I recently happened to chance again upon Mark Kitto's article "You'll never be Chinese: why I am leaving the country I loved", which caused such a stir in 2012.
Almost six years and one change of political leadership later, many of Kitto's complaints about China still ring true, but some of them are starting to look decidedly out of date, and in hindsight rather ironic. Take the following passage:
I don't think I need to spell out why this now feels ironic. Be careful what you wish for, as they say.
Almost six years and one change of political leadership later, many of Kitto's complaints about China still ring true, but some of them are starting to look decidedly out of date, and in hindsight rather ironic. Take the following passage:
When the (property) bubble pops, or in the remote chance that it deflates gradually, the wealth the Party gave the people will deflate too. The promise will have been broken. And there’ll still be the medical bills, pensions and school fees. The people will want their money back, or a say in their future, which amounts to a political voice. If they are denied, they will cease to be harmonious.Meanwhile, what of the ethnic minorities and the factory workers, the people on whom it is more convenient for the government to dispense overwhelming force rather than largesse? If an outburst of ethnic or labour discontent coincides with the collapse of the property market, and you throw in a scandal like the melamine tainted milk of 2008, or a fatal train crash that shows up massive, high level corruption, as in Wenzhou in 2011, and suddenly the harmonious society is likely to become a chorus of discontent.How will the Party deal with that? How will it lead?Unfortunately it has forgotten. The government is so scared of the people it prefers not to lead them.In rural China, village level decisions that require higher authorisation are passed up the chain of command, sometimes all the way to Beijing, and returned with the note attached: “You decide.” The Party only steps to the fore where its power or personal wealth is under direct threat. The country is ruled from behind closed doors, a building without an address or a telephone number. The people in that building do not allow the leaders they appoint to actually lead. Witness Grandpa Wen, the nickname for the current, soon to be outgoing, prime minister. He is either a puppet and a clever bluff, or a man who genuinely wants to do the right thing. His proposals for reform (aired in a 2010 interview on CNN, censored within China) are good, but he will never be able to enact them, and he knows it.To rise to the top you must be grey, with no strong views or ideas. Leadership contenders might think, and here I hypothesise, that once they are in position they can show their “true colours.” Too late they realise that will never be possible."
I don't think I need to spell out why this now feels ironic. Be careful what you wish for, as they say.
1 comment:
Yeah, lol, replacing technocrats like Hu with a 'charismatic' and decisive leaders like Xi Da Da not quite what Kitto was expecting. Not that the criticism of Hu as essentially not standing for anything doesn't have some validity mind.
Post a Comment