China’s leadership is caught in turmoil which it would have greatly preferred to keep under wraps. The high-level succession later this year was to be smooth and rule-based — the latter for the first time. Instead, internecine conflicts have come out in the open in the most embarrassing way. A senior regional official – the police chief of Chongqing province, Wang Lijun – took temporary refuge in a nearby US consulate, fearing for his life after he told the state’s party secretary, Bo Xilai, that some of his own family members were being investigated for corruption. Mr Bo himself, now demoted, has conducted a high-decibel campaign against corruption, resulting in several executions. He is a “princeling”, the son of one of China’s revolutionary heroes and his Western-style open courtship of public opinion was considered distasteful by the technocratic, low-key current leadership. In addition, he is a noted statist and a darling of the reactionary Chinese “left”, encouraging citizens in red shirts to sing patriotic songs last heard during the Cultural Revolution. Earlier, he was openly seeking a position on the nine-member standing committee of the Politburo, which effectively runs China.
How seriously Chinese leaders take these developments is indicated by what outgoing Premier Wen Jiabao said in a press conference held against the backdrop of these developments. Mr Wen, generally seen as a reformist, insisted that China must press ahead with both economic and political change, “in particular reform in the leadership system of our party and country”. Otherwise the “gains” made will be lost, problems will not be resolved and (mark the historical allusion) “such a historic tragedy as the Cultural Revolution may happen again”. The contrast with India post the recent elections cannot be sharper. The country’s foremost political party has been humbled again, its senior-most leaders have seen their own constituencies vote out their nominees, and regional forces’ new role in national decision-making will change the way the country is governed. Nobody has been left fearful of their life, as was the panicking Chinese official and a Chongqing businessman who is now a fugitive in the West. Whatever the similar concerns in the two nations over corruption, the government’s lack of credibility, inflation and a real-estate bubble, major change takes place in India peacefully and smoothly without fears of a catastrophe like the Cultural Revolution.
Decisions in China are made for high stakes. Mr Bo’s loss of face cast a light on the necessity of political reform; and the lack of openness in economic decision-making is beginning to be seen as a problem. One example is the Chinese government’s recent decision to relax capital controls, doubling the cap on foreign institutional investment in the stock markets. This was revealed through 4 a m calls to selected Western fund managers – told to answer in 90 minutes – rather than by an open announcement. This is not how a modern economy and polity conducts itself. Mr Wen is right: the current Chinese system, still running on cronyism, networks and threats, needs to reform itself if China is to retain its place in the sun.
