Combating China’s Corruption
Four articles appeared recently in the People’s Daily newspaper that featured anti-corruption as a chief aim of the Chinese government. The first explained a reevaluation in the way that cadres (core Party members) were promoted or demoted. The second article commented that Party officials would either be rewarded or punished based on their performances during the snow crisis. The third involved the strengthening of China’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), the organ responsible for fighting corruption within the Party. The fourth claims that a new “watchdog” organization within the CCDI will magically reduce corruption.
One important question is why there are so many articles regarding corruption all of a sudden. Perhaps the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) wants to actually clamp down on corruption, and is sending a clear message to all Party members (most of whom religiously read the People’s Daily). On the other hand, the CCP may be trying to appear strict in the eyes of the public, which in general can be quite discontent over perceived inadequacies of the CCP.
Why is corruption so rampant in China? The answer lies in the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI). The CCDI is the only body that is capable of censuring Party members, because in most cases the Party is untouchable by the state. In theory, the CCDI is a separate, unbiased organization that is out of the reach of any Party member. In reality however, relationships between CCDI officials and other Party members make fighting corruption difficult. Recently in the case of the Mayor of Shanghai, the CCDI played an arguably political role in the investigation.
In terms of local petty officials, there simply does not exist the current infrastructure or motivation to try them. In this way, peasants are charged unusual and illegal taxes and tolls, so that local officials may supplement their income (which in their defense is often inadequate or meager). Few reporting mechanisms (given the controlled press) are available for peasants to voice their grievances, and on more than one occasion this lack of redress has resulted in armed violence.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
What I find interesting is that the second article reflects a level of meritocracy that seems only befitting for China, seeing as how the Chinese, or more specifically Confucius and Han Feizi, were the first ones to advocate such a system.
One possible point that may come up in committee is the role of the CCDI. What China needs is a true unbiased entity; however, this is a dilemma highlighted in the Latin phrase: “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, or “who will guard the guards?” Corruption is a horrible parasite because the animal it controls is the animal that is supposed to be destroying the parasite.
One possible solution may be to have/enforce laws that state that party officials are not to have relations with the CCDI, and to further support the reporting of corruption by the Chinese people– something they can do on a website set up by the DICCPC.
Corruption can’t be stopped, but the least we can do is slow its progress.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Given the current situation regarding fresh snowfall, these latest remarks come as no surprise. The motivations for such announcements come at a time where their advantages for the CCP (or at least the Standing Committee of the Politburo) are three-fold; a win-win-win situation, if you will. Not only would this declaration harden the otherwise firm regime in the eyes of both Chinese citizens and the international community, but an increase in morale and a new-found drive for party cadres would provide an impetus in solving China’s latest humanitarian calamity. Therefore, the CCP is improving their image, soldering the commitment of lower members to the party line, and providing relief for those affected by the snowstorms—all with one announcement.
Let’s also not forget China’s past brushes with humanitarian crises, as 2003’s SARS outbreak seems all too much in the past. During the crisis, at least two high-ranking party cadres were dismissed for allegedly disclosing inaccurate information about infected Chinese. While this seems to be the opposite of what the CCP has recently done regarding the snowstorms, (that is, encouragement to work hard for promotion as opposed to a “the party way or the highway” stance) one cannot deny the effects of proclamations handed down from the Standing Committee of the Politburo to the party’s lower-ranking members in getting what Chinese officials want done. Although a final verdict in judging China’s status post-SARS could be argued, as well as deemed premature, the flood of FDI and TNCs in getting a stake of China’s bright economic future since has been anything but stifled.
Solving the problem of corruption in China (their own take on British disease—“Chinese disease”?) obviously doesn’t lie in the CCDI. Perhaps Chinese officials should take a similar approach to what Premier Wen Jibao proposed in 2004 to solve “deep-seated problems in the country’s economic structure” and go back to the drawing board in redrafting legislature to better promote rule of law.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
If there is a problem within the CCDI or between the CCDI and the Party, then it would be interesting to see if corruption plays a role in the Kashmir crisis in the event of a possible war. Moreover, it’s important (as said in this blog) to realize if China is slamming on corruption because either they really want to, or to only appease a certain crowd. What makes this topic more interesting in our crisis simulation is that we will get to see how, if any, corruption, arises and plays a connection with the media (newspapers, etc), in terms of how the crisis will affect the stability of China.
If, such corruption fails to be eradicated in China, then it would be a tremendous downfall to us. Since China is economically dependent with their bilateral relations with foreign countries, if China were to put at a disadvantage because of corruption in the government, then we would have to focus on making sure that China has stability before continuing on with our foreign relations.
Corruption also raises a good point in the “Taiwan question” (I believe) If corruption does, in fact, put us at a disadvantage, like Mr. Roy Zhang stated, then Taiwan may perhaps try to declare independence, but of course, we’ll have to wait until the simulation begins to see how other nations will react.
-Samuel Ho
PS If anyone wants to comment back on this, please do. Any comment is much appreciated. Thank you for your time.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
In response to Samuel Ho’s comment that corruption could possibly cripple this government in regards to a Crisis- “If corruption does, in fact, put us at a disadvantage…then Taiwan may perhaps try to declare independence,” I must state that corruption will must likely not cripple the military and political leadership needed for a truly global crisis.
As the Chair pointed out (and the articles supported), a typical corrupt party member belongs to a small province in the country trying to make some money on the side by “charg[ing] unusual and illegal taxes and tolls.” In times of a Crisis, the party members at the top of the government (including, I believe, us my dear comrades) will be so concerned with keeping their power that they will respond as best they know how. Indeed, even the small provincial officer will mostly see a national emergency as a change to shine and thus act honestly and publicly in support of the state.
While corruption is certainly a plague on our government that must be eradicated, I do not think it will greatly impact our response to a Crisis.
March 9th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Corruption won’t be our cabinet’s biggest problem - factionalism, a problem that’s been plaguing the decision-making process of the Politburo’s Standing Committee for decades, is the largest obstacle.
However, even so, I have great confidence that our cabinet will be able to pass numerous decisions by consensus if a crisis as dire, questioned, and prepared for as Taiwan were to occur.
The Political Bureau has stated numerous times both via the press and international bodies the exact course of action China would take in that event.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Excellent responses, Ministers.
First off, I’d like to say that during the SARS outbreak, I was the Minister of Health for the Chinese Cabinet at some MUN conference. At the time no one knew it was a serious problem, as it was downplayed by the Chinese authorities as a minor germ. I do believe that afterwards the Minister of Health was sacked.
In regards to your points, I feel that you all touch on some key issues that not only affect the Crisis, but are also taught in university courses on China. Corruption is a daunting problem, threatening the stability of the Chinese legitimacy as well as preventing equitable economic growth. Each of you Ministers have grasped the importance in maintaining a corruption-free facade.
I introduced these articles with a secondary purpose in mind, to show how the Chinese state responds to issues that are brought up. The Chinese state and the Communist Party are divided into several key departments and jurisdictions, and knowledge of how the Chinese government works will be crucial for proceeding with the Crisis. I’ll try to post up a chart later on the detailed departments, but I trust that come the conference each of you will know exactly what your department is responsible for.
You also bring up some issues with Taiwan. I think that will be the subject of my next post.