Years of Poems and Spirits

本不想再动笔,但”树欲静而风不止”. 翁安事件后, 离发生地不远的贵阳市在其属下的5个区县展开”海选”.

贵阳“海选”县委书记 瓮安事件成“命题焦点”:

“… 贵阳市日前召开公推竞岗动员大会，决定对花溪区、修文县等出缺的4个区、县党委书记职位，采取公推竞岗的方式择优选拔。消息传出后，即刻在全国引起强烈反响。中央电视台新闻频道也罕有地在昨日对竞岗现场在重要时段做了直播。值得注意的是，在本次竞聘答辩中，贵州瓮安“6·28”事件成为“命题焦点”… 贵阳“海选”区、县党委书记消息传出后，即刻在全国引起强烈反响。在百度、google等搜索，其相关网页均分别达到千个以上，人民网、新华网等国内知名网站和媒体也纷纷对该消息进行了转载或报道，引发热议。”

香港明报的标题是”翁安海选以息民愤”. Although the title was inaccurate (Weng An is not part of the Gui Yang municipality), the connection may not be far off. But that is just fascinating!

1. China has had few (none notable enough that I read) semi-free elections (i.e. direct vote and open candidacy) beyond village level. That is something Whiting drilled into our heads. So how significant is this event?

2. The change of procedure comes right after a widely reported riot and amidst widespread cynicism, I don’t know whether this is a sign of weakness/desparation or that of confidence? How much this is used as a ploy to defuse tension, or is this an instance where local reformers/a new generation of leaders are trying to find space to maneuver?

3. Isn’t this an unique opportunity to measure/observe how ready (local) civic culture is to reshape politics? The setting is perfect: something dramatic is happening in the political periphery, like 洋务运动, 公车上书, Deng’s reform, etc. If a participatory and disciplined civil culture is there but dormant under suppression, then this is an opportunity where a new equilibrium (it may take a long while) may form. However, if there is no such a civic culture, the vacuum will be soon re-filled by petty despotism.

What would Elizabeth Perry say?

Recently have heard couple of people implying current Chinese leadership don’t know how the country was run prior to 1949. R. Bin Wong and couple of professors mentioned that during a talk and just read similiar sentiment in Perry and Goldman’s Grassroots Political Reform … book.

Does that mean there is lack of serious study on past state-society relationship? Even lack of knowledge of governance style/tradition? It is hard to believe but somehow I felt there is more to it …

Just a reminder.

Hypothesis:

1. If, in the long run, an economy features a liquid financial market, it is likely the economy is efficient.
(Liquidity: index of expected profitability by market participants; Efficiency: rate of utilization of resources and factors)
2. This is so because in general people tend to trust other participants (even at arms length) so there is not lack of credit. Or trust and credit is a necessary condition of an efficient economy.
3. How to prove? The expressway test: sampling all cars’s speed readings on an expressway, the higher the standard deviation (higher variation of speed), the slower the average speed. People don’t know what to expect from other drivers, so drive defensively and cautiously.

Extension:
If the above were true, can the same be said about state and society?
But what is the equivalent of liquidity? Or what is the best index to measure the expected return on participating and submitting by polity participants? Level of participantion?
And what is the best index to measure political harmony? An Utilitarian statement of number of policies that benefit most people?

Reason is the same: trust=participation and participation leads to best outcome. Not quite sure.

What triggered:
In developing countries, many people are skeptical of their governments or people from other domains/communities. This leads to incredibly inefficient political life.

Pakistan said Bhutto was assassinated by al Qaida but speculations abound and no one is happy with the government’s explanation. How is national reconciliation or progress possible?

China’s paper-in-bans newstory: which one is true, who to believe? How can the problem be fixed?

Lippman (via S Huntington) said that the developing countries problem is, “they need to be governed”. Can we say “they need to learn to trust?”

Also links Putnam’s social capital and Foucault’s disciplinary effect: higher social capital=higher self-discipline or submission.