Observation Description – China

Under the current Chinese president and party secretary Xi Jinping’s leadership, China seems to be reversing Deng Xiaoping’s safeguards against Mao’s one-man dictatorship that led to catastrophes and mishaps like the Great Famine and the Cultural Revolution. Xi’s style of governance closely resembles Mao’s extremely dangerous cult of personality and policies. It raises genuine concerns about China’s direction towards centralization, collectivization, wolf warrior diplomacy, and its willingness to assert total control of every sector of Chinese society.

Model # 1: Political Structural Factor

• An unchallenged constitutional amendment abolished the presidential term limit.
  • It facilitated indefinite leadership, an overly and often uncontested centralized power under one person. It signifies that China is moving away from Deng’s political reforms that put checks on absolute power, breaking the norm and ending this long-term tradition of this peaceful transition of power within its party.
• Implications:
  • Autocratic Risk:
    • The removal of presidential term limits might lead to a significant increase in autocratic governance, as it centralizes power in the hands of a single leader for an indefinite period. This could undermine the checks and balances essential for democratic processes within the party and government, leading to a governance style that relies more on the whims of the individual than on collective decision-making or democratic oversight.
  • Policy Rigidity:
    • With indefinite leadership, there could be greater continuity in policies, which might initially seem beneficial for long-term planning and stability. However, this continuity could also lead to rigidity, where policies are not easily adjusted or halted in response to the ever-changing domestic or international issues and situations or simply due to the leader’s pure misjudgment. The lack of turnover at the top might stifle innovation and responsiveness in governance.

Model #2: Socio-Economic Factor

• Zero-COVID lockdowns severely impacted the country’s job market and the citizens’ daily lives.
  • With directives that can be traced directly to the central committees and particularly to Xi himself, these stringent measures led to widespread job losses and economic distress, echoing Mao’s policies that stubbornly prioritized ideological alignment and saving the leader’s face of potentially making the wrong decision at the expense of the city’s economic development by halting everything, which significantly affected the populace’s quality of life.
• Implications:
  • Erosion of Consumer and Business Confidence
    • The extended lockdowns could lead to a significant erosion of consumer and business confidence within China. This loss of confidence can have a cascading effect on domestic consumption and investment decisions, which are critical for economic growth. A skeptical consumer base might reduce spending, while businesses’ hesitations in investment could further stagnate the economy.
  • Reduced Foreign Investment
    • The Zero-COVID lockdowns not only deterred future foreign investments due to perceived unpredictability and rigid government controls but also led to signs of an emerging exodus of foreign companies. These companies are actively reducing their stakes in China to mitigate risk, a trend that exacerbates the decline in foreign direct investment (FDI). This withdrawal signals a critical shift, undermining China’s exporting-based economic growth, prospects, innovation, and job creation, directly impacting the average citizen’s quality of life through reduced economic opportunities and living standards.

Model #3: Ideological and Geopolitical Factors

• Ideological and geopolitical tensions reintroduce nationalistic policies in China.
  • The escalating hostility, particularly in the Taiwan Straits and with Western nations like the United States, signifies a return to Mao-era isolationism, driven by ideological standoffs and policies that cut China off from global cooperation and dialogue.
• Implications:
  • Economic Decoupling and Self-Reliance
    • As tensions escalate, particularly in areas like the Taiwan Straits, China may accelerate its push toward economic self-reliance. This shift could lead to decoupling from Western economies, impacting global supply chains and leading to increased costs and inefficiencies for businesses and consumers worldwide.
  • Deepened Global Divisions and the Possibility of War
    • The escalation of nationalistic policies and ideological tensions, particularly in the Taiwan Straits and with Western nations, may just be the beginning of deeper global divisions because it could potentially lead to a standoff reminiscent of the Cold War era between the Soviet Union and the U.S., marked by crises like the Cuban Missile Crisis that almost sparked a catastrophic nuclear war. Such polarization threatens to escalate conflicts that could lead to war, undermining opportunities for cooperation on global issues where consensus exists, such as environmental issues and bilateral trade, thereby affecting international stability and progress.

Critical Experiment Comparing Model One and Model Two

• Description:
  • Analyze the impact of political centralization (Model One) versus socio-economic policies (Model Two) on public satisfaction and economic stability in China, utilizing surveys and economic data post-policy implementation.
• Independent and Dependent Variables:
  • Independent Variables:
    • Degree of political centralization
    • Severity of Zero-COVID lockdown measures
  • Dependent Variables:
    • Public satisfaction level
    • Economic stability indicators
• Operationalization of Variables:
  • Political Centralization
    • Measured by the number of policies enhancing central power.
  • Severity of Zero-COVID Lockdown Measures
    • Categorized by lockdown duration and restrictions’ intensity.
  • Public Satisfaction
    • Surveyed through public opinion polls.
  • Economic Stability
    • Evaluated using GDP growth, unemployment rates, and consumer spending data.
• Outcome and Interpretations:
  • Increased public satisfaction and economic stability support Model One, indicating centralization might bring perceived stability.
  • Decreased satisfaction and economic stability support Model Two, suggesting socio-economic disruptions from lockdowns have a greater negative impact.

Critical Experiment Comparing Model Two and Model Three

• Description
  • Compare the effects of socio-economic factors (Model Two) and ideological/geopolitical tensions (Model Three) on foreign investment and international relations, analyzing investment trends and diplomatic events.
• Independent and Dependent Variables:
  • Independent Variables
    • Severity of socio-economic policies
    • Level of geopolitical tension
  • Dependent Variables:
    • Foreign investment in China
    • Quality of international relations
• Operationalization of Variables
  • Severity of Socio-Economic Policies
    • Assessed by economic indicators during lockdowns.
  • Level of Geopolitical Tension
    • Quantified by diplomatic incidents and official statements.
  • Foreign Investment
    • Tracked through FDI flows and business exit surveys.
  • Quality of International Relations
    • Measured by diplomatic engagement levels and international cooperation on key issues.
• Outcome and Interpretations:
  • A decline in foreign investment and worsening international relations support Model Three, highlighting the impact of geopolitical tensions.
  • Stable or improving investment and relations, despite socio-economic challenges, support Model Two, suggesting the primary influence of domestic policies over international tensions.

Critical Experiment Comparing Model One and Model Three

• Description:
  • This experiment assesses the influence of political centralization (Model One) against the backdrop of escalating ideological and geopolitical tensions (Model Three) on national unity and foreign policy success through analysis of policy outcomes and international responses.
• Independent and Dependent Variables:
  • Independent Variables:
    • Level of political centralization
    • Degree of geopolitical tension
  • Dependent Variables:
    • National unity
    • Effectiveness of foreign policy
• Operationalization of Variables:
  • Level of Political Centralization
    • Evaluated by changes in governance structure and concentration of power metrics.
  • Degree of Geopolitical Tension
    • Measured through international conflict indices and frequency of diplomatic standoffs.
  • National Unity
    • Surveyed through national opinion polls on governance and leadership approval.
  • Effectiveness of Foreign Policy
    • Assessed by achievements in diplomatic negotiations and changes in international alliances.
• Outcome and Interpretations:
  • Stronger national unity and successful foreign policy outcomes support Model One, suggesting that centralized governance enhances internal cohesion and diplomatic leverage.
  • Increased geopolitical tensions leading to diplomatic isolation or failed foreign policy initiatives support Model Three, indicating that ideological and geopolitical strategies may undermine global standing and internal unity.