The 80s and early 90s (an overview of Deng Xiansheng's later years)

In the 80s the children destined for the universities had been moulded by their schools to be ‘red’ and yet increasingly they were being influenced by Western ideas and dissatisfied with their low potential incomes in this period of a China in as much flux as in Mao’s time (if in the opposite direction in a sense). They began to question the idea of Communism itself, in these conditions. They began, too, to seek the changes that they wanted.

This is really what produced such a ‘culture fever’ (along with the stultification brought about by the so-called CR). Now was clearly the time to examine the culture. Now it was really possible, as free from repression as the Chinese had ever really been in China.

This was really, of course, mainly a phenomenon of the university system and this was still the system of the ruling classes. Fang told the students what they really thought they already knew (that the Communist system and Marxism were out-of-date) but he drew a wide following for doing it, all over China. He lectured on freedom and democracy all over. Meanwhile in the relative party centre Hu Yaobang proved to be a man of the people in a way most senior CCP officials of the time were not. He also sympathised more with both the plights and ideas of the masses than the others did.

In December 1986 many of the students of Hefei, Beijing and Shanghai declared in demonstrations that they had had enough and demanded freer elections (remember the 1980 experiment and its roll-back in 1986). This resulted in a number of incidents of beatings by police. In Shanghai alone, more than 30,000 students had protested with the support of many of the local population and this probably should have given someone a clue.

In defiance of the threat of beatings, students in Beijing continued their protests until 1 January 1987 and marched on Tiananmen Square where the police were ready. They had apparently watered the square so that the resulting ice would be treacherous for the students and make it easier for the police to knock them over.

They duly knocked them over while Hu publicly defended them. For his trouble he in turn was duly (and publicly) ousted by means of a specially advertised Chinese Central Television (CCTV) announcement. The repression of others including Fang soon followed in an orchestrated campaign. At the centre Zhao, the other Deng ‘puppet’, took over Hu’s lead party role, then, leaving his premiership to Li Peng.

Zhao and Li then had plenty of economic problems to deal with and one measure meant to alleviate some of them, the new ‘one child’ policy, first announced in 1979, was causing problems of its own.

The policy was neither well received nor well enforced in this period in the countryside. Farmers still needed sons to provide for them in their decrepitude and it was not legal to abort girls. Nevertheless there was a degree of enforcement. Police sometimes escorted recalcitrant women (still trying for an elusive boy) to hospitals to have their fallopian tubes compulsorily tied.

With Decollectivisation and ‘opening’ had come rural unemployment together with the increase in wealth in the SEZs that furthermore were at first mostly concentrated in the south – the north was getting a somewhat raw deal. The ‘iron rice bowl’ in the cities was causing problems because it had the effect of being a disincentive for hard work. The final main issue was the inflation that became problematic in 1988.

The leaders were more frank about these problems than Mao had perhaps ever been but the people were unimpressed by mere candour. At the same time there weren’t really many legal protest avenues.

With Hu’s death in 1989 the Beijing students were finally moved to bring their concerns to the government in the only ways they knew how: demonstrating in the square and presenting a petition outside Hu’s official funeral that took place as I mentioned in an earlier post in the Great Hall of the People.

This petition idea of course hails back to the time of the emperors and is part of a centuries-old tradition. Untraditionally the petitions were snubbed although perhaps it’s reasonable to say that a funeral probably wasn’t an appropriate time or place to present a petition. Nevertheless the petitioners gave the petition-giving attempt quite a traditional flavour and the snubbing, regarded as arrogant by many, was therefore a spur to further righteous protest with more people involved.

On 26 April the party had been sufficiently irked to proclaim via a People’s Daily (Renmin Ribao) editorial that the student movement was ‘turmoil’ – there were shades of a suggested return to the CR and Red Guards in that accusation with all the attendant opprobrium hinted at. In the past this might have cowed the students but in their already heated condition this time it merely angered them. The police seemed powerless (or perhaps unwilling) to suppress this protest movement.

So protest continued and to add insult to injury, as far as Deng was concerned, the day before Gorbachev was due to arrive in Beijing to officially consolidate a ‘thaw’ in Sino-Soviet relations (and when the world’s press were gathered to record that auspicious event) some of the students began a very inauspicious hunger strike. Also students for all over China (not to mention many Beijing workers from all parts of Beijing) were beginning to descend on Tiananmen Square to amplify the public insult.

Zhao was conciliatory and in these circumstances that led to his own immediate ouster. He and other leaders had met with student leaders (including hunger strikers clearly impaired from their physical ordeals) but all of these meetings had ended up being confrontational, such was the mood of the times.

The mood for radical change never caught on in the countryside, however (however affecting the scenes of emaciated striking students undoubtedly were) and this was a key factor in allowing the party to have a free hand in dealing with the movement. The day after Zhao’s ouster, martial law was declared.

Although at first the PLA moved slowly the crackdown was ultimately heavy. It occurred on the evening of 3 June and the morning of 4 June. At least 2,000 supporters of the students were probably killed on the streets surrounding the square attempting to defend it. The students themselves were mostly able to flee and flee they did. Some of their leadership were able to flee the country and the other known leaders were ultimately arrested.

International initial reaction was quite swift. Governments around the world condemned the PRC government’s violent suppression of the movement. Many Western companies and governments scaled down their operations within China.

Deng’s reaction to the reaction was unrepentant, however. As he evidently expected, the international mood was soon able to be restored to more or less its former state quite rapidly as, internationally, China was as needed as it needed.

China was soon to enter a period of unprecedented growth with international support that Deng began to explicitly promote again as soon as in 1992 in his “Copy Shenzhen [SEZ]” campaign following from his tour of various areas he decided were worthy of being copied including the Shenzhen SEZ. His lead role indicated a return to power of the reformist faction that the events of 1989 had only briefly discredited.

The politics of Asian values were already in evidence as the government was able to draw on local prejudice and nationalist sentiment to assert that foreign human rights concerns were really disguised Western imperialism re-packaged. The added advantage was a new kind of regional solidarity now available after the end of the Cold War that was able to be nurtured based on defence against alleged Western threats (especially the threat of US hegemony in Asia) allegedly merely disguised as human rights activism.

In the meantime, Deng gave the following expression to his ongoing faithfulness to both socialist doctrine and Dengism that can serve as his last word in this history:

If we don’t persevere with socialism, don’t reform and open up, don’t develop the economy, don’t improve people’s livelihoods, then this can only be the road to death.

1989 – Causes and Effects (Part One – Causes)

How then did the debates of the 1980s lead to the tragedy at Tiananmen in 1989 and is the debate ongoing or did it end there? Today the Chinese continue to debate how the international notion of individual human rights should apply in China if indeed it should at all (and that debate may be a more or less direct result of the Tiananmen massacre). This debate is mainly between China and some western countries but it also occurs within China. However first let’s go back to the 1980s and the various forces at work in that decade.

The reform faction was split in the 1980s and Deng’s inevitable occasional kowtowing to the conservative faction likely had this as its inevitable result. The period has been regarded as one of ‘bourgeois liberalisation’ by those who opposed the reforms. That meant China was looking too much towards western political as well as economic systems for answers to China’s problems. On the liberal wing was Fang Lizhi (now teaching in the US but then a professor of astrophysics and Vice President at a technology university in Anhui who also lectured about freedom and democracy to his students). His downfall was a cause celebre of the opponents of liberal ideas and consequently of those who believed in them. That was the way China was rolling. There was a heck of a lot of division after the partial liberalisation of the 1980 elections.

The 1986 elections proved crucial in cementing the divisions because the nature of their conduct constituted a real reversal of the liberalisation that had proved somewhat promising in 1980. They provoked Anhui students (many inspired by Fang) to demonstrate for more democracy and this movement spread to other cities including Shanghai (but apparently not Beijing) before it was suppressed. Troublemaking students were still able under the system that then obtained to be sent to far off provinces on work assignments as punishment and that occurred to some extent. Unfortunately for the authorities, however, the mere threat of that had the effect this time of simply spreading the ideas to the masses that had produced the discontent among the students.

Fang and others were scapegoated but the movement drew strength from that this time. Fang was given a research posting in Beijing (so, far away from his Anhui students but strangely closer to the centre of action than ever). He was also expelled from the party. Liu Binyan, an investigative journalist was also scapegoated.

This marked the beginning of a new ‘campaign against bourgeois liberalisation’ and it wouldn’t end until it had led to the fall of Hu Yaobang himself at the very apex of the party in 1987 (he was alleged to have been too sympathetic with and slow to suppress the original student protest movement). Hu, another prominent Xiangtanese, had argued within the Politburo against its suppression and it was evident that he did share some of its (and the students’) ideals. He was forced out as party general secretary and to write a traditional self-criticism and was replaced in that job by Zhao Ziyang, the Premier. That brought Li Peng into the position of Premier replacing Zhao.

Where did this now leave the party’s upper echelons? Deng, a cautious and old-school reformer, was still the paramount leader without portfolio but another perhaps more liberal reformer had been replaced for being too liberal. Li had obviously been vetted to ensure he wouldn’t be as liberal as Premier as Hu was as General Party Secretary.

Zhao had survived essentially because he was head of the ‘neo-authoritarian’ camp in debates concerning growth models and would be expected to carry this style of thinking into his new role. This camp in turn then had proponents among leaderships throughout East and South East Asia and based its ‘East Asian development model’ thinking on Confucianism. It had the basic ideas of subsuming individual interests into the collective interest of the society as determined by the authority (government should drive development) and that China was not yet ready for democracy as it interfered with the model’s social stability goal which would in turn interfere with the desired economic development goal.

Any protests, too, could potentially interfere with this economically valued stability and the Chinese (in taking the view that one role of government was the suppression of potentially injurious protests) were no orphans in their region. The stance was a combined cultural and economic claim that either or both of ‘Asian values’ (cultural claim) or the requirements of an underdeveloped economy (economic claim) required the suppression (by authoritarian government) of liberal democratic values in the name of these other social, political, cultural and economic values. On the other side were the ‘democrats’ who sought democracy now. And they were just the split views within the reformist faction. The Maoists were another story altogether when it came to authoritarianism.

So by 1989 what was it like to be a Chinese citizen?

As an economic citizen it was peachy keen in many respects. Freedom of choice quickly became substantially more evident both as a producer and as a consumer in the new market economy. Dynamism and pluralism existed here.

Intellectually, politically and culturally there was some room for debate but rights were limited and the neo-authoritarians were thoroughly in charge and not inclined to budge, believing as they did in what they were doing.

In the spring of 1989 three catalysts led to a feeling of the inevitability of righteous protest being in the air, however.

The first was the death of Hu on 15 April (so soon after his deposition for not completely suppressing a democratic protest movement quickly enough). That was followed on 4 May by the 70^th Anniversary of the establishment of the May Fourth Movement (a democratic movement) and on 15 May by the visit of the reformer Gorbachev (a believer in glasnost (‘openness’ – seen by many Chinese democrats as an introduction to democracy in a Communist system) as well as perestroika (economic restructuring)) for a Sino-Soviet Summit.

Hu had been a great hope of the democratic faction and his death was seen symbolically by some coming as it did so soon before a great anniversary regarded as so significant to Chinese Communism for so long by the CCP. Planning was well advanced for a variety of official celebrations of the anniversary. As well as being a crucible of the CCP, however, the May Fourth Movement had included calls for democracy. The Gorbachev visit was also intended to be and was seen as significant as it was intended to mark the first thawing of Sino-Soviet relations in nearly 30 years. The world’s media would be focused on Beijing for this significant visit making it also of special interest for protesters.

The first protests were by students outside Hu’s state funeral at the Great Hall of the People. This lit the touch paper for the protests on the latter two dates which took on lives of their own and the concept of hunger striking developed in mid May protests further galvanised and inspired the movement.

Given the above catalysts and inspiration, economic grievances also began to be aired by people besides democratic activists and students. People who admired the bravery of the hunger striking students began to notice that they perhaps had grievances worthy of protest, too, also related at least indirectly to the paucity of democracy. The economic reforms had produced great and apparent new disparities in wealth that weren’t appreciated by many people on the poor side of the disparity.

The division was between both the workers and their managers and between the public and new private sectors. It was not uncommon, for example, for a doctor in the state health system who had studied for many years to notice that s/he was receiving less income (potentially much less) that a street egg vendor. Also price deregulation and shortages in the market transition had led to an inflation rate of 20% that for many of the many poorer people hadn’t helped matters. The final concern with the reform was that the management of it had allowed scope for widespread corruption and widespread corruption there had been (families of CCP leaders were notably involved).

These issues were concerns especially in Beijing and other cities. Protests began to occur and gain widespread support in many cities. People hoped that democracy might produce both a more responsive and a less corrupt government that might fix these problems.

Politics and Political Theory in the PRC and Deng

Firstly let’s have some (neo) liberal theory ala Fukuyama. Free markets lead to a free people/middle class who then seek political liberalisation and control of the state by means of democratic reform. Then the reforms they want happen as a weakened state succumbs to the magic force of individual freedom, Deng allowed free markets, therefore democracy would eventually be forced upon him QED history is now ended. Where could this theory (admittedly very simplistically stated) go wrong? There might be obstacles to the political reform that the theory may be too incomplete to envisage and indeed there have been.

The first might be the lack of information flow that authoritarian regimes are able to bring into non-existence. The second might be cultural constraints: people might for example value peaceful illiberalism over revolutionary liberalism that might involve much more violence.

This would all be debated albeit illiberally within Deng’s illiberal reformist state.

The first debates as I noted initially helped Deng because the main initial target of democracy wall activists was the Gang of Four. I also noted that Deng quickly closed down the wall when he began to perceive the liberal thought it contained being widely disseminated didn’t accord with his own interests. Wei’s fifth modernisation made him the first dissident of the Deng era and it was also the idea that finally made the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 and not democracy inevitable, not yet at any rate.

It wasn’t as simple as Deng opposing all reformist talk all the time however. The 1980s can be viewed as the decade of a repeating liberal/illiberal loop with liberal thinking alternately encouraged, ignored and then discouraged by Deng. It must have suited Deng to be able to present himself as a kind of middle of the road compromise candidate as he consolidated his strength offering at different times something to everyone from the hard core authoritarian leftists to the most radical of the democracy reformers.

Wei could accuse Deng of becoming another Mao and Deng couldn’t easily disprove this by permitting Wei to say that without penalty (as it was he got 13 years’ gaol for ‘counter-revolutionary’ activities) but he could permit some criticism.

Was the picture of the lone man in front of four tanks in Tiananmen the best symbol of Deng’s final political legacy? Or will political liberalism finally ‘catch up’ as the above neoliberal theory supposes and be his final legacy? Did Deng weaken his state with his reformism supported by democracy activists in a kind of ‘zero sum game’ that will ultimately give this picture the power to turn humans into superhumans capable of overthrowing it? Will the internet and/or events in the Arab World and Myanmar also influence this picture?

Let’s back a little back. The wall activists were saying down with Mao and the CR and the Gang of Four but what was Wei saying in particular that Deng finally couldn’t have?

Firstly in Democracy: the Fifth Modernisation Wei was getting ahead of the game too far. Deng had proposed four modernisations and Wei had to add a fifth.

Secondly he claimed in a ‘big character poster’ and another article that Deng would have to become like Mao who he had opposed. He was arguing that the system (that therefore needed to change) caused this (making him a prominent dissident throughout the Deng years – at one point in the 1980s he emerged from gaol only to be re-gaoled soon afterwards).

What did Deng have to say about political freedoms? Firstly Deng had no special interest in or desire for democracy to come about especially quickly (if at all). His first duty as he saw it was still to Marxism in some form. Deng’s response when critical posters began to re-emerge in 1980 was to amend the constitution to ban them. Ironically, such posters were actually first specifically made constitutionally protected during the supposedly more repressive CR years.

Deng propounded his Four Cardinal Principles in March 1979 as the limits of debate. Debaters had to be following the socialist road for the PRC, accept the maintenance of the dictatorship of the proletariat for some time, acknowledge the rightful leadership of the Communist Party leading in that and adhere to Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought (as expressed before 1957) in any theory of government in the current socialist phase that always precedes Communism in Marxist theory.

He also produced four legal reforms in June 1979 at the 2^nd Session of the 5^th National Party Congress (NPC) defining ‘crimes’ for the first time in the history of the PRC in a criminal code and limiting the definition of ‘counter revolutionary’ crime, enshrining for the first time the notion that ‘all citizens are equal before the law’ (including non-party members) in a new procedural law, regulating and regularising joint ventures (especially with foreigners) and providing for an electoral law at the lower two levels of the People’s Congress structure.

In the following year at the 3^rd Session of the 5^th NPC (as is the practice) matters of party discipline were up for discussion (the criminal law did not apply to party members so a member had to be expelled before it could be applied to her or him). Deng called for reform there to reduce over-concentrations of power with individuals by means of holding multiple positions especially in both the party and the government, further separate party and government functions, provide for a retirement age for senior functionaries and succession and further guard against abuses of power by the further strengthening of internal party discipline by means of appropriate sanctions. These reforms were especially overdue given the continuation of criminal impunity of party members. The intra party codes would now be strengthened to mirror the criminal codes (as now formally promulgated) somewhat closely.

Party members continued to be permitted to be government officials, just with less dual posts. With regard to the retirements of people of his generation (he was in his mid 70s (having been born in 1904)) he set an example by retiring as vice-chairman of the party (though he intended to continue wielding all the power behind the scenes – he took the title ‘paramount leader’).
The two official leaders came from the next generation. They were Hu Yaobang (born in 1915 – CCP General Secretary from 1981 to 1987) and Zhao Ziyang (born in 1919 – Premier from 1983 to 1987 and CCP General Secretary from Hu’s fall in 1987 to 1989). Zhao had been somewhat instrumental in the successful agricultural reforms in Anhui leading to him being brought to Beijing.

Next week: causes and effects of Tiananmen.

From Mao to Deng

Just a little more today on what changed and what didn’t:

The first thing to note was a sense of grief and a hole to fill was left for so many Chinese by the death of Mao after he had effectively (and otherwise, it must be said) ruled China for a generation. Deng’s form of hole-filling by radical reform proved to be another kind of revolution for the many who had never known any system other than Maoism.

China still was (as it still is today) both relatively poor and relatively isolated in world terms but progress had been made (and would continue to be under Deng’s reforms). Mao’s and Deng’s goals weren’t really so different after all. China would be strong.

But many of the Chinese needed a rest as much as many others remained restless. Continuous revolution was not fun for everyone. Virtually every year since 1949 it must have seemed a violent major purge or at least a personal denunciation was liable to be just around the corner.

The CR was one of many of these types of occasions as my earlier posts record. Deng himself was a prime example having, himself, been purged and rehabilitated more than once. The violence of millions of Red Guards had barely subsided when Mao died, the Gang of Four instated their own purges, Hua had them arrested in turn in his best Mao imitation and the retributive purges continued even as Deng assumed control.

But Deng seemed inclined to lower the boom on terrorist government (at least on Mao’s scale) and there must have been many sighs of relief on all sides. Even the Red Guards themselves who ultimately felt betrayed by Mao (who had finally banished them to the countryside, remember) now breathed more freely.

Deng was a CCP man, though. So what did this mean? There would always be enemies of Communism that needed to be rooted out, that’s what.

Ironically some of the most prominent of these enemies of Communism turned out to be disillusioned Red Guards. One of the first acts of rebellion they became involved in if not against Communism then at least against the current system (even before Deng had had the chance to spell out how he intended to reform it) was the Democracy Wall movement that began in Beijing in 1978 and remained centred there. Many of those now involved in the movement were of course first politicised when they had become Red Guards during the CR.

Refreshingly, Deng announced his approval of the movement (Mao had done something similar, though, with his ‘Hundred Flowers’ comments – could Deng be trusted any more than Mao?) And in this case this was just before he assumed power. As had occurred with Mao, expressions of approval of an ideological movement spurred it on – they chose to again trust their at least hoped-for leadership.

Deng then brought in his reforms and the people waited to see how it would turn out. Would he ultimately welcome the democracy first sought by the May Fourth Movement in 1919? Maybe not.

Better international relations were now on the agenda. The US and China were ready for rapprochement. By 1 January 1979 they had established full diplomatic relations and later that month Deng visited President Carter becoming the first Chinese leader ever to visit the US. Deng was impressed by the technology and material conditions he witnessed on this visit. He, in turn, impressed everybody he met in the US with his vision for China and its relations with the West.

Like Mao, Deng was prepared to turn on dissenters and soon the democracy wall demonstrators that had supported his own rise to power were going too far for him. Deng had wanted four modernisations and Wei Jingsheng, for example, suggested democracy as a fifth.

Deng as readily referred to people like Wei as counter revolutionary as Mao had called Deng that. He began to suppress the movement in Mao style (if a little less violently) and the wall was soon shut down. Notably most of the wall activity had actually been conducted with due regard to the Four Cardinal Principles Deng delineated that I will refer to in a later post.
The reality was that Deng copied Mao’s legal methods in that laws that no one could possibly follow were always kept in reserve to justify any repression as and when it was desired by the leader.

Deng’s next concern in terms of dissent would be potentially brought about by the local devastating drought in Anhui province (also in 1978). Chinese agriculture was still close to a subsistence proposition in a typical year and employing most Chinese so drought was a particular concern in China. The large communes didn’t help matters. In response, local authorities, inspired by the peasants themselves, tried the system that would work and later go national. The productivity in Anhui boomed in response to this new incentivisation. Famine was averted but rolling out the scheme nationally still turned out to be a test of Deng’s power base.

Deng’s ‘capitalist roader’ tag still had the power to tie his hands regardless of how successful (and in fact saving) capitalism could be shown to be. He was finally able to squeeze the reform through, however. It also proved itself almost immediately nationwide in terms of productivity. Along with the local produce and other markets, small factories producing consumer items for market also began to spontaneously sprout up in rural areas.

The two major figures standing with Deng then were Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang and they both also favoured the market.

Foreign capitalists found they were now welcomed, too (initially principally in the SEZs). The foreigners in the zones were popular with locals because they had deeper pockets and this attracted Chinese from all over China hoping for a share of their apparent largesse. Chinese wages and standards of living were higher there but the increases eventually flowed throughout much of the Chinese economy especially in the south of the country (because most of the initial zones were concentrated there. The coastal city special areas were more evenly spread between north and south).

The youth of these zones soon began to live a noticeably more decadent and capitalist lifestyle and to lose some respect for socialism. Prostitution and other supposed signs of vice soon began to flourish there.

Deng’s response (under some pressure from the left to prove his credentials) was to begin a campaign against ‘moral pollution’. After decades of Maoism this comparatively mild effort was treated as a bit of a joke, though. In one oft repeated story a particularly zealous official involving himself in the campaign criticised somebody who possessed a book containing a picture of a western woman with a low cut dress. The woman in question turned out to be Marx’s wife. Meanwhile, investors apparently weren’t getting the joke and Deng was forced to end the scary campaign before it had really begun to assuage their fears. Nevertheless thousands of smugglers had been arrested as part of the campaign.

Deng successfully negotiated the 1997 handover of Hong Kong following the expiration of Britain’s lease with the Thatcher government despite Thatcher’s apparent misgivings, another coup for south China. He used a combination of a few threats and agreement to the concept of ‘one state two systems’ to get that happening, the latter leading to more local name-calling to the effect that he was excessively ‘rightist’. The name-callers probably never had to deal with the “Iron Lady” themselves and in fact Deng once remarked that in these discussions he was “the Iron Man meeting the Iron Lady”.

Deng’s other two notable reforms were to allow the practice of religions more freely again and to reduce the length of the working week. All in all, the economic and social reforms I’ve outlined in these last couple of posts saw Deng riding a wave of popularity by the time of the PRC’s 35^th anniversary celebrations in 1984. In the next few posts I’ll focus a little more on political, party and legal reforms in the Deng era especially as it continued from here (and prospects for more).