Although sharing many of the same problems as Arab societies, the Arab Spring never arrived in Beijing. Why?
It has now been two years since the self-immolation of the Tunisian street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, provided the spark that set the Arab world aflame. A wave of protests spread throughout the region in quick succession and led to the overthrow of long ruling autocrats in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, and possibly Syria.
The collapse of regimes like Hosni Mubarak’s in Egypt, which many considered “an exemplar of…durable authoritarianism” was a salient reminder to many that such revolutions are “inherently unpredictable.” Before long some began to speculate that the protest movements might spread to authoritarian states outside the Arab world, including China. Indeed, the Chinese government was among those that feared the unrest would spread to China because, as one observer noted, China faced the same kind of “social and political tensions caused by rising inequality, injustice, and corruption” that plagued much of the Arab world on the eve of the uprisings.
Alas it was not to be as the Chinese government has proven far more durable than many of its counterparts in the Arab world. This inevitably raises the question of what factors differentiated the Chinese government from its Arab counterparts in places like Egypt?
Fortunately,in the more than two years since Mubarak fell, a number of theories have been advanced to explain the Arab Spring.
One set of explanations has centered on social and economic drivers. According to this reasoning, unrest in the region was driven by a highly discontented and mobilized society. Youth unemployment and official corruption enraged citizens throughout much of the Arab world and the diffusion of new communications technologies, particularly social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, enabled these individuals to channel these grievances into effective anti-regime collective action.
One shortcoming of this explanation is that the same sources of discontent and social media websites are available throughout the developing world, but successful revolutions are rare. In China, for example, official statistics suggest youth unemployment is low, but independent research has found that the problem may be large and growing, particularly among the type of young, urban and highly educated groups who have spearheaded many revolutions historically. Meanwhile, cross-national measures of corruption place China squarely between Tunisia and Egypt. Finally, Internet penetration rates also place China shoulder-to-shoulder with Tunisia and Egypt, and social media has increasingly appeared as a critical tool for mobilizing Chinese protestors in frequent “mass incidents,” and spreading news of sensitive topics, such as official corruption and public health threats posed by environmental pollution.
Photo Credit: Flickr (Keith Roper)
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Carson Tavenner
China did have it's "Spring"; the "Beijing Spring" of 1989. This article's title question assumes too much the necessity of chronologic proximity of Chinese and Middle Eastern political movements in order to be comparative. Also, the comment "the June 4 incident" demonstrates a certain lack of historical knowledge — or at least awareness of the need to be rigorous in comparing – the events between April 1989 to June 1989 through China (not just in Beijing), which received no review in this article beyond the aforementioned comment.
vic
@Carson
Yes, you are quite right; the Diplomat is not top-notch. As for the "Beijing Spring of 1989", Deng Xiao-Ping was caught between the devil and the deep-blue sea. He was in a hot seat and he had to make a call. It was the spectre of total chaos against the need for stability in order for economic reform to go forward. It was a call Deng had to make, economic reform before political reform. I don't think any Chinese leader, at that time, envied his position. He was forced to make a drastic and unpopular decision. That is a mark of true leadership. Historians will debate about his decision in the future.
Bankotsu
Deng Xiaoping's call was basically correct. Economic reform before political reform is correct.
Drew
This article makes a great point highlighting the fact that many of the now deposed regimes in the Middle East were given generous American support. In addition to this they also received British, French, and other Western support. Overall, I believe that a strong driver of the Arab Spring was the desire to throw off the yoke of foreign domination. Since China was able to secure its political independence mid-20th century it is unlikely that it will see an Arab Spring style event.
Kim’s Uncle
@ Drew, Libya n Syria are not pro west n never had western support. Egypt only had US backing after they signed a peace treaty with Israel. Tunisia was tolerated. Egypt under Nasser was one of the leaders of the non-aligned movement which was hostile to the west. It was western leaders who openly called for those leaders to leave. While it was china n Russia who sent arms to Qaddafi. And it is china n Russia who blocked sanctions against the Assad regime in the security council! Russia is still sending weapons to Assad to kill in Syria. Over 70,000 Syrians have died so far mainly civilians. China n Russia have no shame!
sunful-tulip
It is America and the West that have no shame. Why are you so interested in Syrian deads and forget children and women america and NATO kill every day in Pakistian and Afghanistian. Iraq was very peacefull till the West invaded them with false accusation, Remember?
Bankotsu
China changes the top leadership once every 10 years. While the leadership in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt
never changed in 40, 30 or 20 years, that is the main difference between China and those arab states.
tocharian
If only the Emperor knew but of course the Emperor loves New Clothes, which only the brainwashed Hukuo-Proletariat following harmonious ideological pheromones can see.
EAM
I am not sure that comparisons between China and the Middle East are easy to make. China has performed well in keeping people’s incomes growing and keeping prices under control. The Arab Spring had probably more to do with rising food prices than anything else. Chinese households on the other hand have been spared those pressures. As long as the good times keep rolling, I do not think that the grasp of the CCP on power will be weakened. And we all have a huge interest in stability in China because if the regime falls in a disordered manner, it is hard to see the ramifications being contained to China. We will all have to deal with it, including pressures on the countries bordering China if there are large movements of people (as for example when the Qing began to disintegrate).
Guy
As the article suggests, revolutions are normally led by young, highly educated individuals. In modern day China although a minority do fit into this category, a vast percentage are still labourers and the petty mercantile class; when more people experience the west -despite some flaws- through travel, internet and various interaction from those that have experienced intellectual and political freedom, then we will begin to see mass movements. The set up of the Chinese leadership, as the author rightfully portrays, is non-centralised; but this will not stop some ingenious, tech savy revolutionary. With the marxist ideals now ancient history, and the growing wealth divide which is vividly obvious, Chinas leadership are going to face a very difficult struggle to hold onto power; also with a much more interconnected world, they will not be able to crush dissidents as openingly, as they once were.
Kim’s Uncle
Well, the security budget for internal security is larger than it is for the defense budget designed to defend the country against external foes! What does that tell you? The CCP is more interested in defending the regime than it is for defending an outside threat! That does not bode well for the legitimacy of the Communist state. Only China and other backwards countries are rule in such a way. Communist China is more similar to DPRK (North Korea) than it is to any civilized countries. At least Western consumers benefit because the products China makes mean low prices for Western consumers. Who are we to judge if they want to pollute their water and air and make their workers work 12 hrs. day with no protection for workers' rights! LOL
vic
It means that for Chinese leadership, internal affairs are more important than external affairs. The outside world pales in significance to Chinese affairs. Get the internals to work efficiently, and the external world is a cinch. This has always been China's state policy going way back in history.
Free Thinker
If the internals were working, as you put it, China wouldn't need to spend massive amounts on internal security.
By spending so much, they show that their own people are a greater threat then an actively hostile superpower like the USA.
That fear of (and need to crush) their own people sums up all one needs to know about the Chinese government…
Be Way
For fiscal year 2013, U.S total military budget is $931 billion of which almost $50billion is allocated for Home Security alone. China total military budget is estimated to be $126billion.
U.S population is 313million; China population is 1.3billion.
Even if the total military budget of China is allocated for Home Security, its spending is not even half of what U.S spent on homeland security for each person.
Not forgetting that in China, no one whether it's local or foreigner, has to suffer humiliating patdown, full body nude screening, unwarranted interrogation and etc, etc. What a gigantic contrast between a free China vs a draconian repressive U.S regime.
Anyone still thinking that U.S is free of fear of its own people or foreigners, must have their heads knocked hard with hammer.
nirvana
"The art of statecraft" as Vic rightly said. Yes, it is the same as the "art of war" for Vic. Same budget, same strategy. That's why the PLA tanks rolled in to the crowd without any hesitation in 1989, whereas the Soviet tanks retreated at the first drop of civil blood. The ennemy from inside deserve the same determination as the barbarians threats.
The man who mastered this art is Mao himself. Look up the "Let a hundred flowers blossom" campaign by Mao to understand why the word "Jasmin" is so rarely used on Chinese bloggosphere. You don't have any chance of SURVIVAL if you are aspiring to any "breathing space", any hope of sunlight. "Nip it in the bud", you can not give a better description Vic ! If Nobel had a price for the art of dictatorship, the winner would be China, single handed.
nirvana
("The purpose of computing is INSIGHT not numbers).
The US per capita Homeland Security spending is $50 Billions/313 Millions=159.7$
China equivalent spending is $126 Billions/1300 Millions=96.9$
But, US GDP (PPP) per capita is $48,000, i.e. 5.7x that of China. So, while the US per capita security spending is 1.6x that of China, IN ABSOLUTE terms, when cost of living is taken into account, China spending on security is 3.5x that of US, per capita.
Now you have to factor in such considerations as how many illegal immigrants are tolerated on the soil, how many regular immigrants are coming in every year, how easy it is to communicate via the Internet, how many uncensored media you allow etc… to judge the importance of internal security spending. Then you can conclude how much of this spending in a country is to protect the citizens and how much of it is to protect a regime.
vic
@nirvana
If the US re-allocate its defense spending to domestic usage, the rest of the world would be a much happier place. China's concern is more about internal affairs, which is naturally for most countries. The US has that imperalistic inclination to interfere in other countries, hence her spending on external affairs is enormous. No wonder there is a "mandatory across-the-board cuts" which bite into the Pentagon budget due the US debt ceiling problem.
a_canadian_observer
The other point to note is, how can we believe the figures china posted? They always lie anyway.
Be Way
@Nirvana,
If you still ain't sure of the astonishing amount spent on U.S homeland security, we can always analysed with a more realistic figure (hope your eyes doesn't just pop out before dropping to the floor).
1. The $50billions budget allocation is solely for homeland security alone. Not forgetting that U.S spends another whopppping amount of $225billions annually on FBI, CIA, NSA and all the other intelligence agencies – all of which participate in America's internal security, thus totalling up to $275billions. This comes up to a cost of about $670 annually for each American man, woman and child.
2. The exact figure China spend on internal security coverage is $110billions or $84 per capital. If we multiply the Chinese figure of $84 by 3 to account for the dollar's higher purchasing power in China, the final figure that China spends is about $260 equivalent dollars for each person.
The final figure derived don't even take into considerations on the following factors
1. China started from a low base, with hugh initial capital overlay expenditure just to acquire everything from hardwares, software, equipments, buildings etc.
2. China porous borders with 14 neighbors of which some of them are in the volative and unstable, whereas U.S has only 2 relatively very stable neighbors.
3. China has to take extreme measurement to contain U.S sponsored terrorism of the exiled Tibetans and Uyghur extremists. If China will to sponsor the same subversive activities on U.S homeland, at no time U.S homeland security expenses will expand exponentially to $500billions annually.
So tell us who is protecting who other than showing the mind-boggling obscene money being spent in U.S is purely to protect the rogue U.S regime from collapsing.
nirvana
@Be Way,
Truly amazing revelations (not numbers)!
The comparison of the Homeland Security budget ($50 Billions) to China military budget ($126 billions) was yours, not mine. Now you change assumptions, but CIA and NSA operational perimeters are external. Are you revealing that the same entity in China is responsible for both internal and external security?
Regardless, since you accept my methodology of taking into account GDP (PPP), the military effort by China compared to US, at equal GDP (PPP), should be $126 billions (your number) x 5.7 (GDP ratio) =$718.8 Billions. The total (military+internal security) effort should be $236 (your numbers) x 5.7= $1.345 Trillions. The same grand total for the US (your numbers) is 931+275=$1.2 trillions.
The US is responsible for the security of a large number of allies. So, it is logical that its military spending per capita, at equal GDP (PPP), is higher than any other nations. China is responsible for zero (sorry, Cambodia doesn’t count and Nkorea doesn’t seem to be one any more).
I don’t have statistics about illegal immigrants in China so I can’t debate on “porous borders”. Sure, with a 9-dotted line you can say that you have porous borders.
Your suggestion of China funding subversive terrorism against the US is interesting. You are the insider to China policy, I must admit.
Kangmin Zheng
China has a very messed up history, many parts of the country such as Tibet, Xingjian or Inner Mongolia etc; most indigenous people there really do not want to be part of China and one of the major reasons is because the Chinese government is a authoritarian government. The other side of the coin is that the Communist Party argues that they can't have democracy because if they do, people from those regions will revolt and China will break apart, and they think they can't let it happen.
applesauce
easy, make the area have an majority han population, and this is already going on, once the areas have a majority han population, no revolt can remove the land from chinese control
vic
The art of statecraft – you got to nip it in the bud. You can never have a flower to bloom in springtime if the bud isn't there. Ruling a diverse land with a diverse population of more than a billion people is not an easy task. Coupled this with the need of rapid development to ensure economic well-being is paramount to China. Yes, it would be very nice to have protests, but if they get out of hand, it would be utter chaos. The question for central government management is how to get the feedback from the people without the tamperings from local governments.
applesauce
the last part explains most of it pretty much, aside from the economics which is far better in china than any of those arab states, the nature of government is such in china that, the locals generally protest not against the central government but the local one. in fact it is very common in these protests that the protesters activitely call for the intervention of the central government for solutions, an act that dates back thousaqnds of years where people from remote parts of china would journey to the captital to seek central governent help in major local corruption/problems. in addition there isnt one guy on top to vent the anger towards like in egypt or tunisia, sure there's hu and wen but they have their limited terms and do not rule for life. that said, the problems leading to the arab spring also exists in china, but i would argue they are not as bad
nirvana
If we take as a simple economic indicator the GDP per capita (PPP) compiled by the World bank, of the 3 countries Lybia, Tunisia and Egypt, only the last one is below China's. Now, it is true that after 3 decades of Mao's utopia, it is easier to "improve" the ecnomic situation of the mass, it is not sufficient to draw the simplistic conclusion that it is because China fares better economically that there is no (or not any more) mass popular revolts in China.
The commonality between China and the Arab Spring countries is that dictatorships in these countries were tolerated (even encouraged) by the West. The difference is that it is still tolerated (although not encouraged anymore) in China.
applesauce
ah but you're not taking into account the consistant growth rates of the nations here, china has been consistantly growing fast and that is a major reason why the population does not want to rock the boat
applesauce
in addition i never said the economy is the only reason china did not have an arab srping type of event
TV Monitor
The reason why there is no Chinese Spring is because of the strength and sophistication of Internet censorship in China.
Internet services, especially Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube were instrumental in sparking and organizing the flames of Arab spring, and the Arab countries had relatively unrestricted Internet access. It is through these social services where Arab protestors were uploading messages, situation updates, and video clips.
The same is not true in China, where an army of million censors and an automatic censorship program constantly monitor Chinese web and crush any sign of dissent at the first sign.
So as long as the CCP maintains a control over Chinese internet, a popular revolt against the CCP is not possible.