The Chinese and Russian postcommunist experiences have been pursued on parallel yet divergent tracks. While the collapse of the Soviet Union ended the superficial existential tensions between communism and the West, the internal politics of China and Russia as well as their national psyche and identities have become areas of particular interest in each country's movements toward - and from – the West.
Ian Buruma juxtaposes the Chinese and Russian models of postcommunism through a prism of government involvement in civil society and the national economy. China’s approach is one of coordinated and centralized government actions in directing the path toward capitalism. To a certain extent the glasnost and perestroika political reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev and their role in the hemorrhaging of the central party’s influence and power over the state, have offered the Chinese a model to avoid. The Chinese leadership has fostered the opportunities of a massive influx of foreign direct investments and capitalized on economic reforms to offset political backwardness and injustice. Though Communism per se is no longer the stated archetype and structure of the Chinese state, the authoritarian regime now in place has come to dominate and influence every aspect of Chinese life. Buruma pays particular attention to the repression of academic dissidents and the inevitable corruption that occurs during the transition to capitalism.
Chinese officials have focused their technocracy on economic reform to foster a false sense of political progress. Aggressive development projects as well as foreign direct investment have fueled large-scale economic freedoms and a broader Chinese middle class. But as Buruma himself notes, “economic technocracy cannot by itself lend legitimacy to the government.” Despite China’s robust economic growth, a large portion of its population remains gripped by poverty. The Chinese postcommunist experience seems to have similar correlations with two Latin American models of nationalized (though somewhat capitalistic) economic planning and authoritarianism as the rule of law: Mexico and Chile, respectively. Mexico’s statist macroeconomic policy led to stifled expansion until recent liberalization allowed for robust growth. The ruthless Pinochet regime in Chile and the current leadership of China share similar human rights records.
While China has transitioned into a one-party, pseudo-capitalistic state, Russia remains a country of relative wealth mired in corruption and lawlessness. Democracy seems a bygone goal. President Putin’s efforts of limiting the free press and expanding central power by suppressing separatist movements resonate with the Chinese. Putinian nationalism appeals to Russian and Chinese alike. Despite its proximity to Europe and the West, Russia lags in political progress. In the end, both China and Russia seek controlled order in the economic and political spheres of their respective civil societies. Both countries are striving toward “efficiency,” but slowly degrading the quality of political culture while creating a false sense of progress with economic success.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment