In his 2016 book The Perfect Dictatorship: China in the 21st Century, Norwegian political scientist Stein Ringen described contemporary China as a “controlocracy,” saying that its system of government has been transformed into a new regime radically harder and more ideological than what came before.
China’s “controlocracy” now bears primary responsibility for the COVID-19 epidemic that is sweeping across that nation and the world.
Over the past eight years, the central leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has taken steps to bolster Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) personal authority, as well as expanding the party’s own powers, at the expense of ministries and local and provincial governments. The central authorities have also waged a sustained crackdown on dissent, which has been felt across all domains of Chinese social and political life.
Under the controlocracy, Web sites have been shut down; lawyers, activists and writers have been arrested; and a general chill has descended upon online expression and media reporting.
Equally important, the system Xi has installed since 2012 is also driving the direction of new technologies in China. Cloud computing, big data and artificial intelligence (AI) are all being deployed to strengthen the central government’s control over society.
The first COVID-19 case appeared in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei Province, on Dec. 1 last year, and as early as the middle of the month, the Chinese authorities had evidence that the virus could be transmitted between humans. Nonetheless, the government did not officially acknowledge the epidemic on national television until Jan. 20.
During those seven weeks, Wuhan police punished eight health workers for attempting to sound the alarm on social media. They were accused of “spreading rumors” and disrupting “social order.”
Meanwhile, the Hubei Provincial Government continued to conceal the real number of COVID-19 cases until after local officials had met with the central government in the middle of last month. In the event, overbearing censorship and bureaucratic obfuscation had squandered any opportunity to get the virus under control before it had spread across Wuhan, a city of 14 million people.
By Jan. 23, when the government finally announced a quarantine on Wuhan residents, about 5 million people had already left the city, triggering the epidemic that is now spreading across China and the rest of the world.
When the true scale of the epidemic became clear, Chinese public opinion reflected a predictable mix of anger, anxiety and despair. People took to the Internet to vent their rage and frustration, but it did not take long for the state to crack down, severely limiting the ability of journalists and concerned citizens to share information about the crisis.
On Monday last week, after Xi had chaired the Standing Committee’s second meeting on the epidemic, the CCP’s propaganda apparatus was ordered to “guide public opinion and strengthen information control.” In practice, this means that cutting-edge AI and big-data technologies are being used to monitor the entirety of Chinese public opinion online.
The controlocracy is now running at full throttle, with facial, image and voice-recognition algorithms being used to anticipate and suppress any potential criticism of the government, and to squelch all “unofficial” information about the epidemic.
On Friday last week, Li Wenliang (李文亮), one of the physician whistle-blowers who tried to sound the alarm about the outbreak, died of the coronavirus, which unleashed a firestorm on social media. The Chinese public is already commemorating him as a hero and victim who tried to tell the truth. Millions have taken to social media to express their grief, and to demand an apology from the Chinese government and freedom of expression.
For the first time since coming to power, Xi’s high-tech censorship machine is meeting intense resistance from millions of Chinese Internet users. The controlocracy is being put to the test. Most likely, though, the outbreak itself will be used to justify even more surveillance and control of the population.
Xi is an unabashed dictator, but his dictatorship is far from “perfect.” His obsessive need to control information has deprived Chinese citizens of their right to know what is happening in their communities, and potentially within their own bodies.
As of yesterday, the outbreak had killed 1,383 people and infected another 64,449 in more than 25 countries. For all its advanced digital technologies and extraordinary economic and military power, China is being governed as if it were a premodern autocracy. Chinese deserve better. Unfortunately, they and the rest of the world will continue to pay a high price for Xi’s high-tech despotism.
Xiao Qiang, founder and editor-in-chief of China Digital Times, is a research scientist at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Information.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to bully Taiwan by conducting military drills extremely close to Taiwan in late May 2024 and announcing a legal opinion in June on how they would treat “Taiwan Independence diehards” according to the PRC’s Criminal Code. This article will describe how China’s Anaconda Strategy of psychological and legal asphyxiation is employed. The CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) conducted a “punishment military exercise” against Taiwan called “Joint Sword 2024A” from 23-24 May 2024, just three days after President William Lai (賴清德) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was sworn in and
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)