So many friends and contacts sent me thoughtful comments on China and the quake that I decided to blog some of them. Here's what University of Alberta scholar Jiang Wenran -- whom I first met in the early 80's during my earlier posting to Beijing -- e-mailed me last week:
On the significance of Chinese people's response to the earthquake, it is plainly clear that there is a new milestone or a leap forward in the formation of China's civil society. For those who don't see such a development, they are confused by two things: first they are constrained by too narrow a definition of civil society [as something] which must function under a democracy, and China is not a democracy; second, they view civil society as some kind of a accomplished product that displays a range of features as in mature Western democracies.
But they are wrong. First, civil society is and should be a much broader concept that does not have to function only under a democracy. Civil society as a social institutional form is different from those of the state, market and family. It can, and does grow under non-democratic states, and forms an important basis for transition to democracy. In the current Chinese context, all sorts of non-state actors are forming a coalition of shared interests, common values and purposes, and they have manifested themselves in the unprecedented rescue efforts in one of the most devastating natural disasters in memory.
Second, civil society is not a finished product or a state of affairs. The formation of civil society is a historical process, a process from less organized to more organized, from weak to strong, and from less institutionalized to more institutionalized. In this sense, the current high level of social mobilization, which is a response to the call by the state but largely a voluntary movement, is no doubt a process of a new awakening, a shock of consciousness for many people, and a realization that the society and the ordinary citizens can do as much if not more than the state in such disaster relief efforts.
Much of this may not be fully articulated at the conceptual level but is manifested in reality. This is not in contradiction to many social protests, as they expressed a determination by social groups that the state alone... is inadequate in fighting corruption, in protecting citizen's rights or in managing the environment. Thus, the current outpouring of charitable and volunteer works are a leap forward in a long process of China's civil society formation, which is vital for China's future democratization process.
And the media has played an indispensable part in such a new development. The wall to wall coverage of the devastation and the rescue efforts, the live footage of the suffering and heroism, and wide-ranging analyses have all contributed to informing a society that is used to a censored state media.
This unprecedented media coverage of a crisis has brought a fresh air of openness that can only be seen in a short period in 1989 before the crackdown on student demonstrators in Beijing, and to a less extent, in the later stage of the SARS outbreak in 2003. Yes, there are still limits, there are still controls. But people are pushing those limits as much as they can, and they will fight back [against] those controls. The genie can be put back in the bottle but at the moment it is out, and the pressure for not putting it back is growing as well.
This media openness has also been extended to the foreign press. Considering that only a few weeks ago, China was at war with Western media, this is all quite a remarkable turnaround. So we now have a ceasefire, a reconciliation process after open hostilities. Beijing has realized that it could not afford such a war against the Western media which are so dominant in world opinion, and it's no good for China when it expects 35,000 more foreign journalists to come for the Olympics. So the earthquake, as sad as it is, has provided an opportunity for China to open up again to foreign media, especially in an area that is less sensitive and sympathy can easily be assured.
But it in no way means the "China" vs the "West" confrontation is over. The rise of China brings structural changes to the world political economy and geopolitical configuration so the resistance to such a rise is structural as well. That resistance will primarily come from the West, the traditionally dominant powers that have much to loose with the rise of China.
The crisis over Tibet, the Olympics, Burma, Sudan, and others are all part of such a confrontation. Unfortunately but unavoidably, such a process will often confuse the Chinese government with its people and its economy, and thus produce comments such as the kind from [CNN columnist] Jack Cofferty. And we now know that China and Chinese people will fight back. The resolve and show of national unity we see today in the aftermath of the Wenchuan earthquake is in part a response to the demonstrations of pro-Tibetan independence and anti-Olympic torch relays in Western countries earlier.
