Social Unrest In china

Social Unrest In china

In the last decades, China’s officials in the security system have conceded a sense of dramatic social unrest as observed by several foreigners. Social disturbances have increased dramatically, almost becoming a daily phenomenon in the Chinese political system. China is regarded to be confronting widespread crime and violent as well as deadly unrest, which has raised national security alarms to the Communist Party. Foreign observers have been speculating that social unrest is undermining the national leadership in China, similar to other countries such as the Philippines and Ukraine (Braggion, Manconi, and Zhu). A number of the United States policymakers have welcomed social unrest in China as an approach to finding “freedom” and democracy. However, instead of conceding it as China’s transformational approach, the disorder ought to be understood as side effects of political order that is unavoidable and usually worsened by rampant corruption issues. The management of the social unrest needs accelerated social and legal institutions’ reformation with added special attention to corruption (HESS 336-352). There increased crime and violence lead to the generation of more suffering, which in results leads to destabilization of East Asia, and the United States interests harming. Generally, this paper is critically analyzing the causes of the Chinese social unrest, which includes economic reforms, inadequate political institutions, and transformations on China’s legal and political culture as the primary roots of crime and violence.

A group of Chinese police analysts has been emphasizing the common grievances which result from the economic changes and transformations, including unemployment and layoffs, pensions, withheld wages, health care, housing allowances, among other benefits. These causes were witnessed in 1997-2000 when the country was experiencing economic crises. During the time of financial instability, the increased issues of unemployment were accompanied by a dramatic increase in protests. The Chines security officials conceded that the primary factor resulting in social unrest was the dramatic increment of income inequality during the era of market-oriented reforms (Braggion, Manconi, and Zhu). These particular reforms led to undermining of collective faith in economic transformations leading to widespread suspicions regarding that, the individuals who got rich achieved it through connections and corruption rather than innovativeness and hardworking. Overwhelmingly, continuous protests are stemming from the economic, political, and social policies that are unlikely to be solved by Beijing near soon. However, worse economic alone does not entirely account for continuously social unrest (HESS 336-352). The particular fact is demonstrated by contrasting and comparing increased protests levels in the present rates of economic development. Even though the rates of protest increased in late 1993-1996 when the Chinese GDP was developing over 105 annually. Overwhelmingly, the rates of protests have continued to rise in more than 20% when the economy is growing at 9 percent per year.

The weak political institutions have also been regarded as another factor stemming from the rise of the social unrest in China. Seemingly, it is apparent that the lagged development of legal and political institutions in China bears tremendous blame from the increased social upheaval as the economy does (Watts 868). Most important, the lack of adequate and effective channels to address grievances of the Chinese citizens, weak law enforcement, and oversight by the government, and most of them all perhaps, pervasive corruption concerns. Undoubtedly, most of these factors behind social unrest such as judicial corruption, heavy taxes, coercive enforcement of family planning, fraud in the financial schemes, failure in creating employment opportunities among others, results from the failed government system (HESS 336-352). The judicial system is neither in a position to keep up with the demands of the citizens; instead, they are becoming bureaucratic, vengeful, corrupt, and even sclerotic. Therefore, until the country takes another dimension of effectively reforming governance organs and especially the judiciary system, many of her Chinese citizens will keep risking repression through presenting their interests and demands on the street as a strategy of raising their voices.

Changing China’s culture in legal procedures and politics has played a role in causing the increased rate of social unrest in the country. The Chinese citizens have not seized in responding to the state and institutional failures in the form of public protest if the country continues to make insignificant changes in the political and legal culture (Watts 868). Chinese rampant growth of the economy, access to information and education, and the dramatic rise of exposure to “rights” and “contracts” notions have produced an assertive society. Consequently, after 25 years of political and economic transformations and reforms, average citizens express their willingness to take their interests and demands in the streets that it was the case in the past.

Overall, various factors have led to China’s social unrest ranging from the protest at individual action levels to large-scale group action. Social stability is among the primary priority, according to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders. The causes and types of social unrest have become sophisticated and complex (Westaway). In the last decade, the social unrest is regarded to have surfaced around several primary concerns, which includes labor disputes, land seizures, ethnic-religious grievances, house demolitions, corruption, police brutality and discrimination against migrant. The Chinese social unrest is taking more forms of radical action types, which include riots, largescale strikes, protests, bombings, sleep-ins, among others. Significantly, the Chinese government to overcome the increased social unrest should conduct significant reforms in the government organs and particularly the judiciary system.

References

Braggion, Fabio, Alberto Manconi, and Haikun Zhu. “International Liquidity Shocks, The Real Economy, And Social Unrest: China, 1931-1935.” SSRN Electronic Journal (2015): n. Pag. Web.

HESS, Steve. “Deliberative Institutions As Mechanisms For Managing Social Unrest: The Case Of The 2008 Chongqing Taxi Strike.” China: An International Journal, 07.02 (2009): 336-352. Web.

Watts, Jonathan. “Lead Poisoning Cases Spark Riots In China.” The Lancet 374.9693 (2009): 868. Web.

Westaway, Jennifer. “Globalization, Sovereignty, And Social Unrest.” Journal of Politics and Law 5.2 (2012): n. Pag. Web.