China Law Blog

The comments remind me of what was said of Sinagpore in the 1990s. The city-state enjoyed rapid economic growth, but the people lacked many freedoms. The trade off looked attractive, and more than a few thought: Maybe this is how it should be done.

China's own history suggests the extent to which authoritarian rule can be either fantastic, or terrible. With no fear of opposition, an emperor could accomplish a great deal of good, or he could cause great harm. China has seen periods of wealth, as well as famines and other manmade catastrophes. You don't need to look much further back in time than Mao Zedong's rule where an estimated 20-40 million died on unchecked authoritarianism.

It's as if we're enjoying a sunny day and are listening to someone tell us that maybe umbrella's are irrelevant.

Yeah, the command and control economy is only second best to the command and control society.

"I do not believe Beijing is right. I believe China's thriving economy is due far more to its opening up than to government steering."

The decision of "opening up" was made by the Chinese government. I call that "government steering." I think that proves they are capable of making the right decisions.

"There will also come a time when Beijing will be wrong. That time will come when its own population becomes so wealthy it will no longer view the trading of political and social goods for economic goods as a fair exchange."

What makes you so sure that they will not make adjustments when that time comes just like they did in 1978, 1992 and 2007? I don't think "scientific development," "practice is the only proof of truth"(实践是检验真理的唯一标准) and "continue to liberate our way of thinking" are just empty slogans.

China's development as due more to its opening up than gov't steering? But for that gov't steering, it wouldn't have opened up as it has done. Given the historical background, and the immense challenges, the gov't steering has not been a negative. The West is certainly open, but without our gov't steering, we wouldn't remain on course very long. As the economic situation stabilizes, improved social programs will have to develop. Give it time. Rome wasn't built in a day.

The pattern of growth and investment is so uneven and the operation of the political economy so capricious, that a crisis is in the offing now. No need to wait until the general standard of living reaches the theoretical point of incompatibility with the regime as it is. Any cyclical downturn in the economy, even a substantial slowdown, will be a crisis of substantial proportion for the current leadership. That particular crowd is barely holding the tiger by the tail as it is. The notion that they have mastered the epochal problems of capitalist economics should evoke polite discomfort at best.

Will and Mr. Platek,
If you are going to give the Chinese government credit for opening the economy, you need to realize that is balanced out by the fact that they themselves are the ones who closed the economy.

I think that Dan is right, and Beijing will make a mistake. Right now the only thing keeping the gov't in power is economic growth, if that falters its all over. Even if it doesn't, at some point people might want to better express themselves.

One point from the article that I also disagreed with, was the lack of 'hot button' issues. I am currently reading "China: Fragile Superpower" and Mrs. Shirk spends an extended amount of time on China's main hot-button issue Japan. The Chinese gov't has been forced time and again to act irrationally towards Japan in order to satisfy nationalistic fervor at home.

Dan - the Chinese central government in Beijing have intervened in the economy by doing more than simply opening it up. They have actively regulated the economy, especially when it comes to dealing with currency issues and foreign trade matters. Not to mention all the legislative changes that they have initiated in order to facilitate commerce and economic growth.

David, Dan, et al.: Beijing will make a mistake? The only thing keeping the gov't in power is economic growth? Really???

What kind of mistake are you waiting for?
And did the mistakes of the 1950's, 60's and 70's lead to then-controlling regimes being dismissed en masse?

The current leadership is extremely savvy, given their cultural/political backgrounds, and the inherent inherited limitations arising from 30 years of isolation and the efforts of the 80's in thawing out politically.
They are becoming ever-more worldly and observant, with a more sensitive finger on the pulse(s) of different interest groups in China.
Now, in 2007, after 30 years of widening the aperture to look outside, they are keenly aware of the price to be paid for "making a mistake." But with so many different types of mistakes available for the making, there is understandable caution being exercised. The self-interest of the regime may peculiarly lead to the betterment of expression for all classes.

In the USA, we have seen during the last four years some mistakes for which the current regime is clearly accountable. The expression of the people will be heard here next November.

@David

Are you saying China didn't want to open up before 1978? The West was trying to isolate China, there were sanctions and embargos put on China, there was the Cold War, remember? Mao had no choice but to try the Soviet way and he experimented with GLF which was a miserable failure. He was wise enough to seize the opportunity when the US was desperately trying to get out of the Vietnam War and established diplomatic relation with the US. When Deng came to power a few years later, the first thing he tell people is "liberate our war of thinking" meaning the planned economy doesn't work and we have to try something else, and the rest is history.

People from the west always blame Mao for killing millions, but how many of those people were killed by the sanctions? Think today's DPRK is yesterday's China. Yes, Kim Jong Il is bad, but how many North Korean babies are being starved to death because of the sanctions right now? He had to make a nuclear bomb to get the US to talk to him and hopefully he can establish diplomatic relation so he can follow China's example. I think that will happen soon.

Paul M.,

Great analogy. Much better than your Apple keyboard one.

Will,

I was far less than clear here.

All I meant to say was that China's growth is due more to the opening up part than the control part. By "wrong," I meant only that there will come a time when the populace demands more. I have absolutely no idea if Beijing will or will not adjust to that.

I am actually, overall, hugely impressed with its ability to adjust, so it just well might.

Todd L. Platek,

Yes.

doskonale,

I would not be so sure.

David,

I did NOT mean this as a prediction of government doom. I just meant to say we cannot expect the Chinese population to remain quiescent forever.

MAJ,

Now we are talking about what I meant to talk about all along. I agree with you on all points, but in a long term contest between man and "the invisible hand," I will bet on the invisible hand every time.

Oh, and for all those commenters over at Peking Duck (Tom and Ivan and Fat Cat) who accuse my love of capitalism as meaning I do not believe in any regulation or in any government intervention and that I worship at the alter of Ayn Rand and neoconservatism, you are still dead wrong.

Todd P.,

I have no idea what mistake they will make, but they are human and I'm guessing they make mistakes every day. Again, I favor the invisible hand.

If Beijing is do so many things right, why does Beijing have so many paranoid controls, including the flow of information? The ability to "let go" means you are confident, a white-fisted grip on everything shows fear.
And the Chinese believe in natural cyles, so Howard French is full of it.

Sir, I disagree that Chinese must eventually decide that they want political rights, such as choosing your leaders or being able to speak your mind. Both of these things are irrelevant when the cogs of the government machine are moving smoothly. But when they decay...

This is somewhat related to what Paul M said.

"The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has always been."

It's hard to say what will happen in the PRC in years to come. It is unlikely that the authoritarian ways of the government will change. That's just not the way it has ever worked in China. Do not neglect the burden of history. Also, the lack of a strong immigrant community in China is a major reason Chinese culture has remained monolithic. I don't see that changing anytime soon either.

"If Beijing is do[ing] so many things right, why does Beijing have so many paranoid controls, including the flow of information?"

This is precisely what Beijing is doing "right." "Right" in the sense of what will benefit the status quo as of right now. In this way China can enjoy the political benefits of economic growth without all the awkward side effects of an improved standard of living such as calls to erase corruption, the desire for more personal freedom, etc.

The Chinese government currently has no incentive to change. They will not change course or relinquish power because of the heartfelt but ultimately misplaced ravings of a few China naysayers.

Authoritarian government has its pluses - e.g. China's government is acting much more promptly to squash its stock market and property bubbles than ours (this is a bi-partisan problem in the US).

But over the long run, a free market system will outpace a Command & Control economy, because it's impossible to predict the future. To give one huge example, there's a reason that the Personal Computer industry started with US startups (MITS, Apple, etc).

Finally, I'd say China's government has already made one huge mistake - the One Child policy. Besides the demographic problems (China is aging very quickly), I don't think a country of mostly only children will be good for the Chinese economy (based on my personal experience). And, I wonder how the Chinese New Year celebrations will be when no one has any uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc.

From HF's article (abbreviated):

“What if politics with a capital “P” could be eliminated altogether…and a secretly selected circle of wise men…could proceed straight to policy formation and execution based purely on their own…assessment of the nation’s needs and priorities? In such a world, long-term strategic planning could be carried out forthrightly and without the distractions and abrupt course changes brought about by that inherently unstable system known as democracy, with its fixation on rival parties and alternation.”

The issue is whether a closed political system is better than an open system - i.e., democracy. It's about the way in which leaders are chosen, not what those leaders might decide. The discussion of China's economy having been opened up is interesting, but it's beside the point. Is China's success evidence enough that it need never hold elections?

On a related note, Deng Xiaoping had many critical things to say about democracy. How could the United States manage foreign policy when it woudl be influeced by the four-year election cycle? It's a valid point. Then again, that Chinese leaders find themselves frustrated by the American system is probably reason enough to suggest that its working just fine.

Tony;

It's not the government's job to "pop" a bubble, people don't learn when they are sheltered/bailed out. They learn when they get burned by their bad decisions. Starting with creation of the Federal Reserve until now, every big downturn and Wall St/corporate scandal has led to prosecutions and fine tuning of the legal and tax systems.

Bottom line, China will do it in her own way.

This statement is as vague as French's or anyone else's, but it's just plain true.
Understanding what is China's own way now, and how she will evolve, is the task at hand for all of us. Our hubris in arguing that the West contains the answers for how China should "change" is counterproductive. Exposing China to Western ways is more effective than dictating Western concepts of what works. Let China ferret out what works for her.

Lamb Kebab: If Beijing is do so many things right, why does Beijing have so many paranoid controls, including the flow of information? The ability to "let go" means you are confident, a white-fisted grip on everything shows fear.

I think anyone with a job, including the self-employed, fears losing his livelihood. This includes all Western politicians. The reason you don't have significant controls on the flow of information in Western societies is because the citizenry demand it and the politicians don't have the power to impose these controls, not because the pols feel particularly confident about their prospects for re-election.

The reason Chinese pols impose these controls is because they can, not because they're fearful. (All politicians in all political systems are fearful for their livelihoods, but only dictatorships get to prevent the opposition from organizing). Why give your potential adversaries an even break?

I think a better explanation for these controls lies in the god complex that has permeated the Chinese leadership for thousands of years, combined with a consistent inability to differentiate between the population's interests and their personal interests. Chinese leaders, including Chiang Kai Shek, and the Communist Party, have traditionally been absolutely certain that they alone are suited to lead the country. What this god complex means is that they will kill or torture to death as many people as necessary to keep their hold on power. Their view of their personal interests as being identical with the population's interests means that they feel no moral qualms about carrying out policies that results in the deaths of millions and then refusing to step down. In China, "L’État, c’est moi” isn't just a quaint French quotation - it is the foundation of thousands of years of imperial rule.

In school children are prone to understand things in different ways, simply because of their history. A government evolves based on its history as well. Taking Russia as an example the people have traditionally had a strong ruler, which has continued. The government has evolved and changed to a more democratic system with the election of a president. China has ruled based on established tradition. As china moves towards a free market economy I predict the implementation of more rights.

This may be hard to believe, but I feel that Beijing has adopted a system of economic freedom and political and social control for the sole purpose of having a smooth transition into a democracy and not repeating the mistakes made by other communist states such as the Soviet Union. However, such a system can’t last. As China’s economy continues to grow and education increases for all, individual gain will be promoted and aspired. Lack of involvement in the Industrial Revolution and the cheap labor costs aids the current economic growth as prosperous foreign business can diversify into China and China has the scope for rapid growth. Beijing is in the right to use their current system for their transition into a democracy but this system wouldn’t last in an already capitalist nation due to different ideologies in the civil society.

I feel that the current policies put forth by the Chinese government are the best policy that can work in China's development. I am emphasizing the present because I do agree that this is only an interim policy and if it is not bolstered continuously to adpt to the changing world, it will end up in failure. I believe that most of the wealth made by the development ends up in the hands of few Chinese, which from the western point of view is a non-democratic result, causing a lot of debates. The good thing about China is that no one knows about it, due to the restriction of media and ideologies.

China's current scenario reminds me about the book "Brave New World". Adolph Huxley describes an utopian society where you actually don't know anything but you think you know everything. "knowing is a sin".

Again, presently, the Chinese government is doing a good job controlling those aspects about what the people can know and can't, and the results are pretty impressive a s we can see in the article.

The Chinese government uses the economic development as the "soma"to the people. However, will the chinese government be able to continue the use of "soma" with the growing globalization and pressure from western countries? probably not, but it would surely be interesting to see.

It is hard to judge which is right and which is wrong.

Looking at maintaining the stability of the country, perhaps an all-power state will do an easier and more efficient job.
But on the other hand, considering the freedom and liberties of human, democracy is likely the better choice, since citizens actually have a chance to express themselves under their government.

It is not good for China to censer everything, such as the freedom of speech, and tries to control the information flows going around. Most importantly, it is hard to imagine how long the Chinese politicians can continue to run a country completely on their own, without articulating people’s interests in respect of their political outputs.

I partially agree with this article as the CCP has managed to develop China’s economy at incredibly high rates. With the CCP carrying out its economic policies without interferences, the Chinese citizens have lost some political freedom but in return gained rapid economic prosperity. Economic growth has provided the Chinese government considerable legitimacy over the years, but the problem is that this economic growth is one of the few factors that actually provide the CCP its legitimacy. Thus, if Chinese economic growth starts slowing down, the CCP will inevitably lose a significant amount of legitimacy. History shows that when this situation comes, Beijing will not be right, as citizens will want more democratic principles to improve their political/economic system, just like they did during the years before the CCP or the Tiananmen Massacre.

I don't think one should judge if Beijing is 'right' by only looking at how it fits a democratic archetype. America is a country that looks very democratic, yet it has flaws that are very un-democratic such as the way in which George Bush was appointed the Presidency by the Supreme Court despite having less of the popular vote than his opponent Al Gore. I think this example shows that other countries can still achieve what we consider to be democratic ideals without going through the long democratization process.

I don't necessarily think Beijing is "right" the way French is using it. Beijing's way of governing China has obviously been shown to be good for China, so if that's the only criteria, Beijing is right. But what's good for China might not be good for the rest of the world, which is why Beijing's method might only be right for China, and not a universal right. This is because every nationality of people has a different political culture and a different history so they've been conditioned with different beliefs. In my opinion, this makes it impossible to find the overall "right" form of government.

China needs to open up more if they truly wish to have a strong base for the future and wish to maintain their economic improvement. It surely won't go on as strongly as it is so they need to take advantage of it.

If they want to change to a free market economy then they will have to open up and allow the western influence to make their mark on China.

Beijing is not right, although they are prospering, something will eventually disrupt their "boom" and they will no longer be a growing super power.

f history teaches anything about economy, it is that economies will always rise then fall, just to rise again.

China is no out-liar, the Chinese economy will not grow rapidly forever and growth will start to decline. This does not mean that the Chinese people will suddenly turn their back on their government as soon as the economy stops improving. The Chinese government has historical legitimacy, its regime has been in power since the 1950's, the Chinese will not change its regime unless there is a striking necessity to. The government also has control over the media, which also somewhat means Beijing controls what the people in the People's Republic of China think. Russia is a modern example of the effects of state controlled media. Like China, the government controls the media and remains very powerful.

China will never allow its people to have enough information to have them ever want to change the regime in power. Although the economy will change, the regime will stay the same.

It must be noted that China's current government is acting not only in the context of trying to govern the country, but also to prolong its existence.

However with a rapidly growing economy there is an inevitable emergence of a wealth population; how long will such a citizenry remain docile as the government continues to implement such rigorous controls? Examples are evident in other Communist countries that have moved toward democratization, most notably Russia, that such a system eventually falls. At the moment economic growth has placated the Chinese population with prosperity and the government has in the past successfully adapted to the demands of the people or taken military action to maintaining control. However there will be a point when this growth will cause an evolution of the average Chinese because with wealth and marketization comes Western values and ideals that continue to and will proliferate throughout all levels of society.

These same people will then either refused to be satisfied by wealth or refuse to be silenced; they will demand social reform. Until then the Beijing government is only the status quo.

You know China? You know Chinese? Some of you possibley don't even have a passport!

Why not just walk around in China?

soma some buy

soma some buy