypt failed to attract enough protesters to make a basketball team.
If free elections were held in China this weekend, the CPC would be back in business next Monday

 

JBROCKLE

3:21 PM ET

March 2, 2011

Well if that's the case...

...then they don't have anything to be afraid of! The paranoid actions of the Chinese government suggest that maybe that aren't quite as unwavering in their confidence as you seem to be.

As for me, I don't really care. China's system seems to work for them, their government is too powerful for anyone except the US to have any real leverage over. The Chinese people are responsible for their own destiny. If they ever decide that they want democracy then they'll have to pay a price in blood I suspect.

 

NICK_GREEN

11:50 PM ET

March 1, 2011

Jackie Chan "Chinese like to be controlled"

A few years ago, I always wondered why the Chinese do not rise up against the communist dictatorship that robs the basic human rights of all humans - to vote and elect their governments.

But now, I started to understand why the vast majority of Chinese do not oppose the communist government in China and happy to be controlled by the Chinese communist party. The main reason is CULTURAL: As Jackie Chan said, the Chinese people prefer to be controlled and even tamed by strong government because of the Confucian cultural values of obedience to officials. Individual freedom is not important for the ordinary Chinese people, and they give up their freedom for government care of their lives.

Therefore, the communist dictatorship in China is consistent with Chinese cultural values of obedience and discipline.

China probably never ever be a democracy!

 

BIG BOY

9:57 AM ET

March 2, 2011

Misunderstanding

First, I would like to point out the misunderstanding that people have when referring to different political structures.

You referred to "Communist Dictatorships", which is a wrong characterization. I see many people that doesn't understand the difference between dictatorship, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. A dictatorship is a form of government where power is exercised through one person (a dictator). Authoritarianism is a governmental system in which individuals are subjected to the power of the state (either through one person or a small group) whereas totalitarianism is a system of government where the state exercise power over every aspect of life. Totalitarianism is like a stronger form of authoritarianism and you can be both totalitarian and a dictatorship or authoritarian and a dictatorship but you can't be both totalitarian and authoritarian.

So China is not a dictatorship but rather an authoritarianism one-party state. The difference being that there is no "dictator" because power is not held by one person but rather a small group of people. It is also not totalitarian because it doesn't control every aspect of life.

To understand the difference, during Mao's rule, China was totalitarian and a dictatorship because power was held by one person (Mao) and the state controlled over every aspect of life. Next when Deng ruled, China was a dictatorship (although not as harshly as others) but was authoritarian because it no longer dictated every aspect of life. Now moving to the current leadership, China is no longer a dictatorship because there has been 3 different presidents since Deng's rule and in 2012 there is to be another leadership change so there is no "dictator". However it is still an authoritarian system.
Therefore it is not a "Communist Dictatorship".

Now going to your next misunderstanding. If you are going to use a cultural argument at least use it correctly. It is not that the "Chinese like to be controlled" but rather that there certain customs that have to be adhered with respect to Government and Citizens. The old Confucian system of ethics states the relationships that exists between different systems in society. The Five Bonds (relationships) are Government to Citizen, Father to Son, Husband to Wife, Elder sibling to Younger sibling, and Friend to Friend. The participants of each relationship is expected to follow their respective roles and if they do there is harmony but if they don't then there will be disorder.

Specifically referring to the Government to Citizen relationship, the Government is expect to govern with law and compassion and the Citizen is expected to obey to decision of the Government. But this system only functions if the Government does what it's role expects it to do and as long as it follows the right path, it has the right to rule. As soon as the Government strays from the proper course, then it no longer has the consent of the the people. So it is no an arbitrary "Chinese like to be controlled" but rather there is a system of respect that both the Government and the people follow to preserve harmony.

Also, Confucius believed in the "Mandate of Heaven" by which the ruler(s) of China received the legitimacy to rule by consent of the people because it does a good job and as long as the rulers ruled with competences and lead the people to prosperity it had the right to rule. But if it is corrupt and incompetent then it will lose the Mandate of Heaven and the right to rule and the Mandate is passed to another ruler.

So it is not a simple "culture values of obedience and discipline" but rather a system where both sides have a role to fulfill and both sides recognize each others roles.

Anyways, even giving this clarification, I don't think as many people as you think adhere to this system in modern times but even if they do, you do not seem to understand the system to be a proper critic.

Finally, issues always arise in comparing systems of government. If you want to compare different systems, at least start in a neutral position. Most people just automatically assume that democracy is the "right" system and all others are "flawed" and so they have a bias right from the beginning. Each system is going to have their pros and cons and people have the right to debate but at least try to get rid of as many biases to have a comprehensive discussion.

 

PUBLICUS

1:03 PM ET

March 2, 2011

Fascist 21st century dictatorship

Big Boy you read like an out of date 20th century textbook. The chit-chat about what constitutes dictatorship, a dictator, authoritarianism, totalitarianism and the like takes us nowhere. You are trying to capture the shadows on the cave wall while ignoring or missing the fire.

The 21st century CCP-PRC has redefined fascism. Directly counterimposing itself against Marx, who enivisaged the (eventual) withering away of the state, Beijing has elevated the state to be the eternal and absolute supreme entity. The CCP in Beijing has turned Marx over in his grave and uprighted Hegel who before Marx's time propounded that, "The State is the march of God through history."

The CCP in Beijing constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship. It is a 21st century fascist force because it is a collective dictatorship, it is racist, it rules by diktat, it is reactionary in respect to the Age of IT, it is a controlling force over the mind and will of the people by means of censorship and its enforced prohibition of disapproved information to the sheeple it rules. The CCP in Beijing has willfully and whistfully tossed the "Mandate of Heaven" onto the trash heap of history. The CCP rules for itself and its own interests only - we see this in the massive overreaction by the enormous state apparatus of oppression, surpression and repression as surveyed by the author.

While mainland young people increasingly dislike then eventually detest the CCP, they are not enough of a force in a country of 1 400 000 000 sheeple and against an absolutist state. The CCP, as with all other previous emperors and dynasties of Chinese emperors, frames life in the PRC in terms that are historically and culturally familiar to the sheeple of China, i..e., one either obeys or disobeys. As ever, the consequences of disobeying are swift and severe.

Any time the Chinese youth stir or seem restless to Beijing, Beijing trots out the old bogey man that if the CP doesn't rule China, then a bunch of farmers will end up taking control. The Chinese will lose Tibet and Taiwan will be lost forever etc etc. The (hated) Japanese will dominate; almost as bad, the Chinese will have to "obey" the United States. It's the same old and tired siren wail.

The CCP is a new and young dynasty, a dynasty in business suits, a dynasty that because it is so young and is struggling to dominate in the Age of IT is a nervous dynasty, a very edgy gang of corrupt and ruthless thugs. Deng was as ruthless as Mao or any other previous emperor of China as we recall it was Deng that gave the order to slaughter Chinese in Tienaman Square in 1989, the action that told all Chinese (to include in the long term for Hong Kong) that democracy is verbotten in China. And what would the mainland Chinese do if they were to attain democracy tomorrow or at any forseeable time? (They might have to turn to the democrats of Hong Kong and Taiwan, horror of horrors, and Singapore too.)

Jackie Chan says more that is applicable to China over the past 5000 years to the present and forseeably than Marx, Engles, Hegel, Deng or anyone else could ever say in a million years.

 

MARTY MARTEL

9:43 AM ET

March 2, 2011

NO, Thank you.

That is what Chinese authorities and even a plurality of Chinese themselves have to be answering to this Nicholas Bequelin’s imaginary ‘Chinese roar’.

By all appearances and even facts, today’s Chinese society is far more happier and wealthier, thanks to the economic lifeline that U. S. gave to China’s Communist dictators way back in 1972.

As such, that Nixon-Kissinger embrace has strengthened Communist Party’s hold on Chinese society by allowing it to adopt a capitalist model under party and state authority. Opening of Western markets has afforded Chinese Communist dictatorship to employ millions of Chinese, thereby preventing any popular outburst due to economic hardships that is causing lot of current Middle East unrest.

Had it not been for that Nixon embrace in 1972, China’s economic progress would have been far more slower with all the US, West European and East Asian markets closed to cheap Chinese products. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s technological progress would have been far slower in the absence of West’s technology transfers. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s military progress would have been far slower in the absence of huge forex reserves that China accumulated from the massive exports of cheap Chinese products and China used those forex reserves to acquire latest military technology.

China’s rise to super power status to challenge US is a fitting monument to the much-celebrated foresight of Nixon-Kissinger to embrace China to counter Soviet Union in 1972 just as 9/11 attacks is a fitting monument to the Reagan embrace of Islamic fundamentalists to counter Soviet Union in 1980s Afghanistan.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

2:19 PM ET

March 2, 2011

Chinese people will rebell against financial hardship not HR

Chinese people will support revolutions, but only when the unemployment rates go through the roof. The reason why revolts have been successful in the arab nations is because the high unemployment rates and culture where you will never be successful unless you are somehow involved with the royal family. That is not the case in China. The government is employing hundreds of millions of people. While it helps to be connected to the leadership of the government posts, ordinary Chinese without such relationships can still become successful easily as long as they have good ideas.

Also, while China does only have one party rule the leaderships have been changing every decade or so. Fresh ideas are thus implemented and tried while failed ideas are slowly pulled. It's one thing to criticize Hu if Hu never intends to leave his position, but the fact is that Hu will leave his post next year and someone else will head the country with a new administration pushing new policies. The hope of change is thus not lost in China as it is with most Arab states.

Lastly, I am curious as to see how this particular author, Bequelin, is able to write so many articles about China when he fails to realize the fundamental truth, what makes Chinese people tick. The same group of anti-China writers have been writing about the demise of China for over a decade and much like the NeoCons only a few of their predictions have came true if any at all. If this were any other industry they would have been discredited and discarded already for incompetence.

 

PUBLICUS

11:57 AM ET

March 3, 2011

CCP-PRC nepotism and cronyism

Come on, XTIANGODLOKI, quit the smokescreen stuff. Now that I've been living and working in the CCP-PRC for the past 36 consecutive months, I know a lot of people and have experienced a broad range of their lives.

The CCP-PRC-State-Corporate-Military complex does employ hundreds of millions of Chinese. It's one vital way the beleaguered CCP does keep the new middle class from becoming too "inharmonious" to quote Chairman Hu in recent remarks he made. In a typical state corporation 90% of employees are brought into their jobs by family who work in middle and upper echelon positions. Typically, during the first two years of employment the new "hire" works 4 days and has 3 days off. During years 3 and 4 the state corporation new employee works 3 days and has 4 days off. Beginning in year 5, the employee works 2 days and has 5 days off. The Chinese "employed" in state corporations don't have a weekend, they have a week - every week. This also gives ample opportunity to run a "tea house" on the side. Plus there are large cash bonuses simply for being a state corporation employee. China has no resemblance what so ever to the Arab states.

Check your Chinglish dictionary, the one created by disillusioned and disgusted Chinese university graduates. Find the creative Chinglish word "antizen." It obviously is a hybrid word created from 'ant' and 'citizen'. The CCP-PRC self described 'antizen' is the unconnected ordinary Chinese university graduate schmuk who has no connections of family or powerful friends in the state corporations or in the CP. He must take a lousy job such as doorman, its crummy pay, work 12 hours six days a week, and has to share a tiny one or two room apartment with as many as 5 or 6 other antizens who are in the same awful situation and circumstance (one bathroom per floor).

Let me back up a moment. China does resemble Arab states concerning one party rule. The CCP has no vision for its population, no noteworthy or noble purpose or goal, no great aspirational promise or hope. The CCP is a self serving and self centered gang of corrupt and ruthless sob's who care only for their own wealth and power.

The CCP formula is to keep the relatives happy in fat state corporate jobs and the antizens isolated, the 800 000 000 of the countryside ignorant and hopelessly poor - that's your PRC of the present and the future. Create a huge state apparatus of oppression, surpression, repression and the way remains clear for the CCP to preserve itself to serve itself. You refer to what makes China tick. I think the ticking you hear is the time bomb that the CCP-PRC has created and is only extending and intensifying.

 

BILL888

1:41 AM ET

March 8, 2011

Is China a Communist country?

China is no longer a communist country. It is a socialist country; whereas India is a failed democracy country and USA is heading down the road to be a failed democracy country soon.

 

MAOZEWRONG

2:44 AM ET

March 7, 2011

Jiaozi Revolution

Forget all these rumors of a Jasmine Revolution sweeping China. When change comes, the world’s biggest country will move with its own power, to its own rhythms, and its own smell. Make no mistake, the Jiaozi Revolution is already underway! Watch: http://jiaozirevolution.com/