NYT reports this morning that the Hu/Zeng crime fighting dynamic duo have turned their sites on Beijing–and Standing Committee Member, Beijing party secretary, and Jiang Zemin ally Jia Qinglin could become the first member of that elite club to be purged for corruption since the CCP took power in 1949.
“A widening Chinese anti-corruption probe has targeted Beijing’s party leaders, a sign that President Hu Jintao intends to continue removing officials he considers insufficiently loyal, people told about the leadership’s planning said. Some 300 Communist Party investigators have been examining property deals and procurement practices in the capital city since at least late September and have uncovered suspicious dealings that implicate top Chinese leaders, the people said…If the investigation results in the removal of one or both of the men, it would make the ongoing housecleaning the most sweeping since the shake-up after the 1989 suppression of democracy protests.”
This past week, Jia Qinglin has been in the UK, meeting with British PM Tony Blair. Jia is scheduled to be in Europe until November 3 but there’s no word on whether the timing of the trip and the announcement were *ahem* coincidental.
Per the NYT, Standing Committee members have faced the axe before but never for being corrupt. During the Mao years, factional infighting took its toll and some members, like Deng Xiaoping, got caught in a revolving door of purges and rehabilitations. The usual reasons were things like, “Looking at Jiang Qing funny during the annual CCP volleyball game” and “Calling Mao ‘Comrade Pop-n-Fresh’ behind the Chairman’s back.” The last member of the Standing Committee ousted was Zhao Ziyang in 1989
who was purged for “crying with students and listening to Cui Jian too loud when working late.”
It’s not just the big fish who are getting nervous, the probe promises to check out all kinds of financial irregularities by central and local government officials. Among them, a fish just slightly smaller than Jia: regular politburo member, Liu Qi. As the quote above notes, if this comes to pass, it would be the largest leadership shake-up in the PRC since Tiananmen.
One reason for China’s recent success has been the relative stability of the leadership. Compared to the turbulence of the Mao years, the transition from Deng to Jiang to Hu, while not without its dramas, has been relatively smooth and widescale purges rare. This has meant a continuity at the top that’s allowed for economic growth and a climate for investment but it also can make officials complacent in their jobs. Too many of them got too comfortable and ended up thinking they’re Keith Hernandez.* “Keep 13 mistresses and buy them all gifts? Screw it, why not? I’m Keith Hernandez!”
The problem is the motivation behind the purges. I’m not in favor of corruption, but like so many things in China, the rationale seems more to consolidate power than solve a problem. This isn’t even a case of planning one stone, two birds 一箭双雕 (yi jian shuang diao). It’s a case of “Oh, we got a bird, too? I was aiming for the guy over there standing next to Comrade Jiang. What do you know: we got dinner tonight, boys.”
res ipsa loquitur.
—————————-
* Refers to famous Seinfeld episode with the former baseball player. If you haven’t seen it, you won’t get it. Skip ahead and keep reading.
top right: Undated photograph of Jia Qinglin, via China Vitae.
middle left: Undated photograph of Liu Qi, via China Vitae.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Good Morning // Oct 26, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Fantastic analysis! I almost thought I were roaming at the BBC website.
“One reason for China’s recent success has been the relative stability of the leadership.” Good point! But where does that stability come from? If I took it for granted that the political stability of US is grounded in its democratic system.
2 花崗齋之愚公 // Oct 26, 2006 at 4:56 pm
I think the stability in some ways was a conscious choice–the Reform era leadership blamed the political instability of the 1960s and 1970s for inhibiting economic development (an understatement if there ever was one). Anxious not to repeat the same mistakes, there was more emphasis on consensus building and minimizing internal squabbles. They still happened of course, but the overall goal was to stay on message and stay focused on overall development.
Obviously 1989 was a major setback in this regard.
3 Anonymous // Oct 26, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Never say never NYT! This has happened before, in recent memory. In 1995 陳希同, Mayor of Beijing, and a member of both the Central Committee and Politburo, was stripped of his posts, arrested and sentenced to 15 years, ostensibly for corruption. But it was also rather useful for Jiang Zemin and his 上海派 to tame Beijing and establish clear authority over it. Now it’s time for Beijing to take down Shanghai?
4 Good morning // Oct 26, 2006 at 7:06 pm
“a conscious choice”. It is thought-provoking. Who made this conscious choice? I took the liberty of assuming you refer to those a few top guys in CCP. If I could go further, I guess you mean it was first Deng Xiaoping, then Jiang Zeming, and now Hu Jingtao who made that decision. You are probably right though I am struggling whether human history has been decided by a few heroes and morons. I could have believed the answer is yes If I glimpse at some historical coincidences. For example, when China was rising, there were a good emperor; when China was going down, there was a corrupt one. But I know I am very shallow in history, it might be wrong.
Then, who are making the conscious choice for the US? The George W. Bush? The ordinary Americans? The social system?
If there is one, who is making the conscious choice for the human history?
Wow, I sound quite aggressive. I do not mean it. I like your blog and want to have some input from the professional in history.
5 花崗齋之愚公 // Oct 26, 2006 at 10:03 pm
My understanding was the Chen Xitong was a member of the politburo and Beijing party secretary but not a member of the standing commitee, but I’m going from memory here. Does somebody know for sure? Let me know.
Reminds me of a funny story, though. There is (was) an arch into Chinatown in Washington, DC with the names of the two mayors at the time of its dedication: Marion Barry and Chen Xitong.
Actual conversation in 1997 between my Chinese colleague at the organization where I worked and me:
Liu: Wow, Marion Barry and Chen Xitong. Both of them are gone.
Me: Yeah, crazy huh.
Liu: Both fired for corruption and incompetence.
Me: Coincidence.
Liu: But in your American democracy, you voted Marion Barry back in. Chen is somewhere chopping wood.
Me: Please, please, please, for the love of God…tell me you did not just hold up MARION BARRY as your representative figure of American liberal democracy.
Liu: Funny, huh?
6 花崗齋之愚公 // Oct 26, 2006 at 10:10 pm
@ Good Morning,
No, you are right. It’s a poor choice of words on my part. How about there was a “political strategy” to try (emphasize ‘try’) and minimize the kind of infighting and purges that characterized the Mao years, especially the chaos during the GPCR.
I’m not sure many historians outside of China see the dynastic cycle as driven by the virtue (or lack thereof) of the emperor. But there probably is something to it in terms of institutional rot and official mismanagement–which may or may not reflect on the “leadership at the top.”
But yeah, if Bush were an emperor and this was the 4th century, I’d say that putting New Orleans into the sea might qualify for ‘losing the mandate.’
7 Anonymous // Oct 27, 2006 at 6:58 am
Oops! Chen Xitong was not a member of the Politburo Standing Committee. I stand corrected. The Standing Committee was expanded *after* he was arrested to include the Beijing Major and a few others. My bad.
8 Anonymous // Nov 6, 2006 at 12:26 am
Speaking of “I’m Keith Hernandez”, this is floating around the internet
I’m Keith Hernandez
The Mayor
9 http://www.usome.com // Aug 28, 2007 at 3:15 am
Fantastic analysis! I almost thought I were roaming at the BBC website.
Leave a Comment