The first essay in this collection is called Sixty Years of Political Development,
but I think a more apt title would be Forty
Years of Economic Development. According to the author Yu Keping, The PRC’s
leaders spent the first 25 years making a mess of everything. The 1950’s
efforts to suppress the “counterrevolutionaries” got millions killed, along
with whatever these men and women had to contribute. Then you had the “Great
Leap Forward” which starved millions and wiped out the steel supply, and don’t
even bother to mention the Cultural Revolution. But since the late 1970’s,
capitalism has been welcome in China. So it looks like there’s been plenty of
economic development. But has there been political development? It doesn’t seem
like personal rights have really improved. If the Falun Gong, a trivial sect,
is persecuted, what does that say about politics?
Democracy is
discussed here, and it is a very touchy issue in China. According to Huang
Weiping, China’s leaders never disparaged the idea of democracy, but would it
work in China? When in the country’s history was their ever any kind of
democratic policy? Perhaps decentralization is a start, with individual cities
and towns being allowed to make some decisions for themselves. This would
probably happen in areas far from the capital, like in Xingiang province, where
a sizeable number of non-Chinese speakers live. But what happens when the
people of a town object to a policy of the central government? Supposing a town
finds itself the site of hydraulic fracturing, and complains about the
pollution; are the biggest complainers going to be forcibly silenced? What
happens when a newspaper prints an unflattering story about the official in
charge? The issue of labor rights is also a difficult one, and it remains to be
seen what happens to the trade unions.
One fault I find
in this book is that the authors, almost all of whom are from China, are
writing from a non-western perspective. Democracy is a European invention,
while China has a long history of central control, a leftover from the days of
monarchy. Are their benefits to having a non-democratic society? The Arab oil
states are not a democracy, but the people have lived relatively well for the
past 40 years, with opportunities for education and no problems with
healthcare. It’s all paid for by the monarch, who owns the country’s oil wells.
I guess you could say that royal charity keeps the Saudis happy. But China has
had massive problems with hunger, overcrowding, and pollution. Thanks to the
one-child policy the population is aging rapidly. If there’s a crop failure and
the people are driven wild by hunger, will the central government be able to suppress
dissent, or will it be just like the French Revolution?
No comments:
Post a Comment