Reports emerged today of ten taxi drivers in Beijing drinking pesticide in protest of poor treatment by their taxi companies, but will the government listen? The men protested outside of a popular Beijing shopping center, drawing crowds as many keeled over and frothed at the mouth due to the pesticide. Videos of the protest quickly went viral on Chinese social media sites. The men aimed to kill themselves – thankfully all survived.
This is just one example in a series of labor protests that have recently surged across China. Strikes and labor protests doubled in 2014 to more than 1300 and have tripled in the last quarter, particularly by factory workers, teachers, and taxi drivers demanding better treatment. Rising tensions are likely a result of China’s slowing economy, as labor-intensive manufacturing is exported outside of China in search of cheaper labor. But the ruling Chinese Communist Party has failed to address these concerns, and instead have met protests with heavy-handedness. Even peaceful petitioners are often detained, many beaten, threatened, and sometimes even tossed into mental hospitals and silenced.
Independent unions are, of course, illegal in China. All labor organizations are state-run, registered and affiliated with the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), who reportedly often ultimately side with management. Meng Han, a hospital security guard jailed for nine-months for protesting in demand of higher wages, says, “China’s unions do not belong to the workers.” The fact that the word “union” is even commonplace in the Chinese vocabulary – let alone formalized in the state – shows that China has come a long way in recent years. However, if ACFTU continues to stifle the voices of the workers, the number and intensity of protests and strikes will only continue to grow, threatening the stability of China.
An authoritarian state hinges upon three tools to dominate society: “coercion,” in the form of violent and non-violent repression, surveillance, and large police forces; “remuneration,” by buying off key interest groups and keeping general welfare rising; and “thought-work” or symbol-manipulation to manufacture legitimacy and cultivate nationalism. As one of these tools begins to weaken, the state must increasingly make use of the other two remaining tools to compensate. Although the Chinese economy is still very strong, as its growth slows, many lose their jobs, and workers demand more, we see that the state’s tool of “remuneration” is beginning to suffer. “Thought-work” is also less successful than it used to be, with widespread access to international media and social media outlets even despite national bans. Chinese youth are especially more enlightened than ever before.
This leaves “coercion” as the last remaining tool for use by China’s ruling Communist Party. It is no surprise then that both mass incidents of civil unrest, as well as government spending on internal security have soared over recent years. Mass incidents increased from 8700 in 1993 to 90,000 in 2010, and these numbers are according to “official” Chinese government data, indicating that the number is likely much higher. The government has not released official data on numbers for more recent years. China’s spending on domestic security – including police, militia, and other domestic security arms – has exceeded its defense spending for the last three years. In 2012, the government increased its domestic security by 11.5% and in 2013 by 8.7%. In 2014 the government withheld their domestic-security spending figure.
If the Chinese Communist Party hopes to ensure their long-term rule and economic prosperity, concerns of citizens must be addressed. Desperate attempts of suicide like the taxi drivers’ protest in Beijing represents an unsatisfied labor force that is boiling over. History has shown us time and time again that intimidation, coercion, and the suppression of domestic unrest are not sustainable ways to govern, and sooner or later will erupt. Will the Chinese government recognize the warning signs?
This is just one example in a series of labor protests that have recently surged across China. Strikes and labor protests doubled in 2014 to more than 1300 and have tripled in the last quarter, particularly by factory workers, teachers, and taxi drivers demanding better treatment. Rising tensions are likely a result of China’s slowing economy, as labor-intensive manufacturing is exported outside of China in search of cheaper labor. But the ruling Chinese Communist Party has failed to address these concerns, and instead have met protests with heavy-handedness. Even peaceful petitioners are often detained, many beaten, threatened, and sometimes even tossed into mental hospitals and silenced.
Independent unions are, of course, illegal in China. All labor organizations are state-run, registered and affiliated with the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), who reportedly often ultimately side with management. Meng Han, a hospital security guard jailed for nine-months for protesting in demand of higher wages, says, “China’s unions do not belong to the workers.” The fact that the word “union” is even commonplace in the Chinese vocabulary – let alone formalized in the state – shows that China has come a long way in recent years. However, if ACFTU continues to stifle the voices of the workers, the number and intensity of protests and strikes will only continue to grow, threatening the stability of China.
An authoritarian state hinges upon three tools to dominate society: “coercion,” in the form of violent and non-violent repression, surveillance, and large police forces; “remuneration,” by buying off key interest groups and keeping general welfare rising; and “thought-work” or symbol-manipulation to manufacture legitimacy and cultivate nationalism. As one of these tools begins to weaken, the state must increasingly make use of the other two remaining tools to compensate. Although the Chinese economy is still very strong, as its growth slows, many lose their jobs, and workers demand more, we see that the state’s tool of “remuneration” is beginning to suffer. “Thought-work” is also less successful than it used to be, with widespread access to international media and social media outlets even despite national bans. Chinese youth are especially more enlightened than ever before.
This leaves “coercion” as the last remaining tool for use by China’s ruling Communist Party. It is no surprise then that both mass incidents of civil unrest, as well as government spending on internal security have soared over recent years. Mass incidents increased from 8700 in 1993 to 90,000 in 2010, and these numbers are according to “official” Chinese government data, indicating that the number is likely much higher. The government has not released official data on numbers for more recent years. China’s spending on domestic security – including police, militia, and other domestic security arms – has exceeded its defense spending for the last three years. In 2012, the government increased its domestic security by 11.5% and in 2013 by 8.7%. In 2014 the government withheld their domestic-security spending figure.
If the Chinese Communist Party hopes to ensure their long-term rule and economic prosperity, concerns of citizens must be addressed. Desperate attempts of suicide like the taxi drivers’ protest in Beijing represents an unsatisfied labor force that is boiling over. History has shown us time and time again that intimidation, coercion, and the suppression of domestic unrest are not sustainable ways to govern, and sooner or later will erupt. Will the Chinese government recognize the warning signs?
This highlights an extremely important development in international relations. Until recently, China was projected to be the world's leading economy, and even one of the most geopolitically influential powers both regionally and globally. However, with these recent labor uprisings, protests, and other forms of civil unrest, Chinese aspirations are quickly becoming a pipe dream. Despite having more human capital than any country in the world, and one of the most appealing markets for foreign investors and manufacturers, their inability to reconcile true Democracy and Communism is making it increasingly difficult for them to maintain their previous trajectory. Their antiquated single-party regime, which is set on maintaining absolute control over every aspect of Chinese society, needs to read the writing on the wall and adapt fast, or they will watch their country devolve into irreversible turmoil and lose any hope of continuing on their path of becoming the world's greatest economic powerhouse.
ReplyDeleteWow, it is extremely telling that Chinese workers are willing to make public displays of suicide to draw attention to their cause. If this level of desperation has been reached, it is easy to assume that the future holds its escalation. It does seem to me that the Chinese public is becoming much more informed and inquisitive than the past, and that they are aware that their treatment by their government is unique in comparison to other countries. I recently had a discussion with a Chinese high school student in the UK for a short trip, and his questions about the American education system reflected this growing knowledge and curiosity, while maintaining the fear instilled by his government. Something to think about: if the Chinese government were to take the “high road,” what would China addressing its citizen’s grievances look like? How could it be limited and controlled? Unfamiliar with the details of contemporary Chinese policies, does it seem like the government is practicing lenience and willing to transition away from its harsh rigidity?
ReplyDeleteAs strange as this may sound, I think this may actually be a very good sign for both China and Chinese workers. Higher integration both socially and economically, as well as China's tremendous growth as a global power is leading Chinese workers to expect more from their government, and it may be a sign of an increasing quality of life in many urban locations in China. If China hopes to continue trade with much of the developed world, an expectation of ethical treatment to its workforce follows, it's just good for business. Some of the chief complaints with the massive ramping of trade we had with China in the 90's and 00's was their rampant human rights violations. I think expectations on China are rising, and if they wants to continue growing to eventually reach the position of a cultural power, they'll likely be expected to treat their citizen with greater and greater respect.
ReplyDeleteReally interesting info you bring up here, especially about the tools employed in an authoritarian regime. I've somewhat followed labor rights in China since 2010, when I first heard about the spate of suicides that was happening at the factories of Foxconn, the world's largest electronics manufacturer. The key thing I've come to learn from various thought pieces on human rights in China is that the government is only interested in protests when they become large enough to invoke real civil unrest -- take last year's Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong, for example, which they strategically stayed quiet on. Some critics theorized that it was because Hong Kong had too international of a community to publicly continue to teargas and violate, whereas others argued that it was because it simply wasn't worth their while -- some 200,000 protesters off of the mainland wouldn't be enough to make a dent on the political dynamic inside. Sadly, I'd say this kind of rings true, because while civilians are indeed becoming more connected with each other via the advent of technology, it still seems like these kinds of incidents haven't necessarily urged people to get more involved. I was fascinated by China's bystander problem when I watched a video online last July, of alleged cult members beating a woman to death in a McDonald's as about a dozen or so horrified people looked on. There are so many things that have scarred the Chinese that it seems we are still quite a way to go in terms of losing that fear of getting into trouble, but I have the utmost respect for the people who already have.
ReplyDelete