Howard French has a nice piece in today’s International Herald Tribune.  Reflecting on the dizzying pace of development in Shanghai, he asks a good question:

The question I am working my way toward, having acknowledged the
extraordinary capacity of the Chinese state to oversee construction, is
what kind of country is being built here? Will the new China that is
coming into being have room for true citizens, meaning people with
independent beliefs and opinions who are able to associate freely, and
build a marketplace of ideas as rich as the market economy sprouting
here like wild grass? 

Or will this new China be all about awe-inspiring edifices and authority that overwhelm the individual?

   This is the question many of us have in mind.  Is growth and development simply a means of enhancing the centralized power of the party-state, or is it a means of truly improving the lives, not simply materially but also intellectually and politically, of individuals?  Both  trends are identifiable at present.  The state is very powerful and works hard to limit individual expression that it fears will undermine Party authority.  The recent closing of the Century China web site is but the most recent example of this centralizing tendency.

    Yet, simultaneously, we can see individuals struggling to carve out more space for free thought and expression.  Over one hundred Chinese intellectuals issued a public statement (which, through the wonders of electronic communications, found its way into my email inbox here in rural Western Massachusetts two days after it was signed) in protest of the suppression of Century China.  It is an extraordinary document (full text can be found here):

Throughout history oppressive governments
worldwide have suppressed freedom of speech, but in today’s world,
this kind type suppression is becoming increasingly intolerable. The
shutdown of Century China is just another instance of the Chinese
government suppressing the freedom of its people. Therefore we must
stage a focused and unyielding protest against the government’s abuse
of power.

 "Just another instance" of an overbearing state fearful of the people it rules.  If Party leaders had more of a Mencian world-view, they might be less fearful; they might see that political legitimacy is something that cannot be gained by suppression but can only be based upon the consent of the governed.  Take this passage, in which Mencius is discussing how the ancient sage-king Shun came to possess the mandate of heaven:

When he [Yao, Shun’s predecessor] put Shun in charge of the sacrifices, the spirits welcomed them.  This is how Heaven accepted him.  When he put Shun in charge of the nation’s affairs, they were well ordered and the people were at peace.  This is how the people accepted him.  So Heaven gave it to him, and the people gave it to  him.  That is what I mean when I say the Son of Heaven cannot give all beneath Heaven to another. (168)

     Legitimate political rule cannot be created, maintained or transfered  by the machinations of current power-holders.  It flows from doing the right thing in terms of the historical moment (in the case above, that means carrying out the sacrifices properly), and from gaining consent from "the people."   "The people gave it to him."  If that is true, then the state should not be depriving "the people" of a peaceful forum for the exchange of ideas.  Nor should agents of the state be violently repressing individuals who have well documented grievances toward specific government actions and polices. 

     "The people gave it to him."  Maybe that motto should hang over President Hu’s office door.  It would remind him of the kind of China he should be building: one that does not strive for centralized power as an end in itself, but one that allows for the flourishing of free individuals.