With a growing economy, China becomes increasingly repressive

In 2009, more and more people have been arrested, sent to “re-education” camps or “black jails” or subjected to internet censorship. As Chinese leaders feel more secure about the country’s growing economy and its international status, popular dissatisfaction grows, leading to clashes with police. Instead, human rights should be respected in order to build Hu Jintao’s “harmonious society”.

Beijing (AsiaNews/CHRD) – China has become more repressive towards human rights activists, non-governmental organisations, online journalists and lawyers. Its economic success and rising superpower status are the main reasons. Yet growing economic achievements are breeding corruption and injustice on an unprecedented scale, generating widespread protests and “mass incidents” that are increasingly put down by force.

According to Renée Xia, director of China Human Rights Defenders (CFRD), “2009 stands out as a particularly repressive year in terms of the Chinese government’s aggressive tactics against human rights activists.” Her evidence for the trend is in the 2009 Annual Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in China.

In it she noted the high number of prominent rights advocates arrested last year, people like Liu Xiaobo, co-author of Charter 08 (pictured with his wife), or Huang Qi and Tang Zuoren, who helped parents who lost children in the Sichuan earthquake. Overall, the report’s long list includes internet activists, lawyers defending victims of human rights abuses or representing tainted milk victims, demonstrators or petitioners.

According to the CHRD, last year’s clampdown was due to release of Charter 08 and the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre in June.

However, greater repression is largely a function of “the government’s growing economic and international power,” which “has contributed to a rising confidence and assertiveness among China’s leaders, ....

I disagree. As Aesop noted, “A tyrant needs no excuse.” However, he should have added the corollary that, “But they generally want some, anyway.”

The situation in China is an odd one. In many ways, while the central government seems to rule, much of this is illusion. The truth is that they are closer to an “anti-federalist” nation. What this means is that the regional authorities, including the military warlords, actually have more direct power than the national government, if not officially.

If you ask the typical “Chinese on the street”, throughout the nation, they rather like their central government. In the popular mind, it has raised the nation up from grinding subsistence poverty to a far more modern place.

The problem, however, or who get blamed for all their problems, are the regional governments. They are seen as corrupt, inefficient, greedy, stupid, and brutal. And in this respect, the Chinese people are correct.

What most irritates is that the regional governments have so much autonomy that they completely ignore the dictates of the central government. Of the 60,000+ annual major protests in China each year, the vast majority are efforts to inform the central government that the regional governments are breaking the central government’s rules.

The problem is that the central government does not take this at face value, but instead sees it as a threat to the central government. That, and they are aware that the only reason the regional governments behave at all is because they are rife with corruption. If the central government cracks down too much, the regional governments will cut them off entirely. Starve the central government into submission.

To make matters worse, the Chinese military is evolving into an almost hereditary organization, run by “princes”, who hold rank by birth rather than by training. Stupidly, these princes also have nuclear weapons at their disposal.

I has been said that a government is a government solely because it is the most powerful criminal enterprise in its domain. However, this is mitigated by two important rules.

The first of these was first noted in China, over the course of many centuries, and can be described as, “A people get the kind of government they want.”

In China, at intervals of about 200 years, invaders would come from the North, slaughter a bunch of Chinese, and set themselves up as the new rulers. Then within just a few generations, the new rulers would themselves become Chinese, and do things in “The Chinese Way”.

How this came about was based on the desires and expectations of the Chinese people. If the new rulers gave them an order that appealed to them and the way, they would carry it out promptly and efficiently. But if the order was not in the way, the Chinese would bungle it, have cost overruns, and generally not produce anything near a satisfactory result, no matter how much they were coerced. So over time, by following the Chinese Way, conquerors would be trained to do what the Chinese wanted.

This also applied to their foreign policy. Since China was the center of the world in their eyes, what lurked outside their borders were all barbarians. So the Chinese encouraged the nations around them to adopt The Chinese Way as well. If they did that, they were left alone, even if they were obnoxious to China. But if they didn’t, then China would punish them, to restore the way, then return home to China.

Importantly, the rule that “A people get the kind of government they want”, is not limited to China, and is pretty universal. How it comes about varies, but not the end result.

The other important rule actually determines if a government will continue to be the government, or if it will fall. It is not limited to China in any way, and even applies to our government. It is a ratio called “efficiency”, which simply put is a ratio between what a government promises, and what it delivers.

If a government promises a little, and delivers, it will likely survive. If it promises a lot, but does not deliver, it will probably fall. Oddly enough, it matters less *what* it promises than whether it delivers on those promises.

Looking at the current US government, judging by this rule, it is in deep trouble. It has promised fantastic amounts of things for which there is no possibility, under any circumstances, that they will be delivered. Typically this means the only question left is who is going to replace our current government with one that is more realistic.

But what exactly does the Chinese government promise to its people?

More prosperity, more order, a stronger military. Probably many other things. And they are at least delivering on some of that, so are at less risk.

And that, by our standards, they are wanting in many ways, will likely not matter in The Chinese Way.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.