The Good Enough Life
First, let me recommend Philip Pan's book. It's a really good read that looks behind the blur of the immediate events - that so impresses people who now see it for the first time to raise some very interesting questions about how China's tormented past fits together with its dynamic present and what it all portends for the future.
Second, I thought Pei Minxin got to the heart of the matter in his discussion of reform, namely, what kind of a society is this extraordinary, dynamic country going to become?
Of course, nobody, not even so-called "China experts" can deign to answer that question definitively, because it is not answerable. And the reason why it is so difficult to foresee China's future is that, despite all its quite amazing dynamism, it is in perpetually in a state of high-speed transition between two utterly dissimilar traditions and systems: a model adopted during the time of Stalinism from the USSR in the 1950s and... Well, that's just the question. What?
So, whereas most "developed" countries more or less have models for the kinds of nations they purport to be, China is essentially model-less, still engaged in the process of "moje shitou guohe," or, "crossing the river, by feeling its way over the stones," as Deng Xiaoping famously put it.
To date, its progress has made mockery of the common wisdom that political reform must ineluctably follow economic reform, and its corollary that economic liberalization usually helps catalyze political liberalization. Well... maybe. But, then again, maybe not. China has certainly had a very good run without that verite being made manifest.
It is possible that China's has, without quite intending to, reached "the other side of the river," and on the way accidentally discovered a new model for development: "authoritarian pr Leninist capitalism."
This is hardly an original thought, but one can look at the recent Olympic Games as something of a hood-ornament on the hood of this new model. The Olympic Games do seem to be allowing the Chinese to say: "Hey, look! We did it... our way without the Washington consensus or the West's models for balanced development that includes liberalization on both the economic and political side!"
And, the Russians certainly seem to be arriving at a similar conclusion, although their new dynamism is largely fed by gas and petroleum, whereas China's is fed by a lot of hard work!
Anyway, China - and Pan's book - raise the very interesting and still unanswerable question of what do human beings need to have the "good life?" Economic development is an essential piece of the "good life," but men live not by bread alone. So, it's worth asking how important such things as a clean environment, freedom, openness, religion, uncontrolled press and culture, values, etc will actually to Chinese searching for their version of the "good life."
China certainly doesn't yet have the balance right. But, then most countries never quite get it right, and are constantly in a state of flux. What makes China different, is that it does not yet seem to have a model in mind for what it hopes to become. That means, it never quite knows how to measure itself, how to judge its progress, not how to nudge itself forward toward its own better aspirations.
Finally, "more" is never quite enough, and "more" seems to be China's mantra. What is missing is that very elusive quality that we described with the word "values," that unquantifiable element that makes societies humanistic, just, fair, reflective and, above all, well-rounded. Acquiring a more clearly defined moral sense of purpose seems to be the missing element, and is probably part of China's next big challenge.
In a society trying to reinvent itself, core values of the past seem to pale in contrast to the new facade. Sad for the people, sad for the country. But in terms of a model, perhaps it is a humanitarian goal that is missing. In Western society we have a higher education model that for years touted "The Harvard Classics." Our professors held out the promise that these would help us become well rounded individuals. As we all know, it goes much deeper than a book -- call it spirituality, call it respect -- the name isn't important, what matters is how one treats one's friends, one's foes. And for that every society needs role models. / R
/www.ritawatson.com/
August 19, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not so sure that "every society needs role models." Most societies are too diverse to really agree on proper role models.
Except the US, of course. Our role models are the A*Team.
August 19, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I look at both Russia and China in the same way. Neither have a tradition of having 'liberal' societies based on democratic principles and have been continually ruled by either monarchs or autocrats. And both are struggling (in the 'West's' opinion) to fit into an acceptable western style of governence, which I think neither are interested in fitting into.
I don't think the Chinese people will ever pressure their government to change its ways. In fact I think the Chinese people are fairly satisfied with their collective lot. They have more possessions than they ever had. They have more rights than they traditionally accustomed to having. And most importantly they know that their country is an emerging world power...which for most is a source of great pride which I doubt few want to try to change.
August 19, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is well worth asking what is important to people, if they do not live by bread alone. There is an easy answer: they need a place in a social structure (consistent with their personal makeup) and a chance to advance to higher levels. Women and men both feel this, although men more directly. They also need to feel some chance of life extension, as in children or remembered works.
So the reason bread is not enough, (although a necessary condition) is knowing you are at least in the running in your local group. This is the problem of great wealth or power: most of the subjects will never experience anything close, so they have little stake in the politics and wars.
BTW, doesn't China have quite a bit of useful ideas from the various dynasties?
August 19, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
To date, its progress has made mockery of the common wisdom that political reform must ineluctably follow economic reform, and its corollary that economic liberalization usually helps catalyze political liberalization. Well... maybe. But, then again, maybe not. China has certainly had a very good run without that verite being made manifest.
So are you saying life in China is not more politically liberal now than in, say, 1967? That seems to be and extraordinary claim, and contrary to the accounts of visitors from the outside. Most of these accounts suggest that not only is China somewhat more politically liberal now than it was a few decades ago, but it is markedly more liberal.
August 19, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I usually agree with you Dan but...
Progress? The new and improved China which threatens to jail grieving parents who dare to question why all those schools collapsed during an earthquake and strictly controls access to the internet? Sure the West has more access now and the Chinese people are living more 'comfortably' since their still authoritarian government has fully joined the global economy but how much progress has really been made on the core rights of the people? I think the change has been negligible at best and might have already found its ceiling.
August 20, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Libertine. I think you are underestimating what a nightmare state China was during the Cultural Revolution. Yes, China is still worlds away from where they need to be; but they are worlds ahead of where they were. The progress is connected with economic liberalization, the US opening to China, China's greater engagement with the rest of the world, and the worlds' willingness to engage with China. Since the progress over a few decades has been marked, I think the best approach to China is to state engaged, keep trading, keep visiting, keep developing cultural exchanges, stay open and be patient. I don't think it helps to throw up our hands ever every few months and start complaining, "Liberalism isn't working!", "Trade isn't working!" "Engagement isn't working!" They have been working; but China is a massive country, and the changes are slow.
China probably isn't going to achieve sudden perfect freedom in a revolutionary jolt. Nor do I think we would want such a jolt to occur, since a revolution in China would probably be very dangerous for the rest of the world.
August 20, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I am underestimating how bad China has been in the past Dan. But I am still very uncertain how much progress we can expect China to make.
I think that the economic carrots shouldn't have been passed out without the presence of many sticks. Now that China has been allowed to integrate into the global economy (and doing very well for themselves at that) I feel any leverage that might have existed for us to use to modify their behavior has been lost.
I just don't think that economics/capitalism is enough on its own to affect cultural change...but even if it is enough there need to be conditions. Conditions which were not specified. And I don't think we go go back and require conditions to be met at this point.
August 20, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Chinese worker would tell you he's losing his core rights with the introduction of free market principles in China. They see the iron rice bowl rusting and what is interesting is that they're fighting back and forcing the government to involve itself in these endless labour disputes, something unheard of even ten years ago. What is really amazing is that they are self-organizing workers unions and applying to the government to arbitrate disputes between workers and owners. They are forcing the government to uphold its own regulations and standards in the work place.
This workers movement is just beginning to gain some momentum in China - in the Pearl River Delta, China's manufacturing center, there are one or two strikes a week, with thousands of workers walking out. The strikes too, are often about the corruption of the local labour boards, the police force and the provincial government officials, failing to uphold the workers rights in preference to the owners and the corrupt payoffs by owners.
Change never comes from governments because governments never change unless they are forced to by circumstance or pressure from the people. China isn't looking for the kind of democracy we hold dear in the west - it's looking for its own kind of democracy and that is a government responsive to the worker and protective of the workers, not the capitalists. The Chinese have a very different view of government than we do - to them all government is but a necessary evil, no matter what kind of government it is and engagement of government never leads to a good outcome, but now they seem to have grasped the fact that governments can be pushed to protect people and provide for the people.
For the first time in Chinese history, government is being pushed to respond to the peoples' need. The earthquake and its aftermath is a good example - 45 years ago we would probably have not even known it happened and the people would have believed it was another blow from fate, but this time they've asked questions and want accountability - they may have been shut down, but what's remarkable is that they asked questions in the first place. That is the greatest change China has ever seen and probably its greatest hope.
August 20, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the comments so far focus on the future of China -- whether the Communist Party can continue its strategy of relying on economic growth to legitimize and maintain a one-party state. But I find Phil's book contains another important message that tends to get less notice -- the burden of history on China in general, and on the current regime in particular. Phil's book starts, not with the present, but with the past. This is quite deliberate and works really well because if you want to look ahead, you really have to look back. Of course, in doing so you get two conclusions. First, China has indeed progressed enormously from its Stalinist past. Second, the past may be distant, but it is still too bloody and ugly.
The second point is important because when you look at China today, you will find that the government is less concerned about what people are saying about China's future but is absolutely neurotic about what people are saying about the past. That's why the documentary-maker got into such trouble when he tried to uncover a tragedy that took place half a century ago. This raises an interesting question: why is the party so sensitive about its past? How will China's past affect its future?
My guess is that the past is just as important as the present. That's why Orwell famously said that those who control the present control the past and those who control the past control the future. Although economic success underwrites the party's claims to power, history is almost as important a component of its legitimacy as GDP growth. Here lies a potential source of danger for the party: because the official version of China's recent history is full of untruth, the party will suffer devastating loss of legitimacy when truth is revealed -- even if the economy is doing well. The party knows this, too. That's why the books that have been recently banned by the Chinese authorities are, almost without exception, those that deal with the past, such as the Cultural Revolution, the Great Famine of 1959-1961, and the Anti-Rightist Movement of 1957.
So the question for us is: will history in China remain distorted? what will happen if true history is revealed to the public?
Other than the rise of civic activism that comes with economic growth, I suspect that this "overhang of historical truth" constitutes another significant source of threat to the party.
That is perhaps why Phil decided to start his magnificent book with history!
August 21, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The party could always try our short-form, all-purpose excuse, namely --
"Mistakes were made."
August 21, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it is also that past that makes them so guarded about their national prerogatives among other nations. That relations with the west have been uniformly negative has deeply affected our future relations with China.
I really doubt that the Chinese are as uninformed about their own past history as people think. They lived through it. They know very well how their government worked and continues to work. What seems to be changing is the mindset that the Chinese work for the government - now they're inclined to see that government is supposed to work for the people.
August 21, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink