The frightening lessons of the Bo Xilai affair

[VCheng]

from: Banyan: Burst balloons | The Economist

Banyan
Burst balloons
The frightening lessons of the Bo Xilai affair
Aug 4th 2012 | from the print edition


Thugs and bandits. Any day now, the world will hear the guilty verdict handed down by a Chinese court on Gu Kailai, the wife of Bo Xilai, a disgraced Chinese politician. China’s rulers hope this will draw a line under an embarrassing, lurid murder trial. They may get away with it. But the episode gives the lie to many of the myths they foster: that, despite being unelected, they are “meritocrats”, in their jobs because they are good at them; that they are, if not entirely honest, then at least corrupt within forgivable bounds; and that the way a new generation of leaders is chosen every ten years is orderly and consensual. The Bo Xilai case has lifted a curtain on a world of thuggery, banditry and vicious, personalised power struggles, reminiscent in some ways of the ten-year nightmare from which the country spent a generation trying to awaken: the Cultural Revolution.

Ms Gu and an employee are accused of poisoning Neil Heywood, a British businessman, last November. The case will be presented as a kind of freak incident that has been dealt with: the crime solved, the perpetrators punished, and the political repercussions contained, with the dashing of Mr Bo’s ambition to reach the pinnacle of power in China, the nine-member standing committee of the Communist Party’s Politburo. The party can get on with its autumn Congress, which will name the people who will run the country for the next decade.

Thanks to the internet and microblogs, however, Chinese citizens now know things about the Bo family that make the party look, well, not quite the vanguard of the proletariat. Mr Bo was a Politburo member until April, and until the previous month was party secretary in the city of Chongqing and its province-sized hinterland. Tales have spread of the Bo family’s millions—or billions—in assets salted away overseas, of their son’s education in elite British and American institutions, of his mother’s access to the private jet of a tycoon buddy.

Of all her antics, however, it is the balloon that really bugs Banyan. In 1999, having seen a nice one from the window of her penthouse in Bournemouth, on Britain’s south coast, she reportedly decided to buy passenger-carrying helium balloons to grace Dalian, the north-eastern Chinese city her husband was running at the time. No role model is more salubrious than Bournemouth, of course. But Ms Gu apparently wanted the balloon-winch supplier to pad his price to cover her son’s school fees. Do high-flyers such as Ms Gu really have to sweat the small stuff like that?

China’s leaders are highly sensitive to the notion that the Bo-Gus are not freaks, but actually typical of the ruling class. Bloomberg, a news agency, has suffered sanctions for reporting on the wealth amassed by relations of Xi Jinping, China’s next leader. Mr Xi, like Mr Bo, is a revolutionary aristocrat, the son of a civil-war hero. Some “princelings” feel themselves born to rule.

The transition this autumn will be the fourth the party has been through since the revolution in 1949. Only one, the most recent, in 2002, has been smooth. Mao Zedong’s passing in 1976 led to the arrest of his widow and her “Gang of Four”. In 1989 the looming succession to Deng Xiaoping was fought out in part on the streets, before power passed to a generation of largely Soviet-trained technocrats.

Perhaps because Deng had endorsed them long in advance, the first Cultural Revolution generation that took over in 2002 did so without open dissension. Fear of the chaos of that earlier decade (1966-76) demanded no less. But the Cultural Revolution must also have warped the perceptions of those, like Mr Bo, who took part. He is alleged to have joined “struggle” sessions against his own father, before spending five years in jail and labour camps. He learned that politics is as ruthless as war. In power, he broke with tradition by campaigning more or less openly for his own promotion, using a crackdown on the mafia and, bizarrely, Maoist revivalism, as populist tools. He might have succeeded had he not fallen out with his former chief of police, Wang Lijun, who is now also in Chinese custody after fleeing to an American consulate. That made the murder allegations public, dooming the effort to portray Heywood’s death as an accident.

If the party looks corrupt and divided, the legal system, its pliant tool, is weak. The Gu Kailai trial will take place in Hefei in Anhui province, although, as Donald Clarke, an American scholar, notes on his blog, there is nothing in China’s criminal-procedure law to suggest that a court outside Chongqing should have jurisdiction. Presumably, however, Chongqing judges are untrustworthy. Unusually, the announcement of the trial (which, calling the evidence “irrefutable”, anticipated the verdict) also attributed a motive to Ms Gu: that Heywood was threatening her son. That may allow Ms Gu to avoid the death penalty. The courts are bit-players in a party-scripted drama.

Not a dinner party

With a corrupt ruling party and tame judiciary, power still grows out of the barrels of the guns held by the People’s Liberation Army. But even here China’s leaders cannot be entirely confident. Ever since the army rescued them by cracking down in 1989, they have been haunted by doubts about whether, if asked again to mow down civilian protesters, soldiers would obey. Policy since then has been designed to ensure they never have to find out.

This year has seen a rash of press commentaries on the importance of the army being under the control not of the government, still less of any individual leader, but of the Communist Party. Mr Bo’s visit, after Mr Wang’s attempted defection, to old pals high up in the army fuelled fears that he was planning some sort of coup. China is such an economic success, such an emerging power, that it is easy to fall for its claims that politics is stable and that elections are unnecessary and probably harmful. Think a bit more about Mr Bo and his wife, however, and the whole edifice begins to look rather brittle.

Economist.com/blogs/banyan

from the print edition | China

 

[Jade]

Wait tell a few years to unravel the true Chinese story. Economic success without political empowerment is bound to fail

 

[Pakistanisage]

The fact that Bo Xilai was disgraced and removed from power by the CCP is a testament to the checks and balances in the Chinese political system. Contrary to the article, this actually speaks highly of the accountability and transparency of CCP and its handling of such affairs. South Asians have very little ground to comment on or criticize Chinese political arena. Pakistan is ruled by a known thief and indian political landscape is not that clean either.

 

[VCheng]

The fact that Bo Xilai was disgraced and removed from power by the CCP is a testament of checks and balances in the Chinese political system. Contrary to the article, this actually speaks highly of the accountability and transparency of CCP and its handling of such affairs. South Asians have very little ground to comment or criticize Chinese political arena. Pakistan is ruled by a known thief and indian political landscape is not that clean either.

Perhaps you missed out on the significance of this part, assuming you read the article in the first place:

He might have succeeded had he not fallen out with his former chief of police, Wang Lijun, who is now also in Chinese custody after fleeing to an American consulate. That made the murder allegations public, dooming the effort to portray Heywood’s death as an accident.

The whole affair would have been brushed under the carpet had it not gone public in such a spectacular fashion. That alone speaks volumes about the lack of accountability and transparency of CCP and its handling of such affairs.

The article does make some pretty strong arguments.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Politicians are often dirty and corrupt?

Is there even one person in the entire world who doesn't know that?

China is no exception. Corrupt officials often top the list of things that Chinese people are angry about.

 

[Pakistanisage]

Perhaps you missed out on the significance of this part, assuming you read the article in the first place:



The whole affair would have been brushed under the carpet had it not gone public in such a spectacular fashion. That alone speaks volumes about the lack of accountability and transparency of CCP and its handling of such affairs.

The article does make some pretty strong arguments.

The Point you are missing is that once the facts came out, CCP did not attempt to cover up or hide the facts from Public. You are implying that CCP knew about the Murder and kept a lid on it till it went public but I see no evidence of such implication. The way I see it CCP took appropriate action once it discovered the rot in a transparent manner.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please share your wisdom with us and enlighten us.

 

[ahfatzia]

The whole affair would have been brushed under the carpet had it not gone public in such a spectacular fashion. That alone speaks volumes about the lack of accountability and transparency of CCP and its handling of such affairs.

The article does make some pretty strong arguments.

Perhaps, but the case could very well a blessing in disguise for China's political system because the publicity it attracted internally and externally attentions especially the former. There were so many debates and protests in the internet forums, of which the leadership fears the most, and that give them no choices but to set up future check and balance system, on top of what they already initiated ' wholesale stemming out' corruptions.

From what I observed in the past few years the governments, locally or centrally, increasingly have been shifting their policies toward the guidance of the internet and physical opinions and protests. For that I have hopes.

 

[VCheng]

Perhaps, but the case could very well a blessing in disguise for China's political system because the publicity it attracted internally and externally especially the former. There were so many debates and protests in the internet forums, of which the leadership fears the most, and that give them no choices but to set up future check and balance system, on top of what they already initiated ' wholesale stemming out' corruptions.

From what I observed in the past few years the governments, locally or centrally, increasingly have been shifting their policies toward the guidance of the internet and physical opinions and protests. For that I have hopes.

I agree with you. The crucial thing at this juncture is to see how these winds of change are handled by the system without too much imbalance, while preserving economic growth.

 

[anarchy 99]

Democracy is slow, inefficient and causes mob rule. Communism don't give a vote, but it gets the job done. Thats why in china we can get things done but in India it's impossible due to their inefficient political system. Democracies are about morals, giving a person a vote. But it's not the best form of governance to advance a country, once both parties get corrupt it's impossible to cure it, each party has an escape route at every election after stuffing up, the standard is constantly lowered as both parties screw up year after year. This is why India will have major bottlenecks in their development as their political system will cause major problems.
America is in trouble economically is because it's political system is showing its faults but its impossible go solve it.
This is why India will NEVER catch China in the 21st century. It does not matter whether the people get to choose the leader or not as long as the country is advancing. China has no such political bottlenecks. Political bottlenecks are already causing India problems, it will only get worse from here.

 

[Qasibr]

Wait tell a few years to unravel the true Chinese story. Economic success without political empowerment is bound to fail

Political empowerment is a joke. You think democracies empower people? Democracies excel in binding nations to their lowest common denominator. The dumb ignorant masses get swayed by these smiling sly politicians who make lofty promises. Once in power, they make careers and fabulous wealth out of selling the people out.

In the 3rd world, the excuse given is that democracy needs "time to develop roots" and all. That, sadly, is just not true. Does democracy really work in the west, where it has been putting roots for over a hundred years. In the US, hugely expensive political campaigns are funded by mega-corporations, while the politicians pay lip service to the people and artfully say the right things to fool the masses, once in power, all their legislation goes against the masses, and to the benefit of corps. Bush won his election by rigging in Florida, a widely known fact about which numerous books have now been written.

Obama made lofty promises, closing Guantanamo and getting out of Iraq, promising not to violate the constitution using signing statements like Bush. Once in power, he reneged all his promises and went ahead and dished out trillion dollar bailouts rather than punishing these financial sector mega-corps, whose dangerous speculating with other peoples savings destroyed the life-savings of millions of people. And yes, those same financial sector mega-corps generously funded Obama's muli-billion dollar election campaign. Those companies got paid trillions In bailouts, for speculating with and destroying other people's savings. You think these companies just invest absurd amounts of money to get their politicians for no good reason?

As America's founding fathers put it, "Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on whom to eat". Regardless of whether the democrat wolf or the republican wolf wins, the sheep always gets eaten, the innocent dumb masses always get fooled and played, over and over again. The illusion of choice keeps them from simmering, new face in office keeps people hopeful and inactive.

So please learn a little about "political empowerment". You can't eat it, can't wear it. It is a hollow notion that you can be proud of, while your politicians enrich themselves at your expense.

 

[Audio]

So please learn a little about "political empowerment". You can't eat it, can't wear it. It is a hollow notion that you can be proud of, while your politicians enrich themselves at your expense.

Yes, there's just this little thing every 4-5 years called election.
And you put politicians that only fill their own coffers out of work/power. Tell me how often does that happen in China?

They actually have 10 years before the next duo steps up and starts filling coffers. Oh and the amount of political corruption in China is in no way comparable to the west.
Sons of politicians dont own multi billion dollar schemes that arose out of wild privatization or ammasing wealth through "societies resources" who are supposed to be working for the populace but in fact are only working for the elite.

Those companies got paid trillions In bailouts, for speculating with and destroying other people's savings. You think these companies just invest absurd amounts of money to get their politicians for no good reason?

Most of Wall Street banks already paid back the bailouts. Look it up. But agreed, they should not be as big to be deemed as too big to fail.

The fact that Bo Xilai was disgraced and removed from power by the CCP is a testament to the checks and balances in the Chinese political system.

How many Bo's are still out there? Without wife's ordering murders through which this whole affair surfaced.

I feel the CCP felt they would loose a part of legitimacy if they kept him in spite of the scandal. He was bad for PR and had to go. They are all doing it, just Bo went too far and if gone unpunished the Chinese people would actually start rebelling.

 

[Qasibr]

Yes, there's just this little thing every 4-5 years called election.
And you put politicians that only fill their own coffers out of work/power. Tell me how often does that happen in China?

But what if this "little thing called an election" is a sham. Giving people a choice between two political parties is a sham, it just gives people the illusion of choice. Regardless of which political party they elect, whether it's the Republicans(George W. Bush), or Democrats(Obama), the same dirty-work goes on. The mega-corps who fund these multi-billion dollar elections, get what they want, and the masses just get these huge election-promises that are forgotten the moment the election is won.

The masses suffer, and the small elite benefits. The dumb masses get swayed by these election promises every-time. Some new bamo walks in, says all the right things, people vote the fellow in.

Most of Wall Street banks already paid back the bailouts. Look it up. But agreed, they should not be as big to be deemed as too big to fail.

If you really want to get the facts on this, I recommend "Inside Job". It's an amazing documentary about the 2008 financial crisis. It interviews several high-profile people, like France's Finance Minister, to the President of Singapore, to one of China's Central Bank's senior advisors. They all agree that this crisis was avoidable. In 1997, US CFTC(Commodities Future Trading Commission) chairperson Brooks Lee Bourne refused to go with this derivatives business, because without the legislation that was hindering derivatives, she predicted that this might happen. The financial mega-corps went to her boss, and her bosses boss, and she got a stern phone-call and pretty soon the CFTC had it's wings clipped and it's regulatory and oversight powers stripped.

That's just one instance of how these mega-corps end up owning politicians and engineering legislation and laws, to their benefit, and to the detriment of the masses. This is a quantifiable fact, regardless of how much spin and propaganda the mega-corp owned news media puts on it.

Inside Job:
https://vimeo.com/23086688

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Perhaps you missed out on the significance of this part, assuming you read the article in the first place:



The whole affair would have been brushed under the carpet had it not gone public in such a spectacular fashion. That alone speaks volumes about the lack of accountability and transparency of CCP and its handling of such affairs.

The article does make some pretty strong arguments.

It is very intriguing that TWO political systems that set out to create egalitarian systems created an Oligarchy/Aristocracy within themselves. One, the Soviet system created an Aristocracy that was more content with wielding Power while the Aristocracy in China has discovered the forbidden delights of Capitalism. The Bo Xilai affair simply reflects that, the corruption that can grow out of Power and Pelf.

While huge prosperity has been created in China because of "Enlightened Communism" it has also allowed humongous amount of money in the form of "hot money" to leave its shores, mainly to the West; and specifically North America. A great deal of it is on Wall Street now. And will take care of the "Princelings" and their kin for a long time to come.

I have worked with one such operation to understand well enough how it is done.

 

[Audio]

But what if this "little thing called an election" is a sham. Giving people a choice between two political parties is a sham, it just gives people the illusion of choice. Regardless of which political party they elect, whether it's the Republicans(George W. Bush), or Democrats(Obama), the same dirty-work goes on. The mega-corps who fund these multi-billion dollar elections, get what they want, and the masses just get these huge election-promises that are forgotten the moment the election is won.

The masses suffer, and the small elite benefits. The dumb masses get swayed by these election promises every-time. Some new bamo walks in, says all the right things, people vote the fellow in.



If you really want to get the facts on this, I recommend "Inside Job". It's an amazing documentary about the 2008 financial crisis. It interviews several high-profile people, like France's Finance Minister, to the President of Singapore, to one of China's Central Bank's senior advisors. They all agree that this crisis was avoidable. In 1997, US CFTC(Commodities Future Trading Commission) chairperson Brooks Lee Bourne refused to go with this derivatives business, because without the legislation that was hindering derivatives, she predicted that this might happen. The financial mega-corps went to her boss, and her bosses boss, and she got a stern phone-call and pretty soon the CFTC had it's wings clipped and it's regulatory and oversight powers stripped.

That's just one instance of how these mega-corps end up owning politicians and engineering legislation and laws, to their benefit, and to the detriment of the masses. This is a quantifiable fact, regardless of how much spin and propaganda the mega-corp owned news media puts on it.

Inside Job:
https://vimeo.com/23086688

I wont disagree with much of it....in fact the legislation modifications go back even farther. Except here:

Regardless of which political party they elect, whether it's the Republicans(George W. Bush), or Democrats(Obama), the same dirty-work goes on.

Clinton was the last good president the US had. With surpluses etc....Bush and Uh-bama are just jokers.

But what if this "little thing called an election" is a sham.

Well in any case, i doesnt end like in the Bo Xilai case. Where a guy is a state servant acting as governor, while his wife and son are listed as owners of huge conglomerates. How do you think that happened? Wild, untransparent privatization maybe? How many more you think there are?
With extended families on top spots, regardless of skill, education etc....companies like this go bust in an open market, but since it all belongs to the government they are keeping them afloat with subsidies, institutionalized industrial espionage, breaches of intellectual property, low yuan and similar.

If you think the masses are doing bad in the US, id like to hear your opinion on Chinese masses. The ones with no health insurance, no pension plan, no work safety standards concerning health and operations, no environmental standards, working 14 hour a day shifts? Does that sound good?