It was a few years ago that I realized how funny it is that the Chinese government does not trust its people -- and whether a government can really survive if that is the case. And it is not a secret; it is actually used as a reason behind many decisions. For example, the reason why the election trials that took place in some villages over the last 15 years have not been expanded and why China's so-called democratic transition (that the government does expect to happen, though does not define when) has not moved any closer is because the government does not trust its citizens to be able to vote sensibly. This is despite the easily-made arguments that many in the West do not vote sensibly yet has not stopped us holding elections!
A second, even more noticeable, issue is related to the government not trusting its people to say what they want, and certainly not to do what they want, and it does not trust them to live according to the law. Two of the biggest issues I still have here is firstly that the constitution is ignored--in theory it protects many rights but in reality citizens do not have those rights because the laws that are intended to put the constitution into practice are so vague and written with get-out clauses that anyone can be put in prison for any reason at all, without any real evidence. These reasons normally relate to 'inciting subversion' or 'not acting in the interests of the State'. And secondly, that the law and the courts are not independent and tend to just do whatever the government wants in ways that they do not even pretend to be legal. In many cases, court cases last just a couple of hours, defendants are only given a few days notice before a case begins, they are allowed limited representation and no explanation behind the courts' decisions are made public (in many cases) beyond a single sentence or two.
So; the government does not trust its people. So be it. This has not been a problem as long as the people believe the government is doing a good job in that they have hope for a better future. And most of them do, partly because things do keep getting better (for the majority of people) and partly because people are convinced by the government-controlled media that things will keep getting better. But there is a nuance that I only recently came to realize matters here. I wrote the word "believe" (believe the government is doing a good job). And to believe in something means you need to trust something. So the people need to trust the government wants to do the right thing and is doing the right thing and is making life better for most people as well as it can.
And herein lies the problem. The government not trusting its people does not matter as long as the people trust the government. But do the people trust the government? Right now, yes... just about. But the ground is shaking and fast. The people have lost trust in many things recently, from the quality and safety of food, to the services the government provides (such as safe transport to school for rural kids), to the charitable system that the government (mostly) runs and beyond. Last Summer, when I was in the UK, a seismic event took place. One almost as important as the Earthquake of 2008. Though where the earthquake generally increased the trust the public had in the government (apart from the fact many did not trust the quality of the schools that collapsed and were built by the government), the event of last summer emphatically did the opposite, and unlike the data related to the number of children who died, or the data around the quality of school buildings, or the data around corruption in school building programs, this time the government could not hide important information about what happened.
It was the train crash outside Wenzhou. A train crash that the public knew about before the government (due to survivors on the train tweeting about what happened), a crash that the public monitored better than the government (again using social media), and noticeably a crash in which the government was on the back foot (and often plain wrong) the entire time--in the information it put out and in its response (noticeably when the local government tried to bury the train carriages even when there were bodies still in them to hinder any investigation and try to get the whole problem to go away quickly). Ever since then as more and more stories of poor quality food and other products have come out, the public has begun to lose trust in the government who is supposed to be protecting the public from dangerous food, dangerous transport and everything else.
China weathered the 2009 economic storm because the people trusted the government could do something and saw that it was doing something. But now, if there is another economic downturn, the people may not trust the government, may know more about what the government is not able to do (the whole social media thing has really revolutionized this country like most westerners would not believe, even though the government tried very badly to censor it, like the rest of the media), and may start to see a less promising future. Despite the economic situation (and many other factors don't look good right now, like the housing prices decreasing that really angers the middle-classes and rich who have put all their savings into property--and the rich matter more than the poor who now may be happy that property becomes a tiny little bit [it is still expensive] more affordable)--what will happen next?
Will the government manage to retain trust? In some cases it is trying to do this with increased transparency, but mostly it is just making grand statements in the media about making sure none of the many problems that have happened will happen again, and trying to reinforce its control over the situation. Yet with new media reducing the influence of the traditional media, this technique is not working any more. And the people are getting smarter. The result? In fact the people are now actually beginning to influence the government even though the people cannot vote. The government is being forced to respond to public criticisms, it is being forced to communicate more, it is being forced to take the public opinion into consideration. It is even allocating funding according to social media campaigns (like one that convinced the government to provide more money for poor children's school lunches).
So this unscientific ramble marks the beginning of 2012. A year when many things remain uncertain in China, particularly how the government can continue to keep stability, keep trust, and keep a promise of a better future. All three are closely linked and if they begin to disappear then we must all be concerned. Instead we must hope that the changes that have been vaguely promised for decades may be sped up, and that the powers-that-be recognize they must give up some control; for China needs to hope it can be just like the United Kingdom - making slow (though at times, wrenching) change over 200 years. And not like almost every other major country that went through at least one revolution...
No comments:
Post a Comment