Quasi

"Quasi"

I've long been sanguine about China's rise; but it's a matter that needs watching and some management from us, as there is a potential for disruption. The two chief dangers are internal pride leading to unnecessary conflicts; and, on the other side, a demographic collapse resulting from the One Child policy that may lead to internal instability.

This story is about the second problem.

In a speech to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) politburo on the eve of the October 1 National Day, Hu urged party cadres to "boost [society's] harmonious factors to the maximum degree" through implementing policies that "match the wishes of the people, that take care of the people's worries, and that can win over the hearts of the people".
That doesn't sound so bad, right? Except...
To fully understand the import of Hu's message, it is instructive to compare the background of Mao Zedong's 1957 landmark address - "On the correct handling of contradictions among the people" - and the situation unraveling today.

The late chairman's speech on fomenting unity among the nation's disparate sectors was made in the wake of the Hungarian Incident of 1956, an early climax of Eastern Europe's rebellion against the communist yoke.

In China too, intellectuals were beginning to have misgivings about the dictatorial rule of Mao and his comrades. By and large, Mao proposed reconciliatory measures to iron out differences among social groupings. He indicated that while there were signs of disaffection with the authorities, these were "contradictions among the people" because even oppositionists shared "the fundamental identity of [all] the people's interests". He recommended that the CCP "use the democratic method of persuasion and education" to woo the disgruntled elements.

Hu is invoking Mao's authority at a special juncture in his career - and in the country's development.
There's a little bit of the mailed fist in the velvet glove. 'Just like Mao, I'd like to propose that we put aside our differences and get along. Just. Like. Mao.'

No comments: