The Chinese government has managed to overreact to Charter 08 by making one author an international martyr for free speech by jailing him, requiring Beijing law students to renounce the document in meetings, and perhaps shutting down Chinese blog provider Bullog.cn, or at least that’s what many believe is behind the current anti-vulgarity campaign, as well deleting the new blogs by Bullog refugees like Persian Xiaozhao. There are some, such as Han Han or Ai Weiwei, who seem to be considered “too big to censor”, but that’s only so far.
On the other hand, a fair amount of Western media seems to have placed an outsized bet on the importance of Charter 08. Considering how much well informed he is, I can only assume this quote by Xiao Qiang of China Digital Times got butchered by the Washington Post:
“This is the first time that anyone other than the Communist Party has put in written form in a public document a political vision for China.”
If “public” means widely disseminated on the Internet, perhaps. But there have been other documents – by people on the Mainland, never mind overseas dissidents. I can’t believe that Xiao Qiang would omit the Chinese Declaration of Human Rights posted on Democracy Wall 30 years ago this year, an anniversary that seems to be forgotten even in Western media, a bulletin board before BBSes. Much like Charter 08, it calls for freedom of speech, elections and transparency. Also on the Wall was “The Fifth Modernization”. Weren’t these public documents with political vision? Or how about the 2007 open letter for pre-Olympics reforms (also signed by Liu Xiaobo)?
The Washington Post also appears to have taken a government officials quote completely out of context. After listing other recent challenges like the CCTV boycott letter, they state the following without any evidence linking it to these events:
“The present situation of maintaining national security and social stability is grave,” Public Security Minister Meng Jianzhu warned China’s leaders this month, according to state media.
Let’s get something straight. Reports in state media have Meng stating that the situation is serious because of the economy. He hasn’t said anything, during a series of inspection tours he’s been conducting since last year in which he’s been repeating himself, about the Internet, Charter 08, or intellectuals. Also, its part of the stump speech for his position and he’s been saying it every day for years. Unless there’s an article hiding somewhere on this, it looks like the Washington Post is insinuating something for which there’s no proof.
But it looks sexy, don’t it?
Richard Spencer of the Telegraph mentions this blog as one stating that “at best Charter 08 will pass into history leaving its surface unrippled and at worst that it is a distraction that proves the authors to be divorced from the reality of modern Chinese life.” That’s not exactly what I said. My point was more that there is a Western tendency to frame these things in terms of some inevitable Chinese revolution, and that’s a tired way of looking at these things. The idea that the Communist Party is living on borrowed time is still a predominant viewpoint. As Ian Buruma has just articulated it “As long as people felt that they were getting richer, demands for more freedom of speech, better protection of human rights, and the right to vote could be postponed.” That presupposes that Chinese citizens see liberal democracy as something they traded in for cash, and Charter 08 is seen as proof that this assumption is correct.
For all we know, Charter 08 will have a slow burn and its relevance will only be visible after many years, as Spencer suggests. Or it might have a bigger impact in Iran. As Rebecca MacKinnon says, too early to tell. But that doesn’t stop us from talking about some of the relevant factors in Chinese society.
So let us start by borrowing the social class breakdown Roland Soong borrowed in turn from a DWNews blogger. Nine groups: political bigshots, the economic elite, the middle class, state-sponsored thugs, laborers, peasants, criminals, intellectuals and young students. The Charter comes from the intellectuals, and as ESWN points out, they are not homogeneous. There has been bitter and pointless bickering – they are, after all, intellectuals. But a long term consequence of the Charter and similar actions could be a consolidation of the intellectuals. In general, its great to see intellectuals debating this sort of thing and it points in the direction of such issues becoming more and more public.
ESWN narrows down the other groups in play to the middle class, laborers and peasants. Students are out, he argues, because they’re more concerned about tuition than revolt. I agree, but I think that this places them in the same position as the middle class – if the situation deteriorates enough, they’ll protest vocally, although anecdotal evidence says they haven’t heard of Charter 08 yet. And there’s alot of evidence that the economy will deteriorate substantially this year. That’s what I think is driving the rush to provide new healthcare reforms. Some have argued that healthcare reforms are an attempt to stimulate domestic spending by providing a social safety net and freeing up personal savings. But that doesn’t make any sense – the program will provide $17 per person by 2010, which can cover things like prescription drugs and doctors visits. But people don’t save up for regular care, they save up for catastrophic health problems. No one in China is going to stop saving up for when Grandma has a tumor, and they are definitely not going to stop saving for her funeral. While reforming healthcare will stimulate parts of the economy, it’ll be in technology, construction and all the other sectors Chinese infrastructure investment tends to stimulate. The big payoff for the Chinese government will be saying “we understand this needs drastic fixing. We are on the case. Please be patient. We are all in this together.” That’s not an uncommon message from the Party, and its worked for 20 odd years.
Jeremiah Jenne points out that in past eras of Chinese history sometimes laborers, peasants and middle class people take to the streets in solidarity, or at least in tandem, with bursts of intellectual defiance – the May 4th Revolution. But let’s remember in 1919 China had just had a centuries, if not millennia, old political system collapse, the loss of territory to Japan and others, decades of humiliation, famine, war, opium, etc. etc. May 4th intellectuals were grappling with a immense crisis of Chinese modern identity that was felt through every layer of society.
And what do we have now? A China with nearly two decades of unprecendented growth, with many accomplishments to be proud of, but still prickles at the memory of past chaos and revolutions that it doesn’t want to repeat. It’s not simply nationalist indoctrination that’s made Chinese people want to avoid that, it’s real and tangible memories and experiences. It’s not even necessary to invoke the tarnishing of the American image. Even if the U.S. had just spent eight years under some sort of Gore-naissance, had China progressed the same way the U.S. example would have little influence.
The difficulties that China faces now are not existential like those of the past, and the overthrow of the government would bring about precisely that: an existential crisis. Would corruption stop, or would it increase? Would government services continue to operate to the degree they manage now, or would they unravel? Would local officials simply acquiese and surrender their power? It’s unlikely that Chinese citizens are prepared to demand a liberal revolution should the Party fail to enrich them, because they know those trade-offs and the trade-offs are too great. Not because of liberal democracy per se, but because of the costs of political transformation in general. The present government would have to screw up pretty mightily and brutally betray the public trust to make those costs worthwhile.
Dave,
Excellent post. I might suggest that I find the sort of cross-class or cross-interest solidarity of the NCE to be quite a remote possibility for all the reasons you described. I might suggest however, that the CCP takes great pains to limit dissent to a single class, group, or regions, not the least because they’ve learned a bit from history (both old and of a more recent vintage) and know the potential for such linkages to get out of hand, even in the unlikeliest of circumstances.
Hi Dave! Great post!
“(…) the overthrow of the government would bring about precisely that: an existential crisis.”
Does Charter 08 specifically call for an overthrow of the government?
I have only read summaries, but it looks to me like it calls for measures, for example, an independant judiciary. Steps such as these do not require all-out overthrow of the government, although whether they are possible in China without that is another question.
Would the overthrow of the gov’t necessarily plunge China into “existential crisis”? I’m not sure, Filipinos found otherwise when they successfully rose against Marcos. An imperfect comparison, for sure, but nonetheless … I just can’t bring myself to the same level of certainty as you (“would bring about precisely that”). Chinese have surprised me too many times for predicting anything with such precision. Who could have predicted where they are now?
The longer I live here, the more I feel that I really don’t know where the Chinese are headed … and probably no one else really knows, either – including them. All I can tell is that, wherever they are going, they are headed there in a hurry.
Have a great Ox Year!
Dave,
This is the best analysis on Charter 08 I have seen so far! I couldn’t agree more and particularly like the last three paragraphs. Bravo!
Good post. Before people resort to revolution, they will do a cost/benefit analysis. What is the likelihood that the alternative is going to be better than the current one? And more importantly, is there an alternative? If the CCP is overthrown, who is going to replace the CCP? Are there people and institutions readily available to replace the CCP? The answer is no. I cannot think of anyone or group who has been able to offer anything of substance to convince the Chinese people that they could do better than the CCP in governing the country other than trust us, democracy is better than CCP single party system. If anything, most Chinese are utterly unconvinced.
It’s both surprising and revealing that no one else has raised the rather obvious asked by ESWN, namely why would anyone want democracy if all it produces is governments like those of G. W. Bush and Chen Shui-bian. Considering that the news continues to be filled with political and economical scandals these days despite the change of power in Washington (Blagojevich, Geithner, Daschle, plus all those banks…), one could go a step further and fundamentally challenge the conventional wisdom: Does (Western style) democracy indeed inherently lead to cleaner and more efficient government?
Many if not most people consider that to be self-evident, although it hasn’t be backed up by reality. One could argue that western and northern European countries seem to be doing rather fine, but those countries belong to a different category regarding their size, and no one has been able to show how their political system could scale up to a countries multiple of that. One could also cite sources like Transparency International and argue that the despite all the scandals in the news, the US is still much than China. The problem with that is that corruption in the US is often not unlawful in the strict legal sense, as politicians in a democratic system are well trained to manipulate the law while their counterparts in an authoritarian system don’t have the need for that.
The greatest irony is that elections, considered the corner stones of democracy, constitute a main force for political corruption at the same time: Most frequently, impropriety occur in form of campaign contributions, at least in the US. Adding to that the political stalemate due to partisan fighting, which is a systemic cost of democracy, it’s really not at all beyond doubt that (Western style) democracy would actually improve the political reality in China – even disregarding the “transitional cost”. Anyone who propagates democracy “just because” should take a break and try to provide a proof for that basic assumption first.
@Jeremiah: totally agree, the CCP was awake in history class. I got a question for you: how much does the CCP’s efforts to isolate dissent to single groups mirror the Qing?
@Slim: you can read the whole thing here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22210
They call for a new constitution, full free elections and more. That’s a complete revolution of the system of government.
I’m no expert on the Philippines, but I did spend a little time last year interviewing a bunch of political active people during last years protests against Arroyo and I gotta say… whether they supported Arroyo or hated her, everybody seemed to think the country was a basketcase full of corrupt leaders going in circles. And the economy is heavily supported by remittances by overseas workers. I don’t think that’s going to sound appealing to most Chinese – exactly the opposite.
@DJ: Thanks buddy!
@Bella: Agreed, although it must be pointed out that you can’t find alternatives because the CCP doesn’t let them develop! Catch-22, natch.
@wgj: I think this issue is being addressed in some places in terms of American ideas of exceptionalism (Andrew Bacevich), and a recent Atlantic Monthly article titled “Globaloney” (linked in my last post, Planet China, Planet America). But there’s two problems: 1) Americans apparently have alot of difficulty dislodging some of these assumptions because they’ve become so ingrained and are considered so essential and 2) there’s not been a disconnect between beliefs in democracy as panacea and the realities of places like for Soviet satellites.
Nice post. But Xiao Qiang is a well informed person? You’ve got to be kidding. I remember when Mu Mu’s (the dancing girl/writer who posts semi-revealing pictures) blog was popular, Xiao Qiang commented that Mu Mu represents rebellious bloggers talking to the authority in a humorous way. Now I’ve been following Mu Mu’s blogs for a while (including her current, more serious blog), and it’s very obvious that she is a genuine fan of modern Marxism and a (at least mild) supporter of the current government. Similar blunders he makes on a regularly basis, and yet he’s frequently quoted by the US media.
This is a richly researched post like MacKinnon’s, and also like her’s, it seems to say seldom more than: ‘probably too soon to tell.’
I’m in full agreement with comment#5 wgj, as I have attempted to say in the first post of my own blog here:
http://theflowofconcretethings.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/on-charter-08/
and have begun discussing at:
http://granitestudio.org/2009/01/11/cai-yuanpei-and-charter-08/comment-page-1/#comment-10413
There is a wholesale oversight by commentators of China (in China or out) on the
deficiencies inherent in liberal democracy. And as we fully well know, Charter 08 contains precisely a vulnerability to this deficiency. How would you Dave, or any others, like to tackle this issue?
The logic of replacing one deficiency ideology with yet another deficient one is ridiculous, not to mention glaringly irresponsible. It seems, more and more that CPC have got it right – both in rejecting this throwback Charter and in protecting the masses from it (like a good government should).
The Qing were more about suppression than isolation, in this way the current regime is far savvier. On a unrelated note, I do find it a bit interesting how the “we don’t need democracy, our system works fine, and besides liberal democracy is a western plot” camp echo the voices of reactionaries from the late 19th/early 20th century.
@Bella: I agree that there’s no alternative available, but there are legal political parties other than the CCP (Guomindang Revolutionary Committee, for example) which could, in theory, form the basis of a ‘loyal opposition’ if the CCP were to open up and allow free elections. Naturally it would take time for the system to mature and for those smaller parties to get themselves in a position where they could present a viable alternative, but even so, that possibility has always intrigued me.
@wgj: Could we please drop the western style and just talk about democracy? There is no western style- each western state has its own version of democracy, and a good deal of decidedly non-western states have democratic systems of their own.
@Mr. Goes: I don’t really recall, but I thought the take on Mu Mu was that her blogging was somewhat subversive because of its discussion of sexual matters, not political ideology or reform, and I assume that was what Xiao Qiang was quoted on. I don’t really disagree with that, though I think Western media coverage of things like that is often just like coverage of hiphop, punk, metal, porn, discos, etc., where once a year a reporter announces they’ve “discovered” “China’s New Cultural Revolution”.
Xiao Qiang is certainly generous in giving quotes, and undoubtedly that’s because he believes its important to get these issues into the American media. I do think he’s well-informed, even if many of the reporters who quote him often appear not to be.
@TFOCT: I’m not focusing on the deficiencies of liberal democracy because I’m trying to describe how Charter 08 is being perceived and how it affects different groups, both in China and the West. I’m not trying to evaluate it as a political plan or ideology, but rather show the gaps between how the Western media, Chinese people and Chinese government (most likely) interpret its importance.
I do, however, have a personal opinion that censorship is bad (yes, even at the cost of porn and terrorism) and the free exchange of ideas is important. In that respect, I am sympathetic to the Charter 08 writers in the sense that I believe anyone ought to be able to discuss political ideas. On that charge, you can say I’m guilty of neoliberalist tendencies if you like.
@Jeremiah: plus ca change…
@Dave & Chriswaugh,
In terms of an alternative to the CCP, I am not referring to a party or an ideology, I am referring to practical solutions to real life problems. I’d be interested in hearing Charter 8ists and other overseas Chinese dissidents discussing issues such as: How do you lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, how do you solve environmental problems (without sacrificing jobs and people’s livelihood!), how do you solve mass corruption (which is more of a cultural than a political problem), how do you spread democracy to a people who push and shove on buses and don’t even wait in line for their turn? etc. etc.
To me, Charter 8 is a cop out. It’s easy to write a document like that, we are all for democracy, human rights, equality. But how do you get to that point given the current reality in China (its people, its culture, its baggages)? That’s what I want to hear: how do you reconcile the ideal with the reality without inflicting more suffering on the people?
I disagree that we can’t find alternatives because the CCP wouldn’t let them develop. If the Charter 8ists are brave enough to publish Charter 8, why can’t they tag onto Charter 8 some discussions about real issues in China instead offering mostly lip service? I am sick of these “dissidents”. They know very well the complexities of the social forces within China and yet they are seemingly more interested in catering to what western countries want to hear (ie the CCP is THE problem, only if the CCP is gone, the Chinese people will live happily ever after) than having real debates about real problems in China. Anyone with an experience in China will know that the CCP is hardly THE problem; it is probably only a manifestation of deeper problems within the Chinese society.
After the past century, the Chinese people are probably a little revolutioned-out: the collapse of the Qing Dynasty, KMT rule, Communist revolution, anti-rightist movement, Cultural Revolution… And with each revolution, it merely brought on a new cycle of violence and poverty. The Charter 8ists and other pro-democracy activists better come up with more concrete ideas beyond mere rhetoric if they want to convince the Chinese people to overthrow the CCP.
@Bella: Couldn’t agree more. I also have been thinking that Charter 08 would have been more relevant, useful and effective if it had addressed concrete, real life issues in China rather than focus exclusively on an abstract framework that, while potentially better at solving those problems, does nothing to actually deal with them.
Well said.
Dave, I like this post too but I think the commenter who asks whether Charter 08 is really calling for a revolution has a point, and it’s not fair to riposte “well, if this all happened it would be revolutionary”. It wouldn’t be if the changes happened gradually or in a controlled and orderly way (as they did in other countries). The party itself, after all, keeps promising political reform, and many of the people who support it so heartily do so on the assumption that it is serious about eventually keeping that promise.
The people I spoke to (and quoted) did not think this was a substitute for tackling concrete real life issues, but thought it important to have a framework within which to do so.
Charter 08 is a statement of belief. It’s not a political party’s manifesto, or a call for revolution. It shouldn’t be analysed as if it is.
@Richard: I’m in complete agreement that Charter 08 is a statement of belief in the direction and extent of reform needed. And you’re right, it wouldn’t be a tumultuous revolution if those reforms were carried out gradually. But frameworks only get you so far, and for years the challenge has been and continues to be the “how”. As I pointed out in this piece, there are precedents – it’s not like there were no frameworks to use already, like the Chinese Declaration of Human Rights from Democracy Wall, (which actually did have some very concrete recommendations, some of which have actually happened), or the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, or really anything from liberal political philosophy.
On the other hand, I’ve seen no one addressing the questions of actual political and bureaucratic process. What comes first? Elections in major urban centers like Shanghai, a sort of Special Democratic Zone? Loosening of Internet controls? Judiciary reform? Privatization of state media? Releasing political prisoners? Local officials already abuse existing structures, how much more will they abuse transitional processes?
If you don’t want a revolution, then there has to be some sort of proposed process that the current government can work with and Chinese citizens can feel both moves reform forward and doesn’t threaten to unravel society. If you don’t say anything about how you might accomplish such a thing, but simply describe the end result in which the government becomes something unrecognizable from the existing one, you may not have explicitly called for its overthrow but you sure didn’t call for something else instead. Not to mention its difficult not to see it as just a wish list. Anybody can make a wishlist – who’s going to do the real work?
As for these sorts of changes happening gradually and orderly in other countries, I’d like to hear some comparisons. But I’ll say right now that I’m skeptical of comparisons in general because I think its apples and oranges. Particularly former Soviet states, which were essentially under imperial control as satellites of Moscow (meaning indigeneous nationalism played a HUGE role, and the equivalent in China will mean war) and in some cases had a recent history of democratic or other forms of government (e.g. Czechoslovakia), not to mention many have had less than orderly transitions.
Well there are lots of different manifestoes: on the government side you could look at the works of Party School types like Zhou Tianyong: of course, he doesn’t give Charter 08 end goals (multiparty democracy) but it’s not hard to see how if the ball were got rolling according to his time frame questions would start to arise about where it would stop. On the Chartists’ own sides, different people have different views on where to start: a lot are already working on rule of law issues; others on human rights; others in fact believe that the free market economy has to move to the next stage before anything major can be achieved. Some optimists among them believe the government is already taking the first steps – greater freedom of the press, greater academic freedom, engagement with UN etc on human rights issues. Others don’t accept that, but nevertheless think the first step has to come from them.
One thing I differ from others on: I think it’s pretty amazing that ONLY Liu Xiaobo has been arrested. Of course, that may just be a start.
But I may be feeling unduly optimistic at the moment.
I’m wary of comparisons too. Most people cite South Korea and Taiwan, which have the advantage of being Asian but were smaller and already in a democratic (viz American) orbit. But there are others, from Spain to Chile to post Soviet Eastern Europe. I think the Soviet Union actually is what China should be careful to avoid: Russia’s problems, when you look closely, are not caused by democratisation but by waiting until it was on the verge of collapse before it reformed. And so it lost control.
Hopefully by engaging in earlier economic reform China will have avoided that fate. China only tried Marxist economics for 30 years – Russia for 70. But some of the same corrupt Party-money networks are there that helped to destroy the USSR, but were only fully revealed after glasnost.
@Dave
Sigh. What a depressing post and discussion. It seems that you are competing with ESWN about who can out forward the most realistic/cynical interpretation of Charta 08. It’s impossible to argue about anything if you let the Chinese government set the parameters for the discussion: either status-quo or complete chaos. I just don’t see why you have set up your argument this way. There are a lot of things that the Chinese government could do to reform the system that would not topple the existing order and it won’t do it.
They call for a new constitution, full free elections and more. That’s a complete revolution of the system of government.
To call for a new constitution or free elections, is not to call for a revolution or overthrowing the government. The Chinese government may be of a different opinion, but should we give it the veto right over what we think, say and discuss?
Just as much as it is the anti-Semite who decided who is a Jew, it is the Chinese government who decides who is a counterrevolutionary or an enemy of the government. You may think that you are just putting forward a well-meaning charter, but if the government thinks that you are subversive, then you just are.
@Hemulen: I’m not saying anyone should let the Chinese government set the parameters of the discussion or have a veto, and I’m certainly not saying that anyone should simply accept the status quo. I’m saying if you don’t want chaos, they have to be a player. You seem to accept that yourself, since you say there are alot of things the Chinese government could do. Granted, they’re not doing them – do you think they’re more or less likely to do them if groups like the Chartists issue a manifesto that essentially says “here’s the things we want”, but not “this is how we want it to do it, with you, if you’ll meet us part way”. But most importantly, if you want to pressure the government, you have to galvanize and bring together wide public support. That requires more than philosophy – that requires a platform of policy ideas.
Notice, also that I said a “revolution of the system of government”. Not the government, the system. The problems I’m referring to is that when the system, the way things are done, from paying your electricity bill to detemining holders of public office, changes radically, 180 degrees, then there can be terrible consequences. How should one try to avoid those consequences? How can you make the transition smoothly? These are the things that ought to be discussed, and these are the things that will persuade people that your ideals can actually be realized. That might get you a groundswell of demand for change – abstract philosophical manifestos, though, don’t cut it.
@Richard: I think Charter 08 would’ve been more effective if the writers could have actually hashed out their various ideas on where to start and how the mechanics would work and then put that in their charter, instead of a declaration of values.
As for countries, I already said why I don’t think Eastern Europe cuts it as an informative comparison. As for the Soviet Union, their biggest problems were a) the “nationalities” problem, since so much of their territory were formerly independent countries, and b) they didn’t do anything to marketize their economy until it was far too late. Glasnost was a last ditch shot by Gorby to save the Party. Too many people forget that – Gorby wanted to preserve the Communist Party.
In contrast, by the time the Berlin Wall had fallen China had already begun the marketization process 10 years earlier. And as for the nationalities problem, Xinjiang, Tibet and Inner Mongolia are not equivalent to Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
And finally, I don’t place all the blame for the nature of personal power and corruption in China on Communism. Those problems in many ways are a continuation of Qing Dynasty power structures. Simply put, there are some very longed held cultural habits about hierarchy and control that won’t change as easily as the system of government.
As the book “The Black Swan” describes… the media has a great way of linking together irrelevant events together to describe a situation. This then generates a certain amount of basic assumptions that people have, and that other media sources have when looking at an event. Often is the case, these assumptions are false. ie. China and the world economy.