Social tensions in China

By Frank Ching

The recent rash of attacks on young children in schools in China, which left 18 dead and more than 80 injured, was attributed by Premier Wen Jiabao to ``social tensions."

He said the country had to ``handle social problems, resolve disputes and strengthen mediation at the grassroots level." The premier put his finger on only part of the problem and did not offer a real solution.

Desperate measures are taken by desperate men. The question is what drives the Chinese to desperation?

One factor is the government's insistence on societal control.

The most recent such example is its crackdown on NGOs, which in a normal society provide a safety valve for social tensions.

Another cause of tension is arbitrary government action both at central and local levels. Once a decision is made, it is very difficult to change it.

People living in the far-flung corners of the realm constantly travel to the capital seeking relief from venal local officials, only to find themselves put on the next train home, where the same officials subject them to additional penalties ― including incarceration in mental institutions ― for the temerity of trying to go over their heads.

The central authorities know this but instead of providing relief to the aggrieved victims they prefer to support local officials, on whom they rely for political stability.

Chinese officials think, wrongly, that a government that admits that it makes mistakes is a weak government. That is why the Communist Party throughout the ages has insisted that it is always ``correct."

If the party is always correct, then anyone challenging the party must, by definition, be wrong.

This attitude is the first thing that needs to be changed. China needs a government that is humble enough to admit that it makes mistakes. And, if mistakes are made, the government should openly apologize and compensate its victims.

China also believes, wrongly, that to maintain the dignity of the government, it must put down all challengers. And the only weapon it knows is repression.

Thus, it will not allow an opposition party, a critical press or even demonstrations. Thus, during the Olympics, it set up three areas for protests but did not approve a single application to hold a demonstration.

An old-line communist party official, Xu Jiatun, who was sent to Hong Kong in 1983 and who sought refuge in the United States in 1990 after the Tiananmen massacre, was impressed by the way the British ran the colony.

In an interview in Los Angeles in 1996, Xu surprisingly said that what had most impressed him was that the British knew how to allow safety valves so that people could let off steam. This, he said, was something that China did not know how to do.

In fact, the party seems to understand only one language, the language of force. Thus, the response of the security apparatus to the latest attacks is to promise another ``strike hard" campaign, like that of 1983, which instilled fear into the hearts of people.

In addition to disputes between citizens and the government, there are also disputes between citizens themselves.

As the Chinese economy has developed, inevitably there has been a dramatic increase in such disputes. Yet, there is inadequate mechanism in place to deal with them.

At least one of the attacks ― that on May 12 ― which left seven children and two adults dead, stemmed from a dispute between the school and its landlord.

But Premier Wen's solution of mediation is unlikely to work. Mediation cannot produce an effective redress unless it is backed up by a culture of rights and appropriate remedies. This culture is absent in China.

It is merely an alternative to the court system, resorted to because the courts are overburdened. But, precisely because of this, mediation needs to be bolstered by an authoritative court system.

As long as the Chinese court system is not respected as independent, the role of mediation will remain limited.

The lack of judicial independence means that government decisions cannot be challenged in court. It follows that citizens' grievances against the government cannot be resolved through mediation.

As long as there is no independent judiciary, Premier Wen's desire to resolve disputes is unlikely to work. And as long as the Communist Party insists on maintaining a monopoly on power, there will be no independent judiciary.

In the short run, social tensions can be eased by allowing greater citizen participation, including allowing the press more leeway. In the long run, China's problems are inextricably linked to the way it is governed.

Frank Ching is a journalist and commentator in Hong Kong. He can be reached at Frank.ching@gmail.com.