China's Leadership After Mao: Genius?

Yesterday, Hu Jin Tao, President of the People's Republic of China, enjoyed being feted and heralded by American President Obama as leader of an ascendant China, already among the world's most powerful and influential countries. As President Hu arrived to accept this gesture of anointing, it marked an open, Western acknowledgement that China has now arrived. China is back.

The day before, I arrived for a meeting of the Naples Chinese Art & History Group (Planning) Board, of which I am a member. At this meeting on the 2013 speakers program--they do plan in advance--they discussed the subject: Modern China, or China in Transformation (after the Qing Dynasty--the Manzhou--and the child emperor Pu Yi). Increasingly an apologist for, or at least a student of, the leadership and development of China after Mao, I referred to the "genius" of China's leadership during this period beginning with Deng Xiao Ping. That inspired a short, confused discussion, which led me to send the group this follow-up message to clarify my use of the word, what I meant by it.

"Genius" may have seemed an odd choice of words to describe the collective enterprise and process of China's return to international power and prominence. I understand why it might be questioned. I questioned it myself; hence, this apologia. But if it could be applied to the founding fathers of America's collective revolutionary enterprise, to the process of crafting the foundational principals of functioning representative democracy and nurturing the development of the world's most robust market economy--and I think it can, there can be such a wisdom-driven, collective political creativity, genius, if you will--then it could also, rightly, be applied to Chinese leadership after Mao. (And there are some who would argue that China could not be in the position to set this direction and process in motion if not for Mao--notwithstanding his disturbing excesses and Stalinesque genocidal purges, likely to the number 50 million or more.)

Yet even those of us who struggle to see any good that may have come out of the Cultural Revolution must recognize the consistent wisdom, discipline and patience of the Chinese leadership, the political and economic development progressively built upon, beginning with Deng Xiao Ping. China methodically worked its way out of the cultural, geopolitical and economic abyss it had been relegated to after the Communist and Cultural Revolutions, and began working its way back toward the prominence it had enjoyed for most of its history. Although, in a late-20th and early 21st-century global community driven more by economics, technology and intellectual capital, they have had to come down the learning curve faster, more efficiently and effectively, than any other country has before. And they have had to do it competing against the long-established Western powers of America and Europe, and the developed Pacific Rim tigers of Japan and South Korea.

So far, having done just that to an astonishing extent, they are poised to contend for the prominence and role of the strongest economy and and one of the most advanced societies in the world. And they may fully achieve those goals within a 50 year period or less, by 2030, rather than the much longer period most would have projected in the late 1970's--if they would have projected it all. In many respects, by many measures, most would agree they are already there. As Hu Jin Tao meets with President Obama today, it is with our president assuring the world that America welcomes China to the ranks of the most powerful and influential, and invites China to assume a place of shared world leadership.

But some of you are right to remind us that China still has a long way to go. It's record on human rights is troubling to people who enjoy the freedoms we in America and the West have. But the Chinese have made some progress, and they will make more, even if social welfare issues, aging, employment, and the environment pose significant challenges. The wisdom of their priorities may be hard for us to appreciate, but political and social stability as well as bold, directed economic development are critical to their continuing progress.

They know that their necessary and successful ventures into world markets, sending as many students as possible to Western universities, and greater participation in global affairs and problem solving, will necessarily cause them to include more and more democratic features in Chinese economic and political life. But these changes will not be driven so much by embracing Western democratic values, as the utilitarianism of what makes their society become stronger, faster, with the necessary stability and efficiency. At least, that's the way I see it as a Westerner who reads as much as I can find about China's evolving internal processes and progress.

Some might find informative--perhaps surprising--just how effective and efficient Chinese government has become, notwithstanding all their challenges and issues. I addressed that question in a recent blog post titled, "Of Coal and Energy and Leadership: China's Broadening Advance, America's Deepening Dysfunction." Other than the first section, the post is really more just a tying together of several recent articles from the periodicals Foreign Affairs and The Atlantic. I think you will find them illuminating if you haven't read them. (Just click on the blog post title immediately above.)

And I do understand that the very notion of associating words like "genius" with Chinese leadership, or mentioning modern Chinese leadership in the same breath with America's founding fathers, would fail to resonate with most all Americans who see China only in the threatening, adversarial role cast for them and interpreted for us by our political spin machinery.

Adversarial? Only in the competitive markets of global economics. Threatening? Only to the extent they outperform us in those markets. A political or geopolitical threat? Only to the extent that evolving Chinese leadership, government, economic vitality, and societal strength eventually produce a more attractive, more effective political, economic and social model to America and the developed world. But, while emerging and third-world countries alike are beginning to ask those questions and to discuss the "Beijing Model," it is still a long way from here to making that case to the developed world.