The New Aristocracy
India has just completed one of the most stunning exercises in modern governance, the election of its new Lower House (the 15th Lok Sabha). As one national newspaper put it: “With a continent-sized 714 million voters, India has learned to pull off virtually flawlessly the biggest, eye-popping democratic exercise with the kind of ease that is a part of our new brand equity.”
Though Indiahas repeatedlybeen compared to China, the land of Bharat often appears to be a pale copy of the Middle Kingdom,at least as far as development, defense preparedness or infrastructure are concerned.
However, while an authoritarian regime perhapsfacilitatesfaster building of roads, airports or new cities, a one-Party system undermines the State in many other fields. One of these is long-term stability.
It is ironic that the Secret Journal of the former Premier, Zhao Ziyang who was demoted after the 1989 democracy protests on Tiananmen Square is titled ‘Prisoner of the State’. A Prime Minister prisoner of his own State! Or is it of his own Party?
Zhao Ziyang’s biography published on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the student’s massacre,explains why China is so unstable.By the end of the book, Zhao praises the parliamentary democracy system as the only wayforChinato solve its problems of corruption and the growing gap between the rich and poor.
Zhao quotes a crucial meeting held at Deng Xiaoping's home on May 17, 1989, a couple of weeks after the students occupied the Square.While Zhao argues that the government should listen to the protesters and look into their valid points, the old apparatchiks denounce him. At the end of the meeting, Deng Xiaoping decides to impose martial law andZhao is sacked.
Had the Elders listened to Zhao, China would be a very different nation today. Not only would Beijing have better ‘brand equity’, but it would alsobemore stable.
For decades, ‘upholding social stability’ has been the coreconcern of the Party,but the Indian example proves that a multi-party rule (even if there are far too many in India)ultimately makes a State more steady.
A case in point is Tibet which 60 years after its ‘liberation’ is still under undeclared martial law.
On 10 March 2008, when 300 monks from Drepung Monastery undertook a peaceful protest march towards Barkhor Street near the Central Cathedral in Lhasa, trouble started.
The next day, when the Sera Monastery in turn got involved,the People's Armed Police (PAP), was waiting for them. More monks were arrested, severely beaten and some tortured. The repression increased the following day. About 2000 Chinese troops fired tear gas to disperse hundreds of Sera Monastery monks calling for the release of their fellow monks while shouting pro-Tibet slogans. On March 14, the situation deteriorated, brutal force was used against the demonstrators.
Beijing immediately put the blame on the ‘Dalai Lama and his clique’. A government official in Lhasa told Xinhua that there was enough evidence to prove that the sabotage in Lhasa was "organized, premeditated and masterminded" by the Dalai clique.
When the Dalai Lama declared that resentment was the main cause for the violent happenings, he was accused by ZhangQingli, the Party Boss in Lhasa to be “a wolf in monk's clothes, a devil with a human face”. Zhang added: “Those who do not love the motherland are not qualified to be human beings”. This has remained the official version of the two-month unrest on the Tibetan plateau.
However, a new report, prepared by a Chinese think-tank, Beijing Gongmeng Consulting has recentlycontradicted the official version. The authors, Li Kun, Huang Li, Li Xiang and Wang Hongzhe are lawyers “committed to building a modernized China and promoting human rights, democracy, and rule of law in China."
Their research team spent one month in Tibet “interviewing Tibetan monks, nomads, farmers, scholars, migrants, artists, and businesspeople”
Their objective was to come into personal contact with voices which can give “a clear and objective outline of ordinary people’s living conditions in Tibetan areas.”
The lawyers point out “major errors in government policy" after March-April 2008 protests. One was ‘over-propagandizing of violence’; another,encouragement of racist sentiment towards Tibetans: “The excessive response of government all over Tibet was to regard every tree and blade of grass as a potential enemy soldier.”
According to them, this further strained the relations between the local Tibetans and the Han migrants: “The fascination that Han citizens have expressed toward Tibetan culture changed to fear and hatred of the Tibetan masses, and Tibetans were rendered as a people incapable of gratitude.”
One of their conclusions is: “Understanding is a precondition for discussion, unity and development. If the promotion of healthy development in Tibetan areas is truly desired then there must be a change in thinking and an adjustment in thinking behind the current nationality theories and policies.”
Another issue was the emergence of a new aristocracy in Tibet (one could add in China!). The Chinese Revolution is supposed to have wiped out the old aristocracy and emancipated the masses. However the Report found out that in Tibet, the difficult terrain has created“locally fixed power networks, which inevitably lead to a high incidence of corruption and dereliction of duty.” Further with the renaissance of Buddhism, “the new economic aristocracy and religious forces have bound together to create a new power framework”.
For the Chinese lawyers, this new aristocracy,which is ‘legitimized by the Party’, is even more powerful than the old one.
The Report analyses in detail the rapport between the new aristocracy and the masses: “there is a lack of any effective supervision over the local officials …who have learned how to use stability to protect themselves. …“Foreign forces” and “Tibet independence” are used by many local officials as fig leaves to conceal their mistakes in governance and to repress social discontent …elevating everything to the level of splittist forces in order to conceal their errors.”
The final conclusions are not far from the Dalai Lama’s views: “Earnestly listen to the voices of ordinary Tibetans and on the basis of respecting and protecting each of the Tibetan people’s rights and interests, adjust policy and thinking in Tibetan areas to formulate development policies which are suited to the characteristics of Tibetan areas, and which accord with the wishes of the Tibetan people.”
One important issue is religious freedom: “Fully respect and protect the Tibetan people’s freedom of religious belief, resuming and supporting normal religious lives and activities. Fully recognize the important significance of religion and a religious life to Tibetan areas and to the Tibetan people.” Beijing is also advised to “promote rule of law in governance processes in Tibetan areas”, if it is interested to have a stable Tibet.
This Report made similar points than the 70,000 character petition sent by the late Panchen Lama to Premier Zhou Enlai in 1962 for which he spent 17 years in jail.
The CCP General Secretary Hua Yuabang had also presented a report in the same vein after a visit to Lhasa in May 1980. His was soon removed from the political scene, though his disciple, Zhao Zyiang continued as Premier till the Tiananmen events.
Recently, President Hu Jintao has begun the process to select the Sixth Generation of leaders who will lead Chinaafter a decade or so. Strangelylike him they all belong to the Chinese Youth League (the PartySchool). The new aristocracy will surely be well equipped to suppress the aspirations of the different nationalities and quell dissident voices,unless the Middle Kingdom, without the safety valve called democracy, implodes under its own contradictions.