The last time a country planned a summer Olympic games as a ?coming out? party, things went horribly wrong for the planners. The country in mention is South Korea, which successfully bid for the 1988 edition of the games in 1981. The administration of dictator, Chun Doo-hwan, submitted Seoul?s bid to the IOC in order to showcase Korea?s impressive economic achievements to the world and thus grant some international legitimacy to his regime, which had only recently succeeded the unpopular but economically successful tenure of assassinated dictator-president Park Chung-hee. Needless to say, it was also seen as a means to quell domestic political discontent and growing calls for democratisation.
Eventually, of course, the strategy backfired on President Chun?-protestors stepped up the ante in the summer of 1987 and the president was forced to step aside and call for direct elections in a move to prevent any embarrassment to the Korean nation during the impending Olympics. Curiously enough, then, the Olympics played an important role in bringing democracy to South Korea, ending decades of authoritarian political rule, which had admittedly delivered economic success.
The experience of South Korea would hardly be a role model for the Chinese communist party, which must have carefully studied the similarities. China bid for the 2008 Olympics some seven years ago, and like in the Korean case, certainly planned the event to showcase a newly prosperous and booming China to the rest of the world. Again, the Chinese government must surely hope that its economic success, soon to be witnessed by the world?s leaders, athletes and press corps, will dilute some of the harsher criticism about the legitimacy of communist party rule.
Of course, protestors for greater democratisation, particularly in Tibet, have attempted to seize the opportunity to embarrass the Chinese government?-TV pictures of a burning Lhasa and numerous protestors disrupting the passage of the Olympic torch did have a strong visual impact and provoked a reaction in the international community. Some leaders even threatened to boycott the opening ceremony. Memories of Korea in 1987 must have passed the minds of some Chinese communists but the eventual outcome was far from similar. Almost all the world leaders who matter are finally going to Beijing. The Tibetans have been silenced and the Dalai Lama continues to be ignored by the Chinese government. Noises on China?s support to a Sudanese regime committing genocide in Darfur have also reduced their volume. The Chinese communist party and government are going to host their ?coming out? party after all. China may even spoil America?s party by winning more gold medals?-we will find out soon enough.
There are a number of reasons why the Chinese government hasn?t gone the Korean way. For one, the leaders of the Chinese communist party have repeatedly proved to be more politically deft at handling both domestic strife and international political opinion than the average authoritarian rulers. Domestically, it is often easy to miss the fact that the Chinese State functions in a highly decentralised fashion?-provincial governments run by local units of the Communist Party have a lot of freedom on determining policy, particularly economic policy but also policy response to political problems. The route to the top positions in the government in Beijing also travels through the provinces?Hu Jintao made his name as an administrator of Tibet in difficult times. His possible successors are also strong regional satraps.
Thus, the Chinese political system, authoritarian but decentralised is much better at responding to problems quickly than a fully centralised authoritarian system. The response of State authorities to the Sichuan earthquake was quick and impressive and the senior communist party leadership encouraged the media, particularly the foreign media to extensively cover the tragedy and response. The attitude towards the foreign media and foreign governments also displays more pragmatism and occasional openness than in the average authoritarian State. It may not amount to much for detractors of the Chinese communists but their pragmatism plays a critical role in ensuring their own political survival.
Nowhere have the communists in China been more pragmatic than in their economic policy making. And it?s the translation of that policy position into three decades of record growth that underlies the fundamental strength of the Chinese government, both in its domestic and international dealings. A recent survey by the Pew Research Institute?-and the conclusion is only marginally weakened if one accounts for faulty reporting of preferences?showed that an overwhelming majority of Chinese people approve of the general direction the country is headed in. Even workers in sweatshops prefer their meagre wages and poor working conditions to a life of poverty in the rural hinterland. So, while specific grievances exist, few doubt the general direction of government intent.
Internationally, too, it?s China?s economic might that gives it leverage with the pre-eminent powers. The US runs a huge trade deficit with China, and China in return holds huge amounts of US treasury bills. In effect, the Chinese are subsidising America?s insatiable consumption appetite. The US apart, China continues to be the major workshop of the world?s manufactured goods. A stable China is in the world?s interest and no one would want to precipitate a crisis.
Still, in the long run, pressures for democratisation will grow from within: once prosperity is achieved, demands for freedom will follow. It remains to be seen if the Chinese communist party can manage a smooth transition without major strife. For now, even if it is grudgingly admitted by us believers in freedom and democracy, China deserves its Olympic party.
?dhiraj.nayyar@expressindia.com