Jiang Zemin (江澤民) recently resigned as chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) and was succeeded by President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤). Western commentators have said Jiang will be less influential than Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) was after his retirement in 1989 because Jiang lacks Deng's charisma. This is only partly true.
When Deng handed military power to Jiang in January 1989, it was a formality more than an action of significance. It was precisely because of Deng's prestige within the party and army complex that his retirement was insignificant. After the Tiananmen Square Massacre on June 4, 1989, he said that "I want to retire, but I have to manage the unrest."
Jiang's was a different situation. Precisely because he lacked Deng's authority, the question of whether or not he should retire was no trivial matter, and definitely not a matter of formality.
First, Jiang's full retirement was symbolic of the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) inter-generational power transfer. At the CCP's 16th National Congress two years ago, Jiang forced the retirement of Politburo member Li Ruihuan (李瑞環) and managed to stay on as CMC chairman.
With his official retirement, Jiang has let go of all party, government and military power. In doing so, he has completed the succession of the new leadership.
Jiang's 15 years of centralized rule are finally over.
In recent years, we have received unambiguous information that Jiang staying on would have been a burden for the CCP. As a result, anti-Jiang voices could be heard everywhere. Jiang's power was, deliberately or not, exaggerated.
Second, Jiang's full retirement will not let him manage state affairs from behind the scenes. This is based on the important assessment that China is now a post-totalitarian society.
A main characteristic of such societies is that they have lost leaders with charisma and dictatorial authority. The prestige of leaders is deteriorating generation by generation. Their hold on power is made possible by systemic inertia built on fear and lies.
Jiang could of course rely on the network and human resources he built during 15 years in power to continue to wield a certain degree of influence. The force and duration of that influence would be limited, however, since the creed among Chinese officials these days is "Follow whomever is in power." What's more, the Jiang family does not have a good reputation.
Third, it's important to ask, what was the situation prior to Jiang's full retirement? Although infighting and scheming are unavoidable, most CCP transfers of political power following Mao's death have tended towards compromise and away from ideology.
After 20 years, a social consensus has formed behind pragmatic mechanisms in pursuit of short term benefits. But as more and more reforms of the political system are halted or reversed, and further reforms become more difficult, irreversible social problems are on the rise.
An assessment of Hu's and Premier Wen Jiabao's (溫家寶) ability to break current taboos must therefore be pessimistic. Politically, Hu will follow where Jiang led. Even so, I still believe there is reason to place some hope on the new leadership, now that they hold total power. This is because of China's overall trend toward openness and international participation.
A conservative, self-satisfied China is being challenged by increasing domestic and international pressure, especially with this opportunity of a transition of power.
But the key to whether the highly centralized CCP will move forward lies in the historical sense, breadth of vision and daring of Hu, in whose person all power is concentrated.
Jin Zhong is editor-in-chief of Hong Kong-based Open Magazine.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.