70% LEADERSHIP

Travel Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.com

21 Days in China

Written by: Chet Yarbrough

Three thousand years of history are compressed into a twenty-one day tour of China. Aside from dramatic images of China’s economic growth, one of the most interesting political observations made by our tour guide is the 70% rule of leadership.

In a self-limited group of 15 American tourists, Overseas Adventure Travel produces a personalized tour of  Zhonggou; a.k.a. the “Middle Kingdom”–so named because China grew from a number of small provinces into a singular nation; i.e. a nation the size of the continental United States.  Like all maps drawn by a nationalist country, China became the center of the world (a self-identified “Middle Kingdom”).

In many ways, tourists are like ostriches.  Ostriches are known to bury their heads in the sand when scared.  As tourists, we often do the same, not out of fear, but in astonishment.

China’s great wall, giant cities, panda parks, public monuments, landscaped byways, and city parks overwhelm the senses.  O.A.T. guides are charged with gathering, and managing 15 tourists while directing and telling a cultural history of the country in which they live.

China is a country of 1.3 billion in a land the size of America with 327 million.  Population density difference is immense. (In China there are 134 people per square kilometer vs. 30 in the U.S.) Instead of big cities of 8,000,000 citizens in the U.S., China’s big cities have 20,000,000.

While explaining China’s complicated history, “Jason” juggles arrangements for traveling cross-country.  He assigns rooms at hotels, arranges meals, schedules meetings, and offers lectures prepared by local historians and residents.  At the same time, “Jason” prepares 15 people to board trains, boats, and planes for the next city.

A constant refrain from our guide is “don’t forget your passport”.  Sometimes, a passport is forgotten at the hotel; other times personal luggage exceeds air-travel weight limits.  “Jason” smiles, calms fears, and explains how problems can be overcome.  He says he has a “cousin”.  He doesn’t, but somehow problems are solved and the group moves on.

Two areas we visited (Tibet and Hong Kong) are called autonomous (actually they are, at best, semi-independent) provinces in China.  These “autonomous” regions have a different set of rules but the influence of main-land China is obvious in conversations with local residents.

Since our trip to China, Tibet and Hong Kong’s semi-independent status is being challenged by Xi’s desire for conformity. To Xi, the future of China is dependent on control by the communist party. Any ethnic, economic, or political independence from the party is suppressed.

Government surveillance is restricted by “rule of law” in America.  America retains “checks and balances” that mitigate autocratic decisions by singular leaders.

However, there seems a distinct philosophical difference in views of freedom.  Freedom seems more feared in China than America.  National coverage of Tibetan, Uighur, and Hong Kong independence suggests great concern over ideological differences between ethnic groups, provinces, and the government; particularly differences that encourage public demonstration against government policy.

As “Jason” unfolds Chinese history, one thinks about how important powerful, and singular leaders have been in governing China.  Three cultural constants in Chinese history seem to be:

1. great care for familial relationship,
2. pursuit of higher education, and
3. autocratic rule.

Through generations, China relies on strong leaders who are able to unite disparate interests of  provinces, religions, and ethnic groups.

From the great dynasties of ancient history to the eras of Mao, Deng, and now Xi, our guide suggests many Chinese believe “…great leaders must achieve 70% of what is right for the Chinese people” to advance the country.  Those leaders that do not achieve that level of public good, are failures.

In other words, Mao and Deng may have made mistakes, but they were at least 70% right.  President Xi seems in the process of proving himself.  Ancient China’s lead in the world of science and economic growth suggest some truth in a 70% rule–after all, no one is always right.

China, like all surviving nations in history, have fallen and risen.  In the 1940’s and into the 50’s, Mao overcame, what is considered by some, a corrupt government with a revolution that advanced the economic and political strength of China.  Mao eliminated feudal farming that enriched the few at the expense of the many.

In the 1950’s China rapidly improved farming production of the country.  On assuming power, Mao’s goal is to eliminate landed gentry who fail to make their farms produce what they were capable of producing.  Redistribution of land became a primary goal of the communist revolution.

However, with the initial success of small farm-collectives, Mao made the mistake of increasing the size of the collective with communist overseers.  Mao’s intent is to advance productivity more quickly.  The overseers undermine productivity with an economic program titled the “Great Leap Forward”.

The communist party overestimates its ability.  The “Great Leap Forward” replaces farmer’s with Communist bureaucrats.  In the late stages of Mao’s “Great Leap Forward”, millions of Chinese die because of bureaucratic lies about farm production. Presumably, this falls into the 30% failure of Mao’s leadership.

Nearing the end of Mao’s life, he may have recognized his error but a cabal, called the Gang of Four (which included his wife), seized control of the government and continued the failed policy of communist control of agriculture.  Mao, or this Gang of Four, started the cultural revolution (1966-1976); causing the death of millions.  With the question of Mao’s intent, and the usurpation of power by the Gang of Four, the mistakes of the cultural revolution seem less attributed to Mao than the “Gang of Four”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26551449

After removal of the “Gang of Four”, Deng Xiaoping, a pragmatic leader during Mao’s reign, opened the door to a form of capitalism.  The door is nearly shut with the Tienanmen Square slaughter.  At Deng’s order, a massive protest in Tienanmen Square, is to be ended by “any means necessary”.  An unknown number of Chinese men, women, and children are murdered by the military.

Some suggest that Tienanmen Square is a turning point in the history of China.  Deng did not apologize for the Tienanmen decision, but he overcame his mistake by arguing that “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. …. “  Deng seems to have listened to some of what the Tienanmen protesters were saying.  Undoubtedly, many protesters were attempting to make communism better; not to destroy what works for the masses. but to focus on what enriches their lives.

The principle of the collective in China remains.  Land is largely owned by the State.  However, a version of a free market is created which allows private sale of vertical construction (particularly space within buildings) in China’s cities.  (This is somewhat misleading because the sales price in a private transaction requires approval by the government, but the government does allow profit to the individual on the sale.)

Small farms are still owned by some Chinese, but the trend is for continued collectivization.  Additionally, the growth of cities changes the desirability of farming.  Older Chinese may stay on the farm but their children migrate to the city.  When aged farmers die, the land is retained by the family but often as tenant farms; unless the government makes an offer they cannot refuse.  The tenant farms still operate as a part of a collective.  Produce is determined by individual farmers but brokers sell farm product to retail stores for purchase by the public.

A construction boom began with Deng’s pragmatic solution that seemingly combines communist oversight with capitalist ambition. Chinese entrepreneurs work hard, become wealthy, and live a better life.  Small farms are steadily re-acquired in China through a process of payment to farmers in the following way:

1. families are offered (collectively owned) small-parcel farms equal in size to their parent’s land.  They become absentee landlords that receive rent in the form of farming profits,
2. various incentives are offered by the government to families for their move; sometimes, a pension or medical insurance policy, and
3. the government offers a condominium or house in a different location.

In using this method of acquisition, the government is able to build new condominiums, shopping centers, and infrastructure projects–like the “Three Gorges Dam” that controls flooding.  Infrastructure work is ubiquitous in China.

Roads, bridges, and rails are being built to influence and connect Chinese provinces.  The most recent monumental evidence of this practice is a high-speed train connection over a bridge between the mainland and the “autonomous” province of Hong Kong.

The process of government acquisition of privately owned farmland is complicated.  A team of Chinese bureaucrats measures the house in which a farmer lives, the size of the land the family owns, the product they produce, and the livestock they have.  The government determines the price that will be paid.  The land owner must accept the decision.  In return the farmer may be offered an equally sized piece of land in a collective that is farmed by others; personal incentives like a pension or medical insurance, and a condominium or home in which to live.

State acquisition of land allows massive infrastructure projects to be built.  These projects offer jobs to Chinese farmers and their children who are migrating to the city.  In some cases, the small farm is retained while the farmer’s children go to the city for a job.  With payment from a city job, some call on their farmer parents to help them with a down payment on a condominium in the city.  The price of condominiums rises.  They rent the condo they have, and make a down payment on a second condo.  With each transaction, they become wealthier; i.e. at least, wealthier on paper.

Construction activity is endemic in every city visited.  A striking observation is that many of the condominiums seem unoccupied.  The question becomes whether construction is too far ahead of real economic growth.

Another striking difference between big American and Chinese cities is that you see few homeless citizens in China.  In China, government subsidizes housing for the poor.  It is not luxurious.  It is small and crowded.  The dilemma of government is in drawing the line between central planning and public service. It appears to keep the poor from being homeless.

Tap water is considered undrinkable throughout China; which means nearly all water for daily consumption is bottled.  Hong Kong is vitally dependent on the mainland for water.  There are 21 treatment works in Hong Kong but treatment changes the taste of the water so much that Hong Kong residents drink bottled water.

PRESIDENT XI’S CENTRALIZED RULE CONTINUES TO BE CHALLENGED BY HONG KONG DEMONSTRATORS–NEW YORK TIME’S ARTICLE 6.14.19.

Time will tell if President Xi is a 70% or 30% leader.  Xi’s decision to initiate a China’s “Road and Belt” program for the world may be a harbinger of great success or abject failure.  The worry may be whether Xi is like an early Mao, and pragmatic Deng, or a singular version of “The Gang of Four”.