The different politics of earthquakes
Tangshan in 1976 signalled the end of Mao's era, will now Wenchuan bring about a new phase for China? The leaders are learning one lesson: Greater press freedom is good propagandaSurely, there are many differences between the two momentous earthquakes in China, Tangshan in 1976 and Wenchuan in 2008, but there is one thing that has radically changed between the two events: access to information.
In 1976, the Chinese leaders were slow to move in, slow to react, inefficient¡ªif not worse¡ªin aiding the victims, and swift only in covering up. However, the greatest problem was that the size of the catastrophe was buried under a rubble of silence. Out of the silence came only one voice: The ancient superstition saying that great natural disasters foretell historic political upheavals. So then and now, people thought and think that the Tangshan tragedy signaled the radical political change that came to China a few weeks after the quake with Mao's death.
The rash cover up then was useless. A cruel regime that had made too many mistakes could not be artificially propped up by lies and blinding propaganda, although the government maintained total control of information.
In 2008, conversely, the government promptly reported the quake and within minutes dispatched the prime minister to lead the relief effort. Foreign press access to the tragedy was unprecedented. The Chinese press is still following the event in a real-time marathon, showing the heroic labors of the military, authorities and common volunteers. Viewers are spared no tragic story of failed rescue efforts, landslides wiping out battalions of soldiers and shabby buildings causing the death of thousands. Portrayed by the Chinese mass media, the unremitting popular suffering and the relief effort led by top leaders is moving the whole country.
If we want to take a cynical view, we could say that the Chinese leaders managed to use the Wenchuan earthquake to set in motion a powerful political propaganda machine that is working in China and outside of China¡ªin Hong Kong, Taiwan and other countries that have free presses and are certainly not under the control of China's Propaganda department.
The first and most simple conclusion drawn from comparing these facts is that Hu Jintao understands propaganda better than Mao Zedong. Although this is perhaps not the whole truth, there is a deeper logic at work here.
Natural disasters are, as we all know, set off by nature, a powerful force well beyond human reach. However, disasters can cause more or less damage, depending on human preparation. Buildings that are located in dangerous spots without seismic preparation can cause thousands of unnecessary deaths, and these deaths become political responsibilities. But it's not the top leaders of a country, especially a large country like China, that are held responsible when a school with thousands of students falls down because its walls had no steel. Everybody knows that faulty construction standards are the nuts and bolts of local politics.
In this case¡ªespecially since Chengdu, a large city near to the epicenter of the quake, was left largely unscathed¡ªtop leaders are being judged by their response. If they are prompt, decisive and able to muster the necessary national forces in an all-out effort, then they will to pass the test with flying colors.
In this way, as politicians worldwide know (or ought to know), natural disasters are a blessing in disguise. They provide politicians with a unique opportunity to prove themselves. If they perform well, people love them; if they do poorly, people hate them, and the leaders will have trouble in the future.
This rule ultimately works, unfortunately for politicians, in a complex relationship with freedom of the press. Total control over the press did not save Mao and his Maoists from the demise of their regime, which was buried under Tangshan's rubble. Greater freedom of press, conversely, has boosted the positive opinion of Hu's effort, which would have been much less credible with total press control.
In fact, one can argue that ultimately greater freedom of the press always works in the government's favor in the case of natural disasters. After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, when the U.S. administration arguably did not do its best, the government could still counter the widespread criticism in an open debate. However, with the press silence that covered the Tangshan earthquake for decades, both Chinese and foreigners now think that Beijing did it all wrong in 1976.
Therefore, the lesson for China should be: You want more press freedom. However, it is important to stress that this would mean MORE freedom; it won't mean total freedom. China is still fond of a gradual approach. But ¡°more,¡± let me say it, in this case is better than ¡°less.¡±
Furthermore, we also have to bear in mind that earthquakes are always both natural and political events. If the Chinese leadership makes a massive rescue effort and uses it for propaganda reasons, then it will have good political capital to use for broader future goals.
What are those goals? Nobody knows for sure, but we may have some indications.
On May 20, the popular daily Global Times boasted of the new Chinese "humanitarian drive" in a front-page story. After the collapse of the appeal of global communism, China has been looking for new ideals to replace it. Nationalism is useful, but not too much¡ªit presents several risks. It pits Chinese nationals against other nationals, and it kindles the inflammable enthusiasm of the youth, which can flare up in bouts of grievances against anything or anyone, including foreign dignitaries or local officials. China needs a peaceful environment to carry out its growth and needs business partners, so the country does not want to irk anyone too much. Most of all, it does not want to trigger political dissent.
Can a ¡°humanitarian drive¡± then at least partially replace nationalism? Chinese T.V. and the papers are eager to show that foreign countries have been generous in their aid to the victims.
Moreover, the popular response to the earthquake is a positive example of the ¡°harmonious society.¡± Rich people drove their expensive cars into the mud to lift poor people who had never seen those vehicles. And poorer people, at least from what I saw in some of the earthquake areas, were grateful but not deferential to the rich. There is a new sense of human equality that cuts through social classes, different from the old communist egalitarianism, but also unlike the arrogance that has developed in recent decades from acquiring new wealth.
It is hard to say whether this spirit will persist or fade after the earthquake. But China is turning over a new leaf¡ªperhaps also politically.
What we see in the earthquake areas is a direct intervention from the centre and local authorities following orders. This could be a pattern in the future: Beijing may want to advance political reforms that would create more freedom for the common people and concentrate more power in Beijing, while wresting power from middle-ranking officials, from lower and middle administration.
With so many balls are in the air, and we have to watch closely to see where they will land. But at this point, it is politics¡ªnot nature¡ªthat counts.
