China shown empty chair but Chinese show full stomachs

On December 10, the Nobel Committee met in Oslo to award a Chinese citizen, Mr. Liu Xioabo, the Nobel Peace Prize for 2010. Mr. Liu was not present at the function as he was serving a jail sentence in his country. The Committee took the decision to go ahead with the Award ceremony with an empty chair in the dais symbolising the absence of Mr. Liu Xioabo.
Mr. Liu is a political dissident inChina. Since 1989, he is reported to have been fighting to establish equal rights for all Chinese citizens. He was the main draftsman of Charter 08, which lays down that basic rights can take root only through reason and peace. He has called for realisation of Article 33 of the Chinese Constitution that "all citizens of the People's Republic of China are equal before the law," and that all citizens must have their rights respected.
On the surface, the cause which Mr. Liu is fighting for seems worthy. The western world, therefore, jumped at this opportunity to showcase the Chinese "malfeasance" towards human rights. There was great hoop-la that the Chinese have now to answer to the world and make political amends. Sober minds, however, will say otherwise.
Last October, when the Chinese Communist Party held its Plenary Session in Beijing it issued its usual communiqué. It reiterated the need to "build socialism with Chinese characteristics." To many it would seem to be a political cliché full of hyperbole articulating nothing. But, in fact, there lies the basic philosophy that governs China today.
The Communist Party believes in "achieving high growth rates through a market economy while relying on one party political institution to ensure social justice and peace." Political scientists are likely to point out that the system put in place by the Party has resulted in rising inequality in Chinese society and also social unrest. There is also rise in corruption not only in the Party but in the country as well. These have also triggered loss of human rights of the people.
There is no doubt that much of these allegations are true. There is growing inequality between people as well as between regions in China after the introduction of economic reforms. Corruption has also increased both inside and outside the party. With it has come violation in human rights too. But the Communist Party has time and again raised these issues in its own meetings and had devised strategies to contain and curtail them.
In fact there are instances where Party and government leaders have been prosecuted and punished for indulging in corrupt practices. The Party has also taken corrective measures to restore equality among people and regions. Yet these allegations cannot undermine the fact that it is the Communist Party in China that has been the initiator as well as the protector of the free market model that has developed and is working successfully in China.
So what has free market done for China and its development? Let us take a look at a few indices. Pre-1978, China's annual growth rate was 6% a year with painful ups and downs along the way. After 1978, when free market came into play, China saw average growth of more than 9% a year with fewer ups and downs. In some years the growth was even more than 13%. Per capita income has quadrupled in last 15 years. Some analysts have predicted that the Chinese economy will be larger than the US economy, the world's largest, by 2030.
China has done so well so quickly because Chinese workers have increased their productivity. There has been a sharp, sustained increase in efficiency. However, capital accumulation, i.e. growth in country's stock of capital assets, was important too through internal and foreign investments in the economy. But the people of China have been the main engine of growth.
The rapid growth has reduced poverty on a scale unknown in human history. It is estimated that more than 500 million people have been brought out of poverty in the last 30 years. But exactly what policy brought about this incredible change? Exactly how did economic reforms boost productivity, especially in an economy burdened by extensive government and Party controls and hobbled by alleged human right violations?
Interestingly, it is the party that made the policy changes. The economic reforms expanded property rights in the rural areas and started off a scramble to form small non-agricultural businesses in the countryside. De-collectivisation and higher prices for agricultural products also led to many family farms and more efficient use of labour. It also led many workers to move out of agriculture. This resulted in a mass shift of tens of millions from traditional agriculture into higher value added manufacturing. The consequences have been a rise in personal incomes, greater personal consumption, personal security and a dignified life-style.
The mechanics of growth was simplified further when greater autonomy was granted to government- run factory enterprise managers. They were allowed to set their production goals, sell products at competitive prices, grant bonuses to good workers and fire bad ones. They also could retain portions of their firm's earnings for future investment. The policy changes gave greater room for private ownership. Privately held businesses created new jobs, developed consumer products, expanded foreign exchange through international trade, paid state taxes and made China's economy stronger and more flexible.
Today, China has become the second largest economy, surpassing Japan. It is also the fastest growing economy in the world. Per capita GDP (PPP) is around $6,500 for 1.3 billion people. The provinces in the eastern seaboard of China are much richer than those in middle and western China. Therefore, the Communist Party is pulling all the stops to develop these relatively poorer areas.
There is no doubt that economic success in China ensures the Communist Party's survival. But the Party has also seen that there is social peace and harmony, individual liberty and personal dignity of millions of Chinese. To understand why these values are so critical to Chinese society one needs to delve into recent Chinese history.
The modern Chinese state is a unique construct. In the early 20th century foreigners who occupied parts of China and formed protectorates humiliated the Chinese nation. Later, the Japanese also added to their misery. The Chinese leaders have not forgotten this black chapter. In the course of creating the new Chinese Republic the leaders based it on Confucian values of egalitarianism. They had fought alongside the Chinese peasants on an equal basis. The cardinal principle was, therefore, equal treatment and respect for each others' dignity.
Contrast this with struggles by the western nations against aristocracy and authoritarianism. There the forces fighting authoritarianism used individual human rights to call for a change in the political order. In the Chinese lexicon egalitarianism is a much more familiar word than the words human rights and individual freedom. It resonates much more with the Chinese people. The socialism the Party practices is also the protector of individual liberty and dignity.
Although the Nobel Committee has its own good reasons to award Mr. Liu this great honour, yet it must have thought through the immense changes taking place in China. It must also have been familiar with the recent history of China. It must have understood that to the Chinese human dignity often precedes attainment of human rights. It must be aware that obtaining human rights is a matter of chronological progression. Each nation chooses the order that it finds comfortable. By putting on display an empty chair it could have jumped the gun and urged a new order which is unfamiliar in China.
A great dilemma for human society has always been what comes first: a full stomach and human dignity or a shrill voice calling for human rights and then a full stomach. The Nobel Committee has perhaps opted for the latter in its own wisdom.

Ashfaqur Rahman is a former Ambassador and Chairman of the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.