It is hard to imagine, but 25 years ago the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was nearly toppled by a pro-democracy movement. It was then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) steely nerves and the tanks of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army that enabled the regime, at the cost of several hundred civilian lives, to avoid collapse.
On the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4, 1989, two questions stand out: How has the CCP survived the last quarter-century, and can its rule endure for another 25 years?
The answer to the first question is relatively straightforward. Policy adjustments, clever manipulation and luck enabled the CCP to win it the support it needed to retain power and suppress destabilizing forces.
However, serious mistakes were made. Following the massacre, conservative leaders attempted to reverse the reforms that Deng had initiated in the 1980s, plunging the Chinese economy into recession. The Soviet Union’s implosion in 1991 also caused panic in the CCP.
However, Deng again saved the party. Mustering all his energy and political capital, the 87-year-old leader revived pro-market economic reforms, unleashing an economic revolution that delivered unprecedented growth and development, thereby boosting the CCP’s credibility.
Deng and his successors re-enforced this trend by granting Chinese citizens considerable personal freedoms, fueling the emergence of a culture of crass consumerism and mass entertainment.
In this new world of “bread and circuses,” it was far easier for the CCP to regain public support and suppress the opposition. Carefully orchestrated moves to promote Chinese nationalism and exploit xenophobia also helped.
Even repression, the mainstay of the regime’s survival, was fine-tuned. China’s newly acquired wealth enabled its leaders to build one of the world’s most technically sophisticated Internet firewalls and equip its internal security forces with the most effective tools.
In dealing with China’s small, but resilient, dissident community, the regime depends on the strategy of “decapitation.” In other words, the government eliminates the threat posed by leading opposition figures by jailing them or forcing them into exile, regardless of their prominence. Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) — who won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize — was sentenced to 11 years in prison, despite worldwide protest.
However cynical, the approach has worked. Yet the CCP might not have been quite so successful had it not been lucky in a few critical areas. For starters, the post-1992 reforms coincided with a surge in globalization, which provided China with massive capital inflows (about US$1 trillion in foreign direct investment since 1992), a slew of new technologies and virtually unimpeded access to Western consumer markets.
China thus became the workshop of the world, with its exports rising more than 10-fold by 2007.
Another factor that worked in the regime’s favor was the so-called demographic dividend — an abundant labor force and a relatively small percentage of children and elderly dependents. This provided China with plentiful low-cost labor, while saving the government large expenditures on pensions and healthcare.
The problem facing the CCP is that most of the factors that enabled it to survive since the Tiananmen massacre have either already disappeared or are heading that way.
Indeed, for all practical purposes, pro-market reforms are dead. A kleptocracy of government officials, their families, and well-connected businesspeople has colonized the Chinese state and is intent on blocking reforms that threaten their privileged status. Moreover, the CCP can no longer count on rising prosperity to sustain public support. Rampant corruption and rising inequality, together with obvious environmental decay, are causing ordinary Chinese — especially the middle class, which once had high hopes for reform — to become increasingly disillusioned.
At the same time, given a rapidly aging population, China’s demographic dividend has all but dissipated. Also, given that China is already the world’s largest exporter, with more than 11 percent of the global market share, there is little room left for export growth in the coming years.
That leaves only repression and nationalism in the CCP’s post-Tiananmen toolkit. Indeed, both of them continue to play a central role in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) strategy for ensuring the party’s survival.
Yet Xi is also experimenting with two new devices: an unprecedented anti-corruption campaign and an attempt to revive pro-market reforms. So far, his war on corruption has made a bigger impact than his plan for economic reform.
On the surface, Xi’s strategy is sound, but waging war on corrupt officials and pressing for deep reforms aimed at dismantling China’s kleptocracy will inevitably bring Xi into conflict with China’s political and economic elites. The question is how he can overcome their resistance without rallying the Chinese people, whose political mobilization could endanger the one-party system.
The CCP defied the doomsayers after 1989: It survived and pre-empted any further threats to its power, but the odds that it can hold on for another quarter-century have become long — and are unlikely to improve.
Minxin Pei is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and a non-resident senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund based in the US.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
There is an old saying that if there is blood in the water, the sharks will come. In Taiwan’s case, that shark is China, circling, waiting for any sign of weakness to strike. Many thought the failed recall effort was that blood in the water, a signal for Beijing to press harder, but Taiwan’s democracy has just proven that China is mistaken. The recent recall campaign against 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, many with openly pro-Beijing leanings, failed at the ballot box. While the challenge targeted opposition lawmakers rather than President William Lai (賴清德) himself, it became an indirect
RSS