China: Reform and Openness? (Or/and Coercive authoritarianism?)

On October 18, 2008, not surprisingly China lifted the restrictions on foreign journalists, which allows a foreign media to interview any Chinese nationals without government supervision. The decision carried out by the pro-capitalist communist authoritarian government, was a series of steps towards political liberalization in China followed by the financial liberalization, which has been a backbone of China’s economic boom since the late 1970’s. China unlike former Soviet Union and Central and East European countries did not collapse in the epidemic of democratization in early 1990’s. The pro-democratic movement of 1989 was forcefully destabilized by the Chinese government, though many scholars believe that the political liberalization has not been completely disabled in China. In light of the financial prosperity, industrialization, and the openness policy to “The West,” the political liberalization is taking place unanimously in the Chinese people as the government continues lifting bans and promoting rule of law.
In her article “Reform and Openness,” Mary Gallagher argues that economic reform and China’s close economic ties to the west reduced the immediate demand for political liberalization. Gallagher offers a thoroughly researched argument to show how the financial liberalization has played a resistant role in the political reform. One of the major economic effects is reflected in the foreign direct investment (FDI), by which China has been able to attract the largest amount of FDI of all developing countries in the world since 1979. On the one hand, foreign firms provided job opportunities to Chinese people, which created a competition among workers to accumulate more wealth from their labor. On the other hand, the government implemented a triangular competitive policy among the state owned businesses, private firms and the foreign companies, which created competition and more productivity, so the domestic and foreign business could benefit in many ways. In light of the economic reform, china has adapted a policy of flexible rules for business, property ownership and other civil rights that allow people to engage in economic competition, which leaves the need for political liberalization in shadow.
Gallagher also argues that the economic reform has internal and external causes to leave the political liberalization untouched. Internally, China has privatized many state owned corporations that are not productive, so that they could compete with the foreign owned businesses. Externally, China left its economic policy open and flexible to the external world, so foreign firms could easily enter China and benefit from the cheap labor. In both cases, the one party ruled authoritative government played a crucial role by maintaining a political stability and security for the business. Gallagher’s research is thoughtful and logical because she also provides a comparative analysis between China and the other East Asian countries South Korea, and Taiwan, which shows that the economic policy of the other East Asian countries’ was not enough to create same opportunities as China.
In her article, Gallagher gives too much credit for the facet of foreign direct investments to leave the political liberalization in the midst uncertainty. I personally think that giving too much credit for only the economic reform is unfair because what has happened to china is not only after the entry of FDI, but since Mao came in power in 1949, Chinese government imposed harsh and coercive power to destroy its oppositions and political aggression. The state setup military, party control government, censorship in media and human rights is also enough to force people mute against the political reform. It is also unfair to say that Gallagher’s arguments are weak; however, the historical setup of state and party institutions, aggressive party supervision in public life and the affective party leadership are also some responsible factors that can not be ignored and has destroyed the political liberalization in China.