It is hard to imagine, but 25 years ago the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was nearly toppled by a pro-democracy movement. It was then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) steely nerves and the tanks of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army that enabled the regime, at the cost of several hundred civilian lives, to avoid collapse.
On the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4, 1989, two questions stand out: How has the CCP survived the last quarter-century, and can its rule endure for another 25 years?
The answer to the first question is relatively straightforward. Policy adjustments, clever manipulation and luck enabled the CCP to win it the support it needed to retain power and suppress destabilizing forces.
However, serious mistakes were made. Following the massacre, conservative leaders attempted to reverse the reforms that Deng had initiated in the 1980s, plunging the Chinese economy into recession. The Soviet Union’s implosion in 1991 also caused panic in the CCP.
However, Deng again saved the party. Mustering all his energy and political capital, the 87-year-old leader revived pro-market economic reforms, unleashing an economic revolution that delivered unprecedented growth and development, thereby boosting the CCP’s credibility.
Deng and his successors re-enforced this trend by granting Chinese citizens considerable personal freedoms, fueling the emergence of a culture of crass consumerism and mass entertainment.
In this new world of “bread and circuses,” it was far easier for the CCP to regain public support and suppress the opposition. Carefully orchestrated moves to promote Chinese nationalism and exploit xenophobia also helped.
Even repression, the mainstay of the regime’s survival, was fine-tuned. China’s newly acquired wealth enabled its leaders to build one of the world’s most technically sophisticated Internet firewalls and equip its internal security forces with the most effective tools.
In dealing with China’s small, but resilient, dissident community, the regime depends on the strategy of “decapitation.” In other words, the government eliminates the threat posed by leading opposition figures by jailing them or forcing them into exile, regardless of their prominence. Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) — who won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize — was sentenced to 11 years in prison, despite worldwide protest.
However cynical, the approach has worked. Yet the CCP might not have been quite so successful had it not been lucky in a few critical areas. For starters, the post-1992 reforms coincided with a surge in globalization, which provided China with massive capital inflows (about US$1 trillion in foreign direct investment since 1992), a slew of new technologies and virtually unimpeded access to Western consumer markets.
China thus became the workshop of the world, with its exports rising more than 10-fold by 2007.
Another factor that worked in the regime’s favor was the so-called demographic dividend — an abundant labor force and a relatively small percentage of children and elderly dependents. This provided China with plentiful low-cost labor, while saving the government large expenditures on pensions and healthcare.
The problem facing the CCP is that most of the factors that enabled it to survive since the Tiananmen massacre have either already disappeared or are heading that way.
Indeed, for all practical purposes, pro-market reforms are dead. A kleptocracy of government officials, their families, and well-connected businesspeople has colonized the Chinese state and is intent on blocking reforms that threaten their privileged status. Moreover, the CCP can no longer count on rising prosperity to sustain public support. Rampant corruption and rising inequality, together with obvious environmental decay, are causing ordinary Chinese — especially the middle class, which once had high hopes for reform — to become increasingly disillusioned.
At the same time, given a rapidly aging population, China’s demographic dividend has all but dissipated. Also, given that China is already the world’s largest exporter, with more than 11 percent of the global market share, there is little room left for export growth in the coming years.
That leaves only repression and nationalism in the CCP’s post-Tiananmen toolkit. Indeed, both of them continue to play a central role in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) strategy for ensuring the party’s survival.
Yet Xi is also experimenting with two new devices: an unprecedented anti-corruption campaign and an attempt to revive pro-market reforms. So far, his war on corruption has made a bigger impact than his plan for economic reform.
On the surface, Xi’s strategy is sound, but waging war on corrupt officials and pressing for deep reforms aimed at dismantling China’s kleptocracy will inevitably bring Xi into conflict with China’s political and economic elites. The question is how he can overcome their resistance without rallying the Chinese people, whose political mobilization could endanger the one-party system.
The CCP defied the doomsayers after 1989: It survived and pre-empted any further threats to its power, but the odds that it can hold on for another quarter-century have become long — and are unlikely to improve.
Minxin Pei is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and a non-resident senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund based in the US.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and