How did China achieve this?
Tardean mimetics. It mimicked what worked- or appeared to work- elsewhere. At first this was Stalinist methods which killed off the possibility of peasant resistance to the Party and then, later on, it was imitation of the authoritarian 'Tiger economies'. It also was helped by Edwin Lim of the World Bank to import the best infrastructure technology before becoming in its turn the best in that line of work. Ruthless suppression of 'dissidents' and the purging of corrupt or criminalized cadres enabled the High Command to concentrate power in its hands and to maintain 'residuary control rights' over industry, academia, the media, etc.
A harsh family planning policy as well as the 'internal passport' or 'household registration' system meant that migrants contributed to the development of affluent areas without gaining equal entitlements. In other words a 'tragedy of the commons'- re. 'club goods'- was avoided and, once pollution was tackled, Chinese cities became more and more livable.
All this was only possible because some of the fruits of growth was used to strengthen the Party's coercive power. At the same time, local cadres were rewarded for finding amicable ways to tackle popular grievances- or at least maintain the facade that this was happening.
Our search for the answer must begin with the realisation that no nation can make such spectacular progress in such a short time without the united, organised and well-directed efforts of its people.
No. It must begin with the realization that no nation can rise above agricultural involution save by getting rural girls into massive factory dormitories with assured access to open markets.
Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s visionary leader, once said, “Communism has failed in China, but the Chinese Communist Party has succeded.”
Venezuela has failed, but Maduro and his gang have succeeded.
What he meant was that, in China, the organisation that has strengthened people’s unity, provided strategic vision to the nation, and served as both a political leader and an all-encompassing governing mechanism is the CPC.
What about the North Korean Communist Party?
China decided to mimic economically successful authoritarian countries because it saw that it was falling behind militarily and economically.
This was a gamble which paid off for the Communist Party precisely because the West was convinced that Multi-Party democracy would spontaneously arise as Capitalism predominated. China, like Taiwan and South Korea, would transition to a liberal parliamentary democracy.
China has evolved its own unique Party-State system in which the party leads everything everywhere
This was the rule, not the exception, in Communist countries.
– this phenomenon has solidified since Xi became CPC’s general secretary in 2012. This seems odd and unacceptable to multi-party democracies.
There was no pushback against unfair trade and other practices under Obama. Trump did turn things around, but Trump is probably more unacceptable now than Chairman Xi. It remains to be seen whether Biden will make good on his promise to ensure China does not overtake the US on 'his watch'.
But let’s not pretend India’s system of governance is inherently superior.
Since no Indian Party waded through an ocean of blood to establish an iron like grip over the entire country, it is foolish to compare India with China.
If proof of the pudding is in the eating, then the imperative to improve the pudding is no less in India’s multi-party system.
It is non-existent. It is enough to be the least bad alternative to win an election. You don't have to be any good.
Specifically, thought leaders in the Congress, BJP and other political parties in India should study with an open mind the factors that have enabled the CPC to perform far better than them.
Utterly mad! The CPC killed its rivals. No pan-Indian party can do that though, no doubt, Mamta's goons can beat non-TMC cadres with vim and vigor.
Here are five lessons they can profitably learn.
What lesson can a tiger teach a cow?
First: The time and mental energy of most Indian politicians, including those who are the best and brightest, is spent largely in fighting elections or in fighting their opponents in between elections.
Unless they are in office and can impress the voter with 'last mile delivery'. Alternatively, they could just hire Prashant Kishore. Interestingly, there are Prashant impersonators who con local politicians out of lakhs of Rupees on the pretense of doing a constituency survey which will secure them a ticket for the Assembly Elections.
They do this not necessarily because all of them like it, but it is a compulsory systemic requirement imposed on them. Indeed, individual winnability and the ability to get one’s party elected in maximum number of constituencies become the criteria for a person’s rise in Indian politics.
Nonsense! Rahul is still around but then so is Mayawati and so forth.
Naturally, money power, exploitation of religious and caste sentiments, giving impossibly populist promises to voters (“Rs 15 lakh in each Indian’s bank account”) and manipulation of the media enter the toolkit of most political leaders and their parties.
Politicians tell lies! Who knew?
When the political system itself thrives on division and constant internal confrontation, one can hardly expect people’s energies to be united, mobilised and channelised for “Bhageerath Prayatnas” to achieve history-changing tasks.
Why did Edwin Lim succeed in China but fail in India? The answer is that NGOs and PIL activists found it paid better to prevent development rather than let the country grow economically by industrializing and getting rural girls into giant factory dormitories.
Similarly, when our parties and leaders fritter away their energies, they shrink the space for all-party consensus and cooperation to tackle major challenges.
The consensus is that something nice should be done in a very nice way- isn't it? Naughtiness should not occur.
It’s hardly surprising, therefore, that our political and governing establishments at the Centre and in states rarely set long-term goals in national development and people’s welfare, and pursue them with uninterrupted focus and commitment until the goals are reached.
Setting goals is not a problem. We can all agree that India should become very nice and all naughtiness should be eliminated by 2088.
If China has set a better record in this regard – and none can deny it has – it is because the CPC has evolved a system that is conducive for party-wide, government-wide, economy-wide and nation-wide transformative programmes.
By killing people or locking them up and 're-educating' them. Chinese billionaires speak of a 'rich pig killing list'.
Nine years ago, Ray Kwong wrote in Forbes- I'm no statistics whiz, but it seems to me that a Chinese billionaire dies every 40 days.
China Daily reported Friday that unnatural deaths have taken the lives of 72 mainland billionaires over the past eight years. (Do the math.)
Which means that if you're one of China's 115 current billionaires, as listed on the 2011 Forbes Billionaires List, you should be more than a little nervous.
Mortality rate notwithstanding, what's more disturbing is how these mega wealthy souls met their demise. According to China Daily, 15 were murdered, 17 committed suicide, seven died from accidents and 19 died from illness. Oh, yes, and 14 were executed. (Welcome to China.)
I don't know about you but I find it somewhat improbable that among such a small population there could be so many "suicides," "accidents" and "death by disease" (the average age of those who died from illness was only 48). I'm only speculating but the homicide toll could really be much higher.
Any way you look at it, of course, the life expectancy for the current crop of Chinese billionaires isn't pretty.
Have things improved since? Yes. Expectations have changed. The rich know they may 'disappear' at any moment. It is theoretically possible that this will improve allocative efficiency in Capital Markets but free Mao caps for everybody are no consolation for the two or three hundred million people who will get a very bad haircut indeed.
Second: The CPC has also evolved a system in which, by and large, highly competent, experienced and better-educated officials rise to the top, both at national and provincial levels. And they are held accountable for achieving strategic goals and targets the CPC sets from time to time. This does not mean there is no groupism, favouritism, and climbing the system using the ladder of “connections”. But, in general, the system sieves out the mediocre.
Raising the level of 'the mediocre' is a good strategy. The exceptional should be innovating, not bogged down in routine administration.
There is another crucial difference. In China, communist leaders do not rise to the top without having served in multiple provinces and without the experience of handling responsibilities in various subjects from grassroots upwards. As a result, they develop an all-China perspective, personality and competence. In India, with the minor exception of the pracharak system in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, not many politicians develop a pan-India experience and understanding. The resultant Centre-state friction we often see in our country is a rarity in China.
This is foolish. The fact is that plenty of IAS officers, with experience of multiple States and Union territories get inducted into politics. Congress, in its heyday, was good at resolving 'frictions' of various kinds.
The CPC’s top leadership is far more collegiate than is generally known. Xi is at its core, but others in the politburo (25 members) and its standing committee (seven members plus vice president Wang Qishan as a non-voting member) are not non-entities, as is largely the case with Modi’s cabinet or the BJP’s team of office-bearers. The CPC also values the guidance of its elders much more than is the case in India. Its most important leaders hold an annual chintan baithak (brainstorming meeting) for a week or two with their predecessors at Beidaihe, a seaside resort. This not only helps in consensus-building on major issues facing the nation, but also strengthens cohesion and continuity in the party from one generation to another.
But even very old guys can suddenly be sent to jail on historic corruption charges. Their families and their clients become vulnerable.
This is rarely the case in India. The so-called Margdarshak Mandal in the BJP, established in 2014, was a way of silencing the party elders.
Who, like Kulkarni himself, were utterly useless.
It did not hold a single meeting. The practice of ministers in a BJP government consulting seniors in the Congress who once discharged important responsibilities – and vice versa – is simply non-existent in any institutionalised manner.
Because 'seniors' are senile. Anyway, they can always publish an op-ed saying the Chinese are so nice. They listen to their senile delinquents. Modi is a nasty, nasty, man. He doesn't come and listen to me just because I'm a boring old fart.
Here is a poser. On July 1, to celebrate the CPC’s centenary, Xi Jinping will be seen at Tiananmen Square along with not only other six members of the politburo standing committee but also top retired party leaders.
Who would be spending their retirement in jail if they didn't show up obediently.
On August 15, 2022, when India celebrates the 75th anniversary of her independence, will Narendra Modi give similar recognition on the ramparts of the Red Fort to his senior party colleagues, leaders of other major parties, the sitting and former presidents and vice presidents, and former prime ministers?
No. Would Hamid Ansari really want to sit quietly behind Modi?
Remember: The bhumi pujan for the construction of the new Parliament building in December 2020 was a Modi-only affair. He did not even invite President Ramnath Kovind, who is the Constitutional head of Indian Parliament, to grace the event.
The Speaker of the Lower House is the custodian of the relevant building. He invited Modi, who has a seat in that House and commands its confidence, to preside over the bhumi pujan. This is an expression of Parliamentary prerogative.
Third: Contrary to the common perception in India, the CPC is not an inflexible and rigid entity.
But it will kill you if you try to fuck with it.
In keeping with ancient China’s philosophy of study and self-improvement, CPC itself has been changing with changing times. Shunning the ideological dogmatism of Marxism-Leninism, even Maoism, it is continuously experimenting with ways to overcome mistakes in developing “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. In this, it is increasingly seeking inspiration from ancient Chinese mythologies and philosophical-spiritual traditions.
But remains focused on 'Tardean mimetics'- i.e. mimicking (if necessary stealing) the best tech.
Learning from the collapse of the communist rule in the Soviet Union and its disintegration as a nation in 1991, it has focused on
ensuring that the Party remained in control- or at least had 'appropriable control rights' over the entire economy, including foreign MNCs. Gorbachev's mistake was to relinquish Party control of the economy which caused an immediate 'scissors crisis'.
stability and economic reforms over political reforms in order to build a strong economy and raise its people’s living standards.
By stopping them having lots of babies.
Without this, external anti-communist forces would have conspired for a regime change in Beijing. (Remember the recent brash talk by the likes of Mike Pompeo, Trump’s secretary of state?) The CPC’s obsessive pursuit of stability has undoubtedly extracted a high cost in terms of severe restrictions on citizens’ individual rights and liberties. Yet, as a collective, the Chinese society has progressed.
Why? Because ordinary Chinese people worked extremely hard. Since the Government let them 'be exploited', their productivity rose so rapidly that soon their real wages started to rise. By then, infrastructure had improved so much that per unit labor costs fell- i.e. China remained competitive. But all this could only happen because 'activists' (andolanjivis) were killed or locked up or chased away.
Here is another example of how the CPC is alive to the problems within. When the get-rich-quick craze led to rampant corruption in the government, Xi warned that the communist rule in the country could end if the malaise was not addressed firmly. He launched a harsh anti-corruption drive, which led to the imprisonment of thousands – not only “flies” (low- and mid-level cadre), but also “tigers” (many top party and military officials). The culture of bribery has not ended, but the fear of being caught and punished is now certainly greater. In India, barring the communist parties (which have largely become irrelevant nationally), no other party has evolved any effective internal mechanism to punish their corrupt leaders and workers.
But China punished non Party dissidents even more harshly. Essentially, the Chinese believe that Brezhnev's 'stabilization of the cadres'- i.e. not shooting under-performers- was responsible for the USSR's decline. They think the elevation of Gorbachev- who was trained as a lawyer, in a wholly lawless country!- was a catastrophic miscalculation. A good official is an official who knows he may be sleeping tonight in a jail-cell and getting a bullet in the back of the head after a perfunctory trial in a month's time.
Fourth: The CPC, through its vast institutionalised system of party schools, attaches far greater importance to study and training of its cadres than parties in any other country.
Which is why the Chinese have a saying- 'Science students look down on Arts students. Arts students look down on Politics students. Politics students look down on their teachers.'
Xi, who once headed the Central Party School, says, “Learning is the path to the inheritance of civilization, the ladder of life growth, the foundation for the consolidation of the CPC, and the key to the country’s prosperity.”
People learn to nod their heads when they hear such bromides when they know that the alternative to doing so is torture and execution.
Indeed, policy- and decision-making at the highest levels in CPC, and also in governments in Beijing and provinces, is far more consultative and knowledge-driven than in the BJP, Congress and other parties in India.
But, if the Chairman says cats are dogs, then this 'knowledge' is quickly accepted. Everyone spontaneously consults with everyone else to spread this amazing piece of wisdom.
The CPC politburo regularly conducts “study sessions” on specific subjects by inviting top-notch scholars.
Who are shitting themselves lest they be asked to prove scientifically that cats are actually dogs.
Universities, research institutes, think tanks and experts are valued far more in the Chinese system of governance than in ours.
Because Indian Universities are shit. Prashant Kishor worked for the UN in Chad. I presume he was analyzing data and organizing public health surveys. This scarcely qualifies as 'scholarship' or 'expertise'. Yet Kishor is worth more than all India's vaunted 'Political Scientists' put together. Still, the day may come when he turns into a Yogendra Yadav type fuck-wit.
In contrast, political parties in India are largely impervious to seeking scholarly and professional advice from outside.
Which party isn't running after Kishor? The one's who will lose the next election. Even Stalin roped in that Hindi speaker so as to win big in Tamil Nadu.
In my long and close association of 16 years with the Bharatiya Janata Party at the highest levels, I found that the so-called Kisan Morcha, Mahila Morcha, SC & ST Morcha, Minorities Morcha and the various cells and departments for doctors, lawyers, traders, small industrialists and others were mostly “naam ke vaaste” – to accommodate party functionaries seeking some position and recognition in the organisation. The party’s own governments at the Centre or in states rarely seek, or receive, useful policy and monitoring inputs from them. The Congress does not perform any better in this regard.
Because these guys are either useless or they just say what everybody knows- viz. Labor and Land laws must be reformed. Inspectorate Raj must be dismantled. PILs and NGO activism must be curbed- etc, etc.
Fifth: China could not have achieved what it has without steadfastly adhering to the path of socialism – essentially a system that puts “People First”.
By killing them unless they are doing what you want.
When Deng radically changed the course of the country’s economic growth after 1978, he pragmatically introduced certain capitalist (pro-market) reforms and opened up the economy to cooperation with capitalist countries in the West. But this was done without abandoning the path and goal of “socialism with Chinese characteristics”.
i.e. killing people with different views of Socialism or what constitutes 'Chinese characteristics'. Actually, Marx himself had said 'To each according to his contribution'- till scarcity disappears. Chinese Marxists knew this. Indian Marxists preferred to remain in blissful ignorance of their own credo.
This catchphrase combines the broad ideals of equity and egalitarianism, and roots them in soil of Chinese people’s national pride.
But Taiwan did even better than China.
The CPC used its economic reforms to strengthen the nation and to continually improve the living conditions of the common people. Without this commitment and success, it would have lost the legitimacy to rule a long ago.
It continued to rule even when it was starving its own people. Legitimacy flows from the barrel of a gun. Mao was adored though no doubt people kept trying to run away from his paradise.
In India, sadly, we have failed to evolve our own path of “socialism with Indian characteristics”.
Nonsense! India has bureaucratic Socialism with Democratic- albeit dynastic- features. It is shit because Indian bureaucracy was shitty even in Kipling's time.
This, despite the fact that socialism not only remains a preambular principle in the Indian Constitution, but also finds a place in the constitutions of the Congress, BJP (yes, BJP, too) and several other parties. In reality, India’s political and intellectual class has shunned adherence to socialism a long time ago – without replacing it with anything better. Our developmental journey, therefore, is taking place without an inspirational strategic goal and a clear path to get there.
The path is clear but it involves removing paternalistic legislation and judicial oversight of a counter-productive kind.
Furthermore, as we have seen in recent years, our sense of self-identity as a nation itself is sought to be fractured by the proponents of Hindutva.
80 percent of the population must forget they are Hindus. Members of other Religions are under no such obligation. Yet the fact is any non-Hindu majority area has an active secessionist element. Without Hindutva, there is no unifying factor for the country. It should divide up on a linguistic basis so that caste can battle caste till the end of time.
Whatever degree of people’s welfare that happens, is
wholly the result of their own hard-work and enterprise.
just largely a byproduct of the muddled, ad-hoc, divided and discontinuous efforts of our political system. For far too long, we Indians have neglected the need for fundamental and bold political and governance reforms, while keeping our our democratic system intact, so that we can speedily bridge the gap between India’s enormous potential and her unsatisfactory performance.
What reforms is Kulkarni proposing? That Modi spend more time listening to senile fools like himself? Or is it that Modi should adopt some other religion and spend his time fighting against 'Hindutva'? Why stop there? Why not demand that Modi become a white Catholic woman from Italy? Also, Modi should marry Rahul and become Soniaji's daughter in law. They should quarrel in the Italian language. Smriti Irani can play the role of their well-meaning, but bumptious, desi neighbor. I tell you this tele-drama will be super hit!
It is, hence, useful and necessary for Indian politicians and people to study the CPC’s journey of 100 years.
The CPC won power by military means. Congress did not- indeed, no Indian party achieved anything of the sort. Only the Naxals tried Maoist tactics. But extra-judicial killing bottled them up in remote forests.
Not because China’s political system is perfect – it will surely change in future in response to its own people’s democratic urges.
Not on Xi's watch. One may as well pretend that Russia is going to turn into a vibrant multi-party democracy of a Scandinavian sort.
Not because India should, or India can, copy the Chinese system of governance. The historical, social and cultural realities of our two great Asian nations are considerably different. Rather, studying the CPC’s accomplishments and failures will help us better understand where India’s strengths lie and, more importantly, what lessons we can learn from China to achieve similar “mountain-moving” and “sky-repairing” miracles.
Development occurs when Tardean mimetics- i.e. the mimicking of a superior model- occurs. But there's no point mimicking a gangster if you can't actually kill people. Your bluff will be called and you will end up being robbed and beaten.
In turn, the CPC too should study and adopt the many virtues in India’s democratic system and developmental path.
Men should learn how to give birth to children by studying women. Women should learn to fly by studying birds. Birds should learn how to reach Mars by studying rocket science. Kulkarni is a Raja Rishi. Modi should listen to him the way Vajpayee listened to Kulkarni and made his party unelectable.
It should restrain the rise of ultra-nationalism in China, which, like in India, could create fissures domestically and also create serious apprehensions in neighbouring nations.
Nonsense! Ultra-nationalism is a good thing. Having effective offensive military doctrines which 'front-load' pain for the otherside is what prevents a slide into war.
Ours are the only two countries in the world with a population of one billion-plus each, and each is gifted with profound civilisational wisdom.
Which is why both Indians and Chinese emigrate to Amrika-Yurop any chance they get.
Therefore, with mutual learning and mutual cooperation,
but no anal sex because we are getting on in years
we both can improve and together strive to fulfil a common responsibility – creating a better world for all.
Kulkarni supported Rahul in 2019. But was Rahul staking a claim for the top job? He said so. But was it a clever ploy so as to be able to resign the Presidency of Congress? We don't yet know. Still, we sympathise with Rahul. First his granny, then his daddy, get killed so Congress wins big on the 'sympathy vote'. It is no wonder the boy is gun-shy. Don't forget, even Mahatma Gandhi was gunned down the moment he was no longer of any use to Congress. Three dead Gandhis is enough. Let the Grand old Party get by on martyred Kulkarnis.
No comments:
Post a Comment