Of course, tensions between growth and stability have long been of concern at the highest levels of Chinese policymaking. Managing those tensions has been a major factor in the methods adopted to introduce reforms into the Chinese economy, especially the penchant for local "experiments" that are tested and, the thinking goes, "understood" before they are allowed to be rolled out on a wider scale or eventually become national policy. What is "new" is that the degree of inequality and threats to stability are becoming more visible and pronounced. Economic growth is no longer producing the sort of significant reductions in poverty levels and infant mortality rates that China enjoyed during its earlier reform periods. The crisis in the countryside over land and incomes -- which could be compared to England's enclosure movement of the 18th century -- and the strains in the cities from China's awesome pace of urbanization are threatening the "Latin Americanization" of China. Reports are increasingly making it into the Western media of local protests over corrupt officials taking land, or working conditions in factories, or degradation of environmental resources, especially water. Indeed, a top agriculture expert astonished (and bemused) many commentators when, in a recent interview, he praised peasants "for their democratic awareness as well as the willingness to fight for their rights." For a useful overview, see Sharif Shuja's The Limits of Chinese Economic Reform (August 2 2005 Jamestown Foundation China Brief).
Eric Teo Chu Cheow suggests that these issues are starting to shape a debate that will have major implications in two key areas: battles for political power inside China's leadership, and the broader trajectory of China's economic, social and political development in the coming years.
These signals point to the tension that currently underlies Chinese society. There is clearly a growing contradiction between the ideological tenets of the Communist Party and Deng Xiaoping's philosophy that "to grow rich is glorious." This ideology-versus-economics debate will ultimately determine the direction of China in the next decades, as social tensions increase in a society that is revolutionizing much faster than Western societies have in the past century.
This growing debate could accelerate in the lead-up to the 17th Party Congress in autumn 2007, at which President Hu and his team are expected to fully consolidate their power. Potential rivals of Hu could exploit this debate to challenge his power, especially if the Chinese economy falters or social stability deteriorates.
This socio-ideological debate is critical not only for China but also for the rest of Asia, where a new socioeconomic model of development may emerge to "complement" the continent's expected rise this century.
As the winds of change sweep through China, it is this philosophical and social debate - and not the yuan revaluation or the Unocal debacle - that will ultimately determine the direction of China's economy and society, as well as its "peaceful rise" and its continuous social revolution.
Asia and the world should pay more attention to this fundamental debate, which could also determine the outcome of Hu's political position at the 17th Party Congress and hence the ultimate stability of Asia's rising dragon.
[IHT article via A Glimpse of the World]
The first afoe European weblog awards