Chairman of the Communist Party and the president of People’s Republic of China, Mr. Hu Jintao came into office in 2003 with a mantra of “social stability and harmony” to lift up China’s society from the chaos of inter-ethnic tension. Many politically deprived ethnic groups have anticipated a more transparent and open society under the leadership of Mr. Hu. Particularly, the speculation of change had spread widely among Tibetans with optimism and hope for a brighter future. Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Hu had served in Tibet as the Party chief from 1988-1992; where he had earned credential for his leadership and Party loyalty by backing Party’s policy whole heartedly with heavy hand oppression. Despite his ugly past history, in fact he is the only top leader in Beijing today, who has a factual understanding of Tibet and knows reality of darkness there. His knowledge about Tibet behind the close curtain of Beijing gave people reason to anticipate for a positive change with realistic approach and fair assessment. But soon the shadow of reality shattered the hopes of million people who have been suffering under the Communist regime under the pretext of liberation.
The handling of popular Tibetan uprising in 2008 and the Xiajiang riot in 2009 tested Mr. Hu’s political philosophy and exposed the true color of his authoritarian ambition. I can’t envision myself the logic of Mr. Hu’s brutal military crackdown of unarmed protestors and successive political campaigns he has launched during and after the political turmoil engulfed in Himalayan and Xinjiang regions. The political campaigns were based on short-term goal, merely to justify the use of their force and suppression. For example, China’s state controlled media widely reported only the death of Han Chinese in the course of riot and largely ignored the damage and death of other sides. In the case of Tibet, the death toll of Tibetans was ten times larger than that of Han Chinese. Thousands of people were arrested and kept under indefinite detention for months and even years without legal trial of any sort. Down playing its constitution for the sake of the Party’s survival weakens the institutional principle fundamental to all states of governance. When law lost its defined character; the power to defend citizens, and become an instrument of political game, the legitimate foundation of government cease to exist. He should be careful of the grave consequences of sacrificing the law of the land at the expenses of the Party’s interest. Overemphasizing the Party’s legacy and putting its interest above all social interests will be no longer tolerated by any rational men, seeking self interest.
I don’t think such propagandist political move can actually serve the very purpose of a harmonious society. Rather, I fear for the long term repercussion that might engulf China with ethnic chaos and paralyze its growing power. Hu’s blind devotion to the Marxist doctrine of “Social Homogeneity and Simplification” is a risky and dangerous path. China’s effort to homogenize Chinese society through forceful cultural assimilation by flooding the Han Chinese into minorities’ areas has proven to be a complete failure, with emergence of more apparent divisions. On the surface level, there is an illusion of the unrealistic optimism of commonness, more hypothetically, “a single common interest” as Marx predicted. But in reality, the diversity is still a dominant force that characterizes the complexities of any society. The downfall of the former Soviet regime and communist regimes in Eastern Europe are historical testimonies reflecting the uncertain future of Marxism. Author Arthur Waldron in his article titled “The Soviet Disease Spreads to China” argued that “China’s fundamental dilemma, growing more accurate by the days, is mismatch between a complex society and a government that is unable really to manage it”. I am not making this assumption in vacuum without logical pillars to support my rational test of Mr. Hu’s theory. I can’t convince myself of any social harmony in the absence of freedom and human dignity; rejecting the wellbeing and aspiration others. I have a firm believe that a legitimate power must be come from consent rather than coercion. Power is not something which we can buy; it must be manifested by protecting human dignity and freedom. Chinese leaders are currently either buying their power with economic concession or stealing with force and coercion.
Today, the fueling nationalism is only the last resort of the Communist leaders to maintain Party’s political monopoly. Unfortunately, the nationalism does not have unifying power; it further segregates ethnic groups and exacerbates the existing tension in higher momentum. So called nationalism in China is not a unidirectional nationalism; it is highly segregated multi-directional nationalism. Each ethnic group is becoming more united with increasing consciousness of one’s own cultural and social identity and religious faith in the face of threats. Thus China as a whole is becoming highly polarized society as each ethnic group has its own increasing sense nationalism. This ugly change in the trend of Chinese society is sorely a result of mismanagement and unfair policies masterminded by the Party leaders.
It seems that Mr. Hu has forgot the complexities of China’s society, “the fifty five minorities” under the illusion of power; the Super Power status for China. I welcome China’s growing power and I do believe that China deserve that status. China is an ancient nation, with rich cultural heritage and tradition, more realistically its population constitutes one fourth of total global population. Yet, I see little space for Mr. Hu’s ambition without illusion about the internal constraints. As Waldron argued “an inevitable fact in China today is that there exist different interest groups whose understanding of the objective situation is different”. I am confident that real progress and social harmony will prevail in China only if Mr. Hu has courage to adopt a policy based on recognition of the existence of fundamental social differences and diversity. I hope Mr. Hu will soon acknowledge the ugly mess behind the facade of China’s growing power, so that the political calculation for social harmony will be more accurate and realistic, based on long term goals rather than momentary pleasure. Merely targeting on preservation of party’s monolithic power without broader consensus on wide range of social issues will get China nowhere. China can no longer resist adapting to the changing realities and circumstances. The politics of window dressing is outdated in the age of informational revolution and has no path in the twenty first century. I wish him all the best.
Engaging thought 