Good example of the arguments I've made on China v. scandals
Friday, July 27, 2007 at 7:00AM ARTICLE: "Bad News Tests China's Propaganda Arm: President Allows Some Criticism as Officials Scold Reporters Over Negative Stories," by Edward Cody, Washington Post, 27 July 2007, p. A16.
My column of a while back spoke to this issue: with every scandal, there is the requirement for just a bit more transparency.
Within that growing transparency, there naturally comes some debate on the preeminent role of the party (today's WAPO story). Hu's decision is much like the dynamic I described concerning the publication of PNM in China.
This is a little-by-little process that unfolds slowly over time. Everyone is looking for the big bang on this one, but far more likely is what I described in the original column: lotsa little bangs stretching over time.
Within each little bang, questions arise: "In all this growing complexity, how can we possibly rely on just the Communist Party to make all the big decisions?"
The Party knows the genie is out of the bottle. That's why it's pushing for a public policy infrastructure of independent thinking to help them expand the pool of expertise and--ultimately--decision-making. The more this happens, of course, the more you can expect very firm statements from the Party about how "This development in no way calls into question our supremacy," when--of course--the fact that the Party even has to say that proves the opposite is true.
In all these instances, our role is to say, "Yup, it's tough all right. Here's how we've learned to deal with it." And then let nature take it's course.
Reader Comments