China is once again a nation in turmoil, and in quest for long term stability. The million dollar question is what kind of stability. Certainly not of the iron-fisted Maoist kind, for that would require the populace to be effectively insulated from all outside world influences, with all aspects of people’s lives totally regimented to the drum beat of the communist authorities receiving their orders from an undisputed dictator. China has already come too far away from it all and there is no way it can go back. Nor can it be the stability of the Dengist kind, for that was merely transitional. And, of course, it cannot be the stability of the kind which prevails in the democratic free world, for the so-called communist regime of China is determined that neither the country should be a democracy nor its people should be free. The Communists, it seems, would fight to the end rather than submit to the will of the people.

The problem, of course, is all to do with the economic right leg of China roaring full steam ahead to the path of riches and affluence, which market economy potentially promises, while its political left leg remains stuck in a quackmire of communist dictatorial hangups.

After the break up of the Soviet Union, it was suggested that China could aspire for the kind of stability which then prevailed in the southeast Asian countries: rapid economic growth coupled with dictatorial politics. It has since become obvious that stability of this kind lasts only so long as the economic growth continues, while people’s capacity to endure dictatorial politics has its limit. Worse, this kind of stability collapses with vengeance upon those who had sustained it, once the market basis for it is yanked away by economic forces, which are beyond the rulers’ capacity to control. Besides, the experiences of countries like Taiwan show that eventually a high growth economy must democratise as a natural progression of human society.

The Chinese communist authorities have neither an ideological base nor a real life model to seek the kind of stability they want. The fact that the ruling party is communist only in name as a pretence for monopolising political power has for long been stark. In several recent cases its leadership showed obvious division or indecision in tackling issues. Decisions often come after periods of dithering, whether it is the question of dealing with the Falun Gong’s pervasive and large scale demonstrations and petitions demanding that it be not vilified in the official media but be recognised as legitimate group, or in responding to Taiwan’s latest verbal missile that it be treated with respect as a political equal in future talks.

It is no wonder therefore that well after nearly twenty years since it expressed interest in resolving the issue of Tibet, China still cannot decide whether to go ahead with it or to seek ways to eliminate the very basis for holding talks. One heard of President Jiang Zemin being willing to negotiate and of his having set up a task force for this purpose. One also recently heard of China being willing to send a Deputy Prime Ministerial leader to hold talks with the Dalai Lama. But one also regularly hears Chinese leaders indulging in all kinds of name-callings against the Tibetan leader, giving the impression that it sees no basis for holding talks. Those seeking order and coherence and a policy thread in the Chinese government’s contradictory utterances will find none. The truth is that the present communist government is no longer in control of its affairs and destiny in the way absolute dictator Mao was or a popularly democratic leader can be. The variations in the Chinese government’s utterances arise from the particular situation in which each was made. And the situation keeps on varying, though mostly favouring the hardline rank and file.

In no position now to claim that it represents the people, who have been thrown out of their jobs in their millions, with their iron rice bowls kicked away from their hands, while cadres have become synonymous with corruption, the party still claims to embody the will of the people. But surely a government that for no democratic reason bans an organisation of its citizens numbering at least equal to the membership of its party and persecutes its leaders on speculative charges surely cannot make such a tall claim.

The times when the Communist Party of China had a grand vision for a neo-imperial China and the place of its so-called minorities in it, no matter how despicable it may be to its colonised subjects, is gone for ever. The party is now hanging on as long as it can until it gets overwhelmed more by its own redundancy and obsolescence than by any great democratic surge. It is well for the good of humanity that the communist Chinese government has by banning the Falun Gong sect and persecuting its leaders added tens of millions of people more to the rank of those who do not like it and will be happy to see it lose power.

Previously, apart from imprisonment citizens risked social ostracisation, discrimination, and losses of job, social security and everything else one needed to lead a normal social life if one questioned or disobeyed the communist dicta because the government actively controlled all aspects of people’s lives. Such is not the case any more. The number of people not dependent on the government for job and economic and social security is growing by the millions each year and that does not at all augur well for an unpopular government run by the Communist Party of China.