Twofish's Blog

January 18, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — twofish @ 10:56 am

Comment on Victor Shih’s blog

http://chinesepolitics.blogspot.com/

On the other hand, China is much more urban than before, and the experience of other countries is that rural needs are often ignored because they do not have mobilizing power.  The situation in 1989, was very interesting because the government was rather popular in rural areas and very unpopular in urban areas, and it was unable to mobilize its rural supporters in any useful way.

Also the fact that Chinese society is more highly stratified I think vastly *decreases* the likelihood of systemic challenges to the political system.  There is not much in the way of social connection between urban dwellers and rural migrants which means that coordinated action is very difficult as these two groups may have sharply different and conflicting interests.  If you do have a situation in which the PAP has to go in to a major city to put down a demonstration by rural migrants, then I suspect that the urban dwellers are much, much more likely to side with the police than with the migrants.  I also think that the migrants know this which means that they aren’t going to push things too far.

The other major difference is that unlike 1989, there is no obvious ideology that you can use to unite the various groups.  “Socialism” won’t work, and neither will “democracy.”  The one ideology that might work is “nationalism” but that works in favor of the government rather than against it.  This is a really big problem since in order to have a major challenge to the government, you need to find some alternative political and economic program, and so far at least, I haven’t heard any one suggest that the government do anything other than what it is already doing, or explain how overthrowing the government is going to create jobs rather than lose them.

We can also look through the list of possible triggers.  There aren’t any popular leaders like Hu Yaobang that I can think of to rally around.  Public cynicism around Chinese government officials actually works for the government.  If they all are crooks, then none of them are worth fighting for.

Natural disasters and infectous disease have in the last few years *increased* the government’s popularity, and during a national emergency it is very difficult to say anything bad about the government without turning popular opinion against you.

Students in China today are very different than the one’s in 1989.  For one thing, they are much more diverse and much more likely to be studying a field that requires social stability (like business or finance) than a field in which they can act as social conscience.  My sense of the younger generation in China is that they are much, much more individualistic and career oriented than previous generations, and this makes political action difficult.

Of course, none of this matters if there is a sustained economic problem.  If after a year or two it is obvious that the government is mishandling the situation, then everything changes, but at the very least, the government does have several months to deal with the problem.

Advertisements

1 Comment »

  1. Historically, social instability has been a rural thing in China. Go to cities in Anhui, Hunan and Henan, etc and you will get the feeling that was there 10 years ago during the E Asian crisis – groups of young men on the streets waiting around for some sort of day labor. Economic insecurity from the countryside is coming back to the cities. Just because someone has rights to a piece of land doesn’t mean that they have security. One tractor accident….and their land rights are gone to pay medical bills. Sure urban China is sensitive to instability, but these people live in a different century in terms of their standard of living and education. On the other hand, their attitudes towards social class and order are in the Confucian past, where every person fits into a certain compartment – peasant, ayi, whatever. The problem is that this social conservatism creates inherent systemic instability when populist politics enter into the equation because it is aspirational. In this sense, China is quickly returing to a political dynamic similar to those seen in the past (without a convusive political movement, of course). Look at how recent instances of torching a police station,m for example, have occured….people didn’t need Hu Yaobang. They were angry before whatever happened, happened, and just needed an excuse. If there was a leader or a movement, it is far more predictable. Without one, social stability, or instability, is a random variable.

    Comment by Zanzibar — January 19, 2009 @ 1:00 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: