'Let us speak!' Social debate is opening up China … but the Communist Party still dictates. Chris Richards tracks the boundaries of the new political space

New Internationalist, Sept, 2004 by Chris Richards

YOU could not help but notice it. A huge red banner--always popular in Beijing--strung high over the entrance of Renmin University, welcoming NGOs to a meeting about the environment. Inside more than 200 people from 150 organizations from all over China (with a sprinkling of international representatives) talk for two days about strategies to raise public awareness of environmental issues and lobby government officials.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Within minutes of arriving, a group of activists are telling me about the Nujiang river: 'As big, as amazing as the Yangtze and the Mekong, but little known outside China.' And--at the time we are speaking--soon to be dammed. Wen Bo (who was the first Greenpeace worker in China and now represents Pacific Environment) suggests I write an article about it. 'The Government takes its international image very seriously,' he calls over his shoulder as he runs to answer his mobile phone. 'We need international coverage to bring pressure to bear.'

And so it happened. After that conversation in November last year, the NI was one of a number of international outlets that publicized the proposal to dam this recently listed World Heritage Site. By April this year, Premier Wen Jiabao had called a halt to the project for further assessment.

Here was a side of China not reported in the Western press. A forum that nurtures civil society and welcomes debate. A government sensitive enough to critics to reverse a major plan.

As the country hurtles towards a capitalist economy, the ability of the Chinese people to debate social and economic issues is beginning to blossom. Many will tell you that in the 55-year rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) they have never felt so free to exchange views amongst themselves.

Go directly to jail!

But this new-found freedom to speak is fragile. China is, after all, still a one-party dictatorship. Any activists worth their salt can explain the clearly defined no-go zones. Challenging the supremacy of the CCP (the Chinese Communist Party) is off-limits. So are statements that undermine the unity of the Republic. Those who step outside these boundaries can expect a reaction that's swift and brutal.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The CCP has maintained stable government since 1949 by wiping out perceived opponents before their views gain any support amongst the people. Those who propose another Party or suggest alternatives to the authority of the CCP are destined for jail.

Since 1998, there have been at least 71 people detained for their use of the internet. Almost all have been found guilty of subversion and sentenced to between 2 and 12 years jail. Most of them can be linked to one of three categories: banned groups like the China Democracy Party (whose members are amongst those receiving the harshest sentences); criticism of a high-ranking Party official; or the 4 June 1989 Tian'anmen Square protest (when the State stepped in to shut down democracy demonstrators and in the process killed and injured hundreds). (1) Indeed, just the act of demonstrating in the Square now is enough to get you arrested.

Also heading for prison are those who speak about territorial independence from China in Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. Government reactions range from high-powered international diplomacy to direct internal repression. The blood that has flowed from the Tibetan independence movement is known worldwide (see page 19). The lesser-known struggle by the Uighur in the northwestern province of Xinjiang--just above Tibet on the map--has also left many dead. Of those Uighur whose fates are known (and many are not) 134 have been charged with separatist-related activities over the past five years. Twenty-nine received the death penalty while the rest are serving sentences from one year to life. (2)

In deciding what other groups constitute a threat, more unlikely contenders can be caught in the net. Falun Dafa (also known as Falun Gong) is a practice of purification through exercise and meditation. As a movement, it is about individual spirituality and health as opposed to social reform. Up until 25 April 1999--when more than 10,000 practitioners held a peaceful gathering in Beijing outside the Chinese leadership compound--Falun Gong was freely practised. Within two months of the gathering, the practice was declared illegal. The ability of the movement to mobilize such large numbers of people--rather than the beliefs of its members--is thought to be what the CCP has found so threatening. (3) The movement is now brutally suppressed (page 18).

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

This subjectivity and uncertainty means there are no guarantees. While you may think that you're on the acceptable side of the public debate line, the Government may not end up agreeing with you. A 'freedom' like this--allowing views to be expressed that can be arbitrarily and instantaneously removed later--is no freedom at all. How could anyone argue otherwise?

Then I meet 'Dan'.

Redefining democracy

Dan says it's not as black and white as I paint it. He challenges me to step outside my usual frameworks to assess the rights that the Chinese can and do enjoy. Dan's an information technology executive who got a Masters degree in the US in the 1960s and later returned to work in China. He's not a Party man himself. But he puts a view that he says is controversial to Westerners like me; a view I hear time and time again. He says that--in judging whether the people have a voice in how they are governed--there is a form of democracy in China. No, it is not a representative democracy with directly elected politicians gathering in a Parliament or Congress. Nationally, he points out how difficult that would be. In a population of 1.3 billion, if you had, say, 1,000 elected representatives, each would need to represent the views of 1.3 million people. 'But amongst ourselves we do debate our views freely. We can have an impact at a local level and on government officials. We can be heard.' He then relates his recent meeting with CCP officials in which there was a healthy difference of opinion about policy issues, argued without adherence to a Party line.