Must-Read Articles on 1989 Protest
Tiananmen killings: Was the media right? from BBC News by James Miles
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8057762.stm
There was no Tiananmen Square massacre, but there was a Beijing massacre. The shorthand we often use of the “Tiananmen Square protests” of 1989 gives the impression that this was just a Beijing issue. It was not. Protests occurred in almost every city in China (even in a town on the edge of the Gobi desert).
Tiananmen at Twenty from The Nation by Jeffrey Wasserstrom
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090615/wasserstrom
How long can the regime keep expressions of discontent from snowballing again into something that threatens its power? This remains an open question, especially in light of the global economic downturn, which has not hit China as hard as it has many other countries but has led to a staggering number of factory closings and prompted an urban-to-rural migration of many workers who are not happy to be heading home. This is a phenomenon to watch, since economic frustrations were a crucial spur to action in 1989 and are likely to figure centrally in the next big challenge the leadership faces from below.
For now, though, the long series of high-growth years provides the regime with a buffer, allowing many who are struggling to think they could do well in the future. The party’s real difficulties will come when the memory of the recent upward surge has receded and a broad cross-section of people who have been left behind start to lose hope of prosperous times ahead. This is bound to happen eventually, but not yet. And we should not underestimate the ability of this regime, which has been so effective at defying the odds, to further delay its long-predicted demise.
Also noteworthy are comment from The Guardian: Lessons from Tiananmen (”The best way to remember those who died in the Tiananmen massacre is to reaffirm the Chinese people’s right to civil liberties”) and an interview with Wang Dan (Wired) on the importance of IT to the political awareness of young Chinese citizens, in which Wang Dan called on Western governments to civil society in China.
Buchimifan (@buchimifan) roamed to the Square 3 or 4 hours ago. According to his tweets, to the East side of Tiananmen Square, “It looked harmonious and there were more police cars than mosquitoes.” Policemen checked his bag politely. “Taking photographs was OK. Some took a lot of photos of policemen.” See the photos taken on the Square by Buchimifan (on Flickr).
PM Wen, Although Some Love You
Chinese students at Cambridge said they LOVE the sweet Premier Wen Jiabao
Premier Wen Jiabao apparently loves adoration, and doesn’t like being protested against, because he’s been always respected and adored in his home country, without any awareness that people should be allowed to disagree and protest. That’s why he called an act of free speech (although impolite) “despicable”.
In a democracy, individuals are allowed to have their own opinions other than government. Government doesn’t automatically get approval & support from all the citizens. I hardly think that guy did think he could damage “friendship” between China & UK by this isolated incident, but Premier Wen took this too serious.
Wen is a good senior gentleman, and I guess most people would agree he is morally respectable. But respect in moral terms cannot translate to ability in governance. What Wen practices by showing care, goodwill, and his moral character and virtue is the same as how this country had been managed in ancient times: when government officials had good qualities in poetry, music and morality (mostly to their own family & parents). But note here, public responsibility, competency in managing public affairs, check & balance of public power are all missing.
By Confucius doctrine, a leader of state shall take all the responsibility to their people (making all decisions for their people, and denying their right to discuss & disagree), good dictator doctrine. Wen and the current Chinese government continues such belief.
Signs of Political Reform Since 1970’s
This is an interesting article introducing the signs of political reform since 1970’s. Here’s a brief introduction.
Original Title: 政治规则确立的30年 (in Chinese)
Original URI: http://www.douban.com/group/topic/4219342/
The 30 years since Reform and Opening Up has created a new political order in China. Several decisions and political arrangements made in these 30 years will influence this country in the 50 or 100 years to come.
To a single person, 30 years is too long a time that brings half a life away. Yet it is very short time for the political system to have a significant transition.
As our current political system does not have a constitutional ground, these unwritten rules shall be accepted as a conventional way of politics to ensure a peaceful development of this country.
In these 3 decades, the following rules has been or is being established and accepted:
- Bottom line of political struggle: the loser won’t lose their life.
- Civil officials shall govern, military power exits political spectrum.
- Maximum tenure of political leadership is 10 years.
- Rule of choosing a successor is set.
- The power of Premier is on the rise.
No. 1: Bottom line of political struggle: the loser won’t lose their life.
This rule is set when the Gang of Four was crushed. In the history of political struggle of Communist Party, usually the underdog would lose their life. Some lucky people could keep their life on exile or banishment (e.g. Lin Biao, Liu Shaoqi, etc.) However, the Gang of Four were all Politburo Standing Committee members, and they were only sentenced to jail instead of being killed after they’d totally lost the political combat.
This doesn’t seem a significant change, but it is really important for the political system. This gives a message that political struggle no longer matters that much as before, it is no longer something so important as to be linked to one’s life. Such message was confirmed on the 40’s anniversary of the foundation of China PR (1989). It was yet again clarified that you won’t lose your life even if you made a severe “political mistake”. (People did die in 1989 on the Square, however political figures [e.g. Zhao Ziyang] was put in house arrest instead of killed.)
Therefore the armed clashes or assassination that was previously possible is no longer a regular strategy. Politics no longer means blood, war or coup d’état. This is a foundation of peaceful transfer of political power.
No. 2 Civil officials shall govern, military power exits political spectrum.
Army controled by State government is the next step. For now, it is more important to contain its power by any means. Currently there is no army presence in Politburo, and the Army is controlled military committee of Communist Party. In retrospect, the Communist Party used to boast it’s a “regime of guns”, power of military forces used to be beyond the Party itself. An army under control of civil officials (though from Communist Party) is a remarkable development per se.
No. 3 Maximum tenure of political leadership is 10 years.
So there wouldn’t be another dictator like Mao.
No. 4 Rules of choosing successor is set.
Hu Jintao was appointed as a successor of Jiang Zemin by Deng Xiaoping when he was alive. And Xi Jinping, who is expected to be the next president (and party boss), is believed to be a result of compromise between factions in the Communist Party.
In short, the 3rd leader would have been decided in the time of the 1st leader, and 4th would have been decided in the time of the 2nd leader. If this were in US, Barack Obama would have been chosen during Bill Clinton’s Administration, and G. W. Bush would have been appointed during his father’s presidency. Well, this is far from anything like democracy, but at least there won’t be coup d’état or assassination or another cultural revolution any more.
No. 5 The power of Premier is on the rise.
China’s Constitution defines Premier as the leader of Administration (State Council), and President is only a symbolic position. Now, the Premier Wen Jiabao is more and more exposed to the public and appears to be much more powerful than before. It is expected that Premier be more influential and powerful in the coming years.
All: Barack Obama China cynicism disbelief Politics
by Crane Wang
leave a comment
How do you like Obama being elected?
I asked my roommate this question, and she answered in a tone of total suspecion “I don’t believe it is true”. And she went on and explained, “America only elected a black person only to show ‘equality’. I don’t think this guy will ever have any real power.”
A blogger Hecaitou, whose blog has a very wide readership among Chinese people, also wrote on his blog that:
If every race create an image of God in their color, this year it happens that a black God is on duty.
A reader also commented on one of my previous Chinese blog post on campaigning that “Maybe the next president has already been decided, and the whole campaign and election thing is only a planned show.”
Maybe some of these were just kidding, but I really wondered why so many people have suspicion whether an election that has changed the world (indeed) is true. In this country, so many people refuse to talk about politics (event to think about it at all), subconciously doubt anything that looks slightly idealistic (for example an idealistic & passionate candidate being elected because people are moved by him rather than only because of his African-descent). And many people just think some natural things are too good to be true.
I really wondered why and didn’t came across an answer to this until I read what Barack Obama wrote in his book “the Audacity of Hope”:
It signaled a cynicism not simply with politics but with the very notion of a public life, a cynicism that … had been nourished by a generation of broken promises.
This is an answer how he won the election as well as why are there so many politically cynical people here in China: how could you believe all campaigning, running, debating is nothing but a well-planned show, how could you believe that a president of such a big country as USA is really elected by ordinary people like the next door grandpa or downstairs grocer when your kid die because of chemical-tainted milk-powder and you can’t even resort to any court for justice?
