Flexible China
November 22nd, 2008
Submitted by: Oscar Merlin
There is a recent article in the Wall Street Journal titled New Taxi Driver Strikes Test Chinese Authorities. What got my attention from this article is that it seems to me that China is growing a little bit more tolerant on demonstrations. All of the information at least conveyed in this article shows a structured way of handling the protestors. There are no police officers beating the demonstrators or anything in the like. It seems that the government has reacted quickly enough, at least on this issue, to make the modifications necessary in their power to appease the demonstrators.
But usually, when I think China and demonstrations, there are two stereotypes that come to mind 1) is the brutal China and 2) is the complacent China. The brutal China shows up when the government handles a situation badly and all of the protestors get beaten horribly by the police. Then you have the complacent China, which is somewhat like a teaser. The complacent China says “O.K. you can demonstrate for now”, and gives this little tiny bit of hope to Chinese citizens to think, “Hey! maybe after all we might be able to get away with a demonstration”. But, just in the nick of time the brutal China shows up and once again destroys any glimmer of hope that the Chinese people might have on this regard.
What are your thoughts on how China is handling its protests and strikes?
Entry Filed under: China
8 Comments Add your own
1. Morgan O'Hara | November 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Great points you bring up, Oscar. Protests are no novelty in China. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, 74,000 protests were officially recognized by the government in 2005. The actual figure may be closer to 150,000. Most of these were peasant protests, which ties into your last post – China’s biggest concern is keeping its peasant populace content.
Keep in mind that over 3 million Chinese participated in protests in 2005, and the complacent/brutal China stereotypes begin to make sense. China is HUGE, and not as centralized as we believe it to be. Government cannot have a draconian response to most protests. It’s not feasible. And often times, government reaction is little more than the whim of a local politician or police chief. These may be harsh, they may be slight.
When we get to protests in Tibet, or in the big cities, a more concerted approach is applied by the government. Fortunately, it seems they are becoming more flexible and tolerant. But what China’s leaders care about – above all else –is holding onto power. And not in some tyrannical, megalomaniacal sense. Instead, China’s leaders believe that the country’s populace is not ready to govern itself. That’s why a brutal response is never out of the question. When government feels threatened, it may feel it has to resort to the iron fist.
2. Jason Larocco | November 23rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I found it interesting that drivers not only protested but they also went on strike. In order to get a mass of people to strike that mass has to value maintaining/improving their gains over the need/satisfaction of receiving immediate compensation. It sounds like there are labor occupations that have developed enough of a surplus in wealth that they can afford to take this risk (assuming that eradicating illegal taxis is not something worth dying for).
This is also proof that new standards of living are continuing to develop in China and the people are starting to place a high value on these gains. As the world economy struggles China is also seeing a slowdown in economic growth. This is a new reality for many Chinese citizens, and at least some of them are not readily willing to lose their gains. They are now looking at the Chinese government to step in and provide some security to their advances in wealth.
As too how much protesting the Chinese government should allow… in my opinion that’s hard to say. It’s tough to see the Chinese government crackdown hard and with brutal force on protestors who are just trying to better their living standards (especially when those standards are so far below ours). At the same time establishing a certain level of authority and restraint over their citizens is needed, and potentially at a higher level than in the U.S. due to the size of their population. There are negatives to becoming as reactionary to public opinion as our government. Sometimes the masses have a hard time seeing the large picture. I brought up the ethanol/biofuel example in my response to a different article, and I feel it is also applicable here. The use of ethanol and biofuels sounds like a good “green” solution to global warming issues and our current dependency on foreign oil. However, there are now many people who feel the shift of food products in the market place and the use of petroleum based fertilizers to grow grain products have counteracted the benefits of a quick to implement proposition that looked so good on paper. If government officials were not so concerned with providing the public with a relatively immediate solution MAYBE (and that is a big maybe) they would have invested resources into a better long-term solution. Who do you trust more… government or public masses?
3. Chris Carr | November 24th, 2008 at 4:32 am
The protests that are successful and allowed in China are often the ones that are strategic and smart. To wit, they don’t directly challenge the government, but instead challenge things like corruption which the CCP purports to be against. If one reads the WSJ article and other articles on the strike closely, you will see shadows of this strategy in the taxi driver strike.
4. Raquel Rusing | November 25th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I suppose my ignorance… or faith in the truth of the media or stereotypes associated with communism (whatever it is)… lends me to believe that China is a country that brutalizes its people for any spoken word that goes against the established government. However, this article amazes me in a positive way. Despite that I love and hate our first amendment for a variety of reasons, I know that it is one of our country’s unique strengths and it is humbling to see the people of any country be allowed to protest freely. Looking at the whole of the article, it is a relief to see that the Chinese government is attempting to do things for their people. Prior to learning more about China through these Chindia meetings, I had difficulty imaging that the government would compromise on any level to meet the needs of its people. Nonetheless, statements such as Andreas Lauffs: “the government will probably take a very flexible approach to the strikes as long as it’s in their interests to do so” make me question if I am too quick to relinquish my skepticism towards the government and praise their tactics regarding protests.
What disturbs me even more is the violence associated with these strikes. An earlier Wall Street Journal article (http://blogs.wsj.com/chinajournal/2008/11/03/a-rare-violent-strike-among-cabbies/?mod=rss_WSJBlog) mentioned that violent protests were rare in China, but this strike has had its fair share of taxi drivers abusing the vehicles of taxi drivers who do not participate in the strike. My question is why were the strikes more rare prior to this particular strike? Is it because the government handled the situation with a more iron fist and that kept the violence to a minimum? On the other side of the coin though, how much can one excuse political repression for stability? I would like to see another reason, but I’m failing to understand where the violence is stemming from. Consider this: The Chinese government grants freedom of protests and the Chinese people, after being oppressed, respond overly-aggressively. It’s like that candy bowl in front of a house during Halloween… one kid is going to steal the whole bowl because there’s no supervision. I think another example of this is the unusual amount of support provided for an incident that occurred a few months ago. A man by the name of Yang Jia, stabbed and killed six police men in Shanghai and despite being sentenced to death by the government is being praised as an anti-government hero. There were further protests outside of government buildings in support of Jia’s actions. The people of China are hungry for their freedom from oppression and are willing to go to aggressive means to achieve that goal. I know that I am ultimately scared to visit China because I see the country as a sort of Big Brother situation and as a foreigner entering their country. I don’t know what to expect.
5. Jamie Hastings | November 30th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I also agree that it seems that the Chinese government decides to handle protests when it is in their best interests and perhaps not in the best interests of their people. It makes me think of instances such as the protests that occurred in Tibet that are mentioned in this article by the Economists.
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12641758
It seems to me that the Chinese government “tows the line” when they need to. This applies to this past summer when they had the spotlight on them for the Olympics. I get the sense that they open negotiations or comply with demonstrations in order to keep the rest of the world from being disgusted. Nonetheless, that is not to say that demonstrations are not effective. I guess I am an optimist, but I find myself believing that when the people of China are really fed up with their government, they will be able to collaborate and change their situation. I also think that these changes might come in a time of economic slowdown or other times of hardship. Look at other past revolutions around the world and when they happened. Many of them seem to take place when times are tough and people are looking for change.
The slowdown in the world economy may supply the Chinese people with greater opportunities for progress.
6. Andrew Welborn | December 9th, 2008 at 12:11 am
The picture I get from all this is that the Chinese government has some control over the level of response to these strikes and protests, at least in the industrial regions. In the more populated places when the world is watching they seem to take a more gentle approach. They are being intelligent and calculating with regard to these protests. In the current globalized world if they came down hard on an urban protest in a financial area, they may face economic consequences and this would only strain the working class more, providing fuel to the fire. Taking another look at these articles after reading Dr Carr’s comment, does point to a more tolerant/flexible government, so long as the government is not at the center of the protest.
As the populace becomes aware of this approach, we may begin to see more protests that occur in tolerant areas that have a larger portion of the complaints focused toward the government. The people are becoming more organized and a tad more daring. However, the Chinese government will not give power to the people easily. It is only a matter of time before the iron fist comes down to quell a non-government protest in the city, thus slowing any move to empower the populace.
The next year will be worth watching as the economic crisis comes to a head. Will the government bring out the iron fist or will they be forced by the populace to relinquish their grip if only slightly? It is my hope that the people of China will use this period to enact some much needed change, but it is my belief that they must tread softly to avoid the heavy hand of the government.
7. Xiaofei Song | December 12th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Strikes in China is not very normal, at least I haven’t seen any for my 20 years live in China. Raquel has some questions about why there is no small strike prior to this big one, and other drivers abuse the taxi drivers who do not want to participate in the strike.
Everybody knows how big the labor pool in China. Jobs, such as driver, do not require specific skill, which means you can be replaced by anyone who has driver lenience. The change for a small group of people on strike is too small, since they can be easily replaced. Therefore, there is only two ways to solve the problem: everyone strike together, or just accommodate the reality. The reason that some drivers abuse the not participate drivers can easily be explained as well. As long as they decide to strike, they want a big one. They understand if there is anyone can take cab on the street, their strike will face a failure, and probably be replaced by other people.
The reason that taxi drivers went on strike more often is because they have to turn in a large part of their income everyday to the administration company, which is about 70% of their total income. The people who work in the administration company normally do nothing but play card game everyday. Therefore, drivers feel unfair and use strike to protect themselves. A lot of people confused, they don’t understand why the taxi drivers have to turn a large portion of their income to administration. I don’t know how to answer this question, but I could tell you, if the administration company is not existed, it might cost you 300 yuan from the airport to Tian An Men Square instead of 100.
8. James McMillan | December 12th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I think that any person in a profession that feels they are being taken advantage of has the right to stand up and fight/strike/protest for what they believe in. I feel that the Chinese Government did the right thing by allowing this demonstration.
Especially in times of economic turmoil worldwide the last thing we need is the Government beating demonstators in the street that are just asking for fair wages. The complacent China definetely creates a better global image for the country.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed