China displays two symbiotic realities; preservation of the political system, and conformism in adapting policies that generate high rates of economic growth.
There are deliberate policies to mount rapid industrialisation, infrastructural constructions, and to create new urban centres as engines of rural development.
Chinese conformism is more than in industries, buildings, and highways; it is also in the desire to be seen as “responsible”, not “revolutionary”.
China, a conformist country that used to be “revolutionary”, is much in the news because of its growing global influence. Its fame rotates around two men who determined the country’s fate and carefully calibrated its ideological metamorphosis, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping.
Their dominance in China was symbolised by their control of the Tiananmen Square, probably one of the best known public spaces in the world.
Tiananmen Square was where Chairman Mao proclaimed a new regime, The People’s Republic of China, on October 1, 1949, and 50 years later in 1989, as communist regimes were collapsing in Eastern Europe, it was the centre of student protests the demanding opening up of political space.
Due to the publicity outside China, Tiananmen became synonymous with Chinese political agitation. Unlike the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, however, Chinese communism did not collapse. Instead, Deng asserted his authority, suppressed the protests Mao-style, and continued with his “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”
It was Mao’s and Deng’s China that celebrated victory yesterday. Mao was the “revolutionary” forced to be so by circumstances. He had upset the then existing world order by chasing the pro-American Chiang Kai-shek out of the mainland into the island of Formosa.
He had compounded the situation by aligning the new China to the political economic doctrine that was closer to the Soviet Union than to the US.
In his last decade, Mao mellowed and embraced President Richard Nixon of the US. China’s “revolutionary” fire started dimming and Sino-American points of international friction were reduced.
By the time of Mao’s death, in 1979, succeeded by Deng, China was no longer the sponsor of anti-imperialist “revolutions.”
Instead, Deng courted Western technology and investment and attracted attention with “wise” comments about cats catching mice irrespective of their colour. As he prepared to leave office in 1990, Deng gave Chinese officials his last political will and testament.
He advised China to maintain positions, remain calm and bide time, maintain low profile, avoid claiming leadership, and not to brag about power.
Taking Deng’s advice seriously, China displays two symbiotic realities; preservation of the political system, and conformism in adapting policies that generate high rates of economic growth.
There are deliberate policies to mount rapid industrialisation, infrastructural constructions, and to create new urban centres as engines of rural development.
Chinese conformism is more than in industries, buildings, and highways; it is also in the desire to be seen as “responsible”, not “revolutionary”. Even its thinking, particularly with regard to Africa, appears conformist. Thus, its foreign policy pecking order stresses big powers, neighbours, and lastly the rest.Africa is and among “the rest”.
There are, however, some voices that would like China to shift gears and be assertive, as befits its status, in the international chess game. It should, argues Peking University’s Wang Yizhou, stop being a “free rider of the international system.”
Instead, it should lead in diplomatic “creative involvement” based on “international legitimacy.” It should initiate moves, not simply be “reactive”. Whose move?
Macharia is a professor of history and international relations, USIU
PAYE Tax Calculator
Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.
