2020 in China: COVID-19, Nationalism, and Tao Guang Yang Hui
(Note: the sole purpose of this piece is to serve my duty as a Chinese citizen. A more subjective version of this piece has been published at SOAS China Institute)
2020 in many ways has been the worst year for many individuals and states. However, it may be China’s best year under the leadership of General Secretary Xi Jinping considering the successful control of COVID-19, the implementation of the National Security Law in Hong Kong, the eradication of extreme poverty and the achievement of a moderately prosperous society. This essay aims at deconstructing Xi’s achievements and sounding the alarm for all Chinese patriots by arguing that China should return to the ‘Tao Guang Yang Hui’ principle, meaning roughly ‘Bide our time and focus on building ourselves.’
One factual consensus can be reached regardless of which media is consumed: on the first outbreak of COVID-19 being in Wuhan, China. Frontline health workers in Wuhan advised local officials regarding the virus but were punished and accused of spreading misinformation that could endanger public safety. Facing the mistreatment of “national heroes”, Chinese citizens were especially saddened when whistleblower Dr Li Wenliang passed away, as an overwhelming amount of messages including Li’s post “A healthy society should not have just one voice” were circulated on the internet before being censored. Perhaps in recognition of the danger of a further manifestation of public outrage and to better combat future outbreaks, a bill was proposed in the delayed annual congress to protect whistleblowers for better disease detection. However, just like the introduction of convenient channels to invite public supervision of local officials’ outbreak-control capacities, the bill is insufficient as it fails to extend the protection to other areas, thereby failing to achieve concrete political reforms.
With the daily death toll rising in Western democracies, particularly the U.S., while China is the only powerful country with a positive economic growth, many officials took Xi’s doctrine of “Four Confidences” and started to resolutely believe in the structural superiority of the Chinese political system by exposing the hypocrisy and injustice of liberal democracies using the aforementioned data and the Black Lives Matter movement. When defending a difficult position, Chinese officials would ask foreign observers to consult public opinion in China. Regardless of the validity of any measurement of public perception in China, public opinion would be found to be supportive of the regime since almost all major media outlets are controlled by the Party. Given the capacity of media to manufacture consent, it is hard not to accredit the current overwhelming nationalistic sentiments to officials who are arguing that China has transcended Deng’s Tao Guang Yang Hui doctrine. Defendants of the Chinese model have argued that its practice of political meritocracy avoids the tyranny of the majority and the emergence of a demagogue. However, the selective usage of sometimes distorted information to incite nationalism in Chinese media would disappoint those who see an ideal political system in the Chinese model.
Perhaps fearing a further increase of nationalism in China, Premier Li Keqiang noted during the annual congressional session that China has 600 million people living on a monthly income of 1,000 RMB (140 USD). “Wolf Warriors” have miscalculated China’s wealth by misrepresenting coastal international cities as the face of China while ignoring vast income inequalities and poverty in inland provinces. Kissinger (2011) has noted that the challenge for new Chinese leaderships would be to reconcile their ambitions with realities since, unlike Mao and Deng, they did not experience a backward China so they may be self-intoxicated with the self-fulfilling prophecy that China’s rise is inevitable and whoever acts against China is going to be judged as wrong by history. Certainly, one can argue that China has eradicated extreme poverty and achieved a moderately prosperous society,. However, setting a poverty line below the international poverty line is a double-edged sword as it can incentivize overconfidence, despite being more realistic and adaptive of special Chinese conditions. Since poverty eradication is a ‘wicked problem’ that needs continuous governmental intervention — as individuals may slide back into extreme poverty while relative poverty cannot be solved — an overconfident mentality can be dangerous for the improvement of people’s living standards. Meanwhile, China has more billionaires than any other country and enlarged its billionaire population by 41% in 2020. Recognizing the vast wealth inequality, Xi noted that after the success of poverty eradication, reducing unbalanced development is needed.
Without accounting for the actual situation in China, nationalistic “Wolf Warriors” have themselves become the talking point in international politics as they advocate a stronger and tougher stance against any language or policy that is deemed as anti-China. Clips of Foreign Ministry’s spokespersons are widely circulated in Chinese media on the issue of Hong Kong to shape the dialogue into the defense of sovereignty and national integrity through the exaggeration of Western interference and the misunderstanding of the majority of protestors’ intentions. Instead of focusing on bridging differences, the National Security Law was passed in Beijing instead of Hong Kong, based on an interesting interpretation of the Basic Law. Although there are no massive protests, the disheartening saga is long from over in Hong Kong and the imposition of the Law is a deviation from Xi’s suggestion that ‘people’s feelings towards the government is the biggest politics’. Without understanding the people of Hong Kong by blindly believing the root of the protest as economic inequality, further polarization is inevitable.
Whenever foreign politicians talk about the issue of Hong Kong and human rights abuses in China, Chinese officials would vehemently argue that domestic politics should not be interfered with, given China’s sovereignty. No patriot would be willing to relive the hundred years of national shame when China was half-colonized by foreigners. However, officials should not use sovereignty as an excuse to defend injustice. China, as a powerful country, does not need to act based on the opinion of foreigners, but officials should adopt a more “Meigong River response” in which China welcomes constructive criticism but opposes malicious instigation. Chinese culture is different and rich, but officials should at least abide by sinicized terms like Chinese democracy that they have subscribed to. I believe the Chinese people can restore China to its rightful place, but we cannot be overconfident and forget about Tao Guang Yang Hui.
