Lessons from China’s 76 Years of Transformation

Every 1st of October, China celebrates the National Day, a commemoration of the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, when Mao Tse Tung formally proclaimed the founding of that great country. Because of the significance of that day, there is always a week-long celebration, commonly referred to as the Golden Week, typically punctuated by nationwide festivities and concerts.

Now, if some African leaders might read with excitement China’s week-long national celebrations, I should clarify, perhaps to some’s disappointment, that that was not always the case. It is better for poor, developing countries to even suspend independence celebrations in favour of spending on more urgently needed public goods and services. This is what China did in the 1960s when, in September 1960, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council implemented the policy of “practising economy and frugality to build up the country”, and reformed the system of National Day ceremonies by implementing “one small celebration in five years and one big parade in ten years”.

However, frugality is not the only lesson we can learn from China’s last 76 years’ journey. That country’s transformation holds imperative lessons both political and economic, especially for developing countries in Africa.

One of the genius political lessons to draw from China’s experience is the need to maintain stability while implementing rapid economic reforms. Whereas the leaders of China, since the time of Deng Xiaoping up to Jiang Zemin, strongly opposed the Western style of democracy, they managed to skilfully and steadily adjust the country’s political system to stave off the materialisation of socioeconomic chaos, which had dangerously troubled many Third World nations, especially the former communist states. Since political instability is very familiar in some African countries, it is critical that our leaders study China carefully to pick lessons on how Chinese leaders managed to accommodate incremental social changes without disrupting their country.

China has had an impressive run of transformation. When Deng Xiaoping became the paramount leader in 1978, China’s nominal GNP was a paltry US$44 billion, which was at the time just about 70% of that of South Korea.  However, just nineteen years later, by 1997, China’s nominal GNP had grown to $1055 billion, ranking the country as the 7th largest economy in the world. In fact, in the same year, China was the second-largest economy in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms.

Another lesson is that whereas Chinese leaders were welcoming of political reforms in the last 76 years, they have always been keen to indigenise those reforms. For instance, Jiang Zemin, who was the paramount leader /general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from 1989 to 2002, and president of China from 1993 to 2003, did not reject gradual political reform but strongly argued for a Chinese-style democracy, and solemnly insisted that his country would never copy Western political systems. Now, the disaster in Africa is that our leaders typically pursue the ideals of Western democracy full throttle, often at the cost rather than to the benefit of their nations.

It would not have been possible for China to realise far-reaching economic reforms without profound political reforms. Yet Western elites often argue that China never reformed politically. What this simply means is that it did not mimic Western political systems. African leaders need to gain the confidence to understand that their nations’ political reforms do not necessarily have to tick the boxes that imitate Western systems, something a few leaders like Rwanda’s Paul Kagame have embraced. China is the master of this. Mimicking Western-style governance systems in disparate socio-economic, political and historical contexts often leads to disaster.

To its credit, one of China’s significant reforms dating from the 1980s was what Deng described as “the two separations.” This meant the separation of the government from the enterprise and the Party from the government. The former was intended to provide an institutional base for a market economy to grow, while the latter was aimed at reducing the arbitrary interference by the Party in government affairs so as to establish a more efficient government.

It is inevitable for Africa to admire China’s transformation and study its development process. It is the one country in modern history whose experience is of great significance to developing countries because a lot of our nations have a similar history to China’s. As predominantly agrarian societies in an industrialised world, and seeking great leaps forward, we share similar pursuits to China’s. As late developers, we also largely face similar challenges to those faced by China while it was still catching up.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

Seventy six years on, the Chinese project teaches us dynamism

By Joshua Kingdom

According to U.S. Bank, China’s overall exports have increased in recent months despite Trump’s hostility towards the Asian superpower upon re-ascending to the presidency. This was only possible because of Beijing’s decision to reduce its dependence on Washington when the first tariffs were slapped against it back in 2018. The shift in policy represents a consistence in reimagining circumstances that is now part of the DNA of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Unfortunately, rigidity appears to be the constant in majority of countries there warranting some reflections on the CPC’s journey thus far on this historical day.

True in Beijing as elsewhere, every intending leader worth his salt has a set of principles on which they rally their base; non-violence and self-rule for Gandhi in India, Leninism for Lenin in Soviet Russia, African nationalism for Mandela in South Africa, etc. Having lived in an era during which his country was engulfed in a bitter battle over its soul for close to forty years, high on Mao Zedong’s agenda was stability. Corruption was another given Chiang Kai-shek’s patronage. The trajectory of things for the Chinese Red Army therefore, only began to differ from the common pattern in nation building post-1949.

The first mistake that revolutionaries commit is failing to realize that being the face of a movement that is seeking power is quite different from assuming authority yourself. When Nelson Mandela became President for example, his real challenge shifted from discrimination itself to redress of the damage it caused almost overnight. He could not therefore, continue to operate as he did during his activist days. In China, once the communists effectively took hold of all command, they had to switch gears to.

Importantly, things were never straight in these early days, and they have continued not be in several of the modern endeavours that the world’s second largest economy has embarked on. Deng Xiaoping’s pragmatism best captured by the popular statement “it doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice”, was born of the difficulties that citizens endured following the 1958–1962 reforms. The marker that has seen China transform itself from impoverishment to becoming a first world country hence, lies less in the leadership getting it right all the time but a willingness to correct for errors whenever they appear.

This mentality is difficult for politicians of the world to replicate because it carries within it an admission of making mistakes something which though very human, has come to be associated with incompetence. But as the communist party has persisted with experimentation, the results in the aftermath have been difficult to argue against showing that the predominant narrative could not be further from the truth. Mainly, this owes to the fact that trial-and-error fosters a growth of ideas best optimized for the prevailing social-political atmosphere by throwing out those that they outperformed.

Taking one day at a time also cultivates ground for the emergence of an open-minded set of leaders i.e. those willing to commit to adjusting the status quo in the wake of new conditions to harness. In involving himself and colleagues in lengthy exchanges with among others, President Bill Clinton resulting in which Jiang Zemin agreed to a drastic recalibration of the party’s domestic economic model so as to join the World Trade Organization, the General Secretary at the time was embodying this very spirit back in early 2000s. Had he not, as other Presidents have been known to, China would have missed out on the unprecedented expansion that it has experienced subsequently.

China’s case study has equally shown that when failing to attain set objectives is disentangled from ill-intent (unless of course, one has good evidence to believe otherwise), another go at the same idea can produce spectacular returns. Going back to Mao’s second five-year plan, we can see that despite its unfortunate outcomes, the overall goal of industrialization was not the issue but rather the mechanisation. And admitting this aided those that came after him to devise better ways around the question.

States should as such, not be seen as non-static objects with futures cast in stone but rather targets moving at every opportunity they get. By embracing this uncertainty, societies will give their leaders more room to breathe and they will in return build systems that better anticipate the problems of their times and accordingly devise matching solutions.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.