Xi Jinping seems to be the most effective and powerful Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping, maybe even since Mao Zedong. Unfortunately, it seems to be also the most authoritarian one. His anti-corruption campaign was very effective on eliminating internal dissent within the Chinese Communist Party. This is the greatest control freak on the planet, more than Vladimir Putin.
This trend towards tighter control of dissent goes far beyond the internet and it is threatening to anyone with businesses in the country. Besides, the country desperately needs independent institutions (e.g.: courts, press and universities) if it really wants to leave behind the economic model that worked until now (cheap exports and infrastructure building) and embrace a model that pulls it ahead. For such, China needs to rely more on independent entrepreneurship and their internal market. It can't do that when the Communist Party insists on control everything.
Most Chinese know this very well, that's why so many rich Chinese are buying real state in Seattle, Vancouver, etc or moving their assets abroad or trusting their children education in western universities.
Jinping is to remain in power until 2022. Probably he will remain as a shadow godfather of the party even after that. But going his path, China risks a lot of instability.
The Communist Party is not a monolith -- policy disagreements are proxies for factional struggles. They just don't usually play out in a very public way, but even in China, different news sources will have a different 'spin' because they represent different viewpoints within the Party.
Xi is well aware of the need for financial, institutional, and economic liberalization (the government has been regularly downsizing and selling off state-owned firms[1] as well as opening up the financial sector), but support for these policies is not uniform within the Party because many within benefit from the status quo.
Hence the contradiction -- in order to push forward a liberalization and anti-corruption agenda, Xi must first suppress dissent within the Party. In the US, we have the saying 'Only Nixon could go to China'.
It's basically walking a tightrope: if he uses authoritarian tools too heavily, then that indirectly hurts the independent institutions that need to be nurtured, but if he takes too light a hand, then reforms will be blocked or delayed indefinitely at lower levels and then fail from a thousand cuts.
And if China reforms too quickly without careful planning, it risks chaos (see former Soviet Union in the 90s). If it reforms too slowly, it will not be able to generate the economic growth that it badly needs as the manufacturing and real estate sectors slow down.
> Xi is well aware of the need for financial, institutional, and economic liberalization
I am not sure about this. Since 2008 the Party seems to be panicking by increasing social unrest on ethnic/religious issues (Tibet/Xinjiang), on autonomy ( Hong Kong ) and, in thousands of villages and cities, on corruption, land rights and environmental issues. But I do concede that he has been effective in important issues (e.g.: healthcare and pensions).
China history is marked by 30-40 years of calm and tranquility that suddenly erupt in tragic conflict (Taiping Rebellion, Republic, Communist Revolution, Great Leap Forward & Cultural Revolution, ...) By that pattern some big instability is overdue by now. Let's just hope it doesn't happen.
The argument for liberalization is that it's the only way to continue to grow the economy, and the Communist's Party's current legitimacy rests on lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the last few decades.
Having won a revolution only some 70 years before, Party leaders are well aware that power taken with consent of the people can certainly be taken away again [1][2].
Sure, from the outside we can't know the exact motivations and constraints of internal disputes. Still, this seems a very generous interpretation. China's recent situation is better on pretty much any measure than it was post-Mao, and much better than that in USSR post-Brezhnev. Both Gorbachev and Deng (whose latter accomplishments, incidentally, seem in retrospect to be closer to what Gorbachev and the rest of the Politburo had in mind than Gorbachev's actual results) dealt with larger challenges in mostly less autocratic fashion.
Refering to Mao as an effective leader is grounds for disregardment. Mao is without a doubt one of the most horrible human beings of all time, responsible for more death and destruction than all but a few of the worst despots in the history of humanity.
None of that conflicts with being an effective leader. Causing such great quantities of suffering and death pretty much requires it. It is important to recognize when someone is highly skilled, even (perhaps especially) when they use those skills for evil.
From what I heard, he barely finished middle school, his other diplomas are basically fake, he does not have achievements in his career, he was at the top because he was a son of high ranking officer under Mao, plus because of some luckiness. He is the dumbest leader since 1949, under him China will have much trouble ahead, only time will tell.
no I did spend time to study that, he was not promoted based on merit, as no data supported that, all leaders' descendants are treated the same, promoted after a while no matter what.
what he did after he gained the ultimate power is a different story, it's one of the standard scheme to grab power, especially when you have nothing from your past career to back you up and to earn the support from the public.
Foreign companies are now facing the implications of this now. The penalties for non compliance can mean managers can face detention or monetary penalties.
Now that Airbnb moved some of their infrastructure into China for data sovereignty requirements, they may have to comply when asked to give the Chinese government access into their infrastructure that is based in China. I'm not talking about passive monitoring, but actual credentials. This may hinge on if the infrastructure is classified as "critical", a very loosely defined and ambitious term.
The implications are huge for anyone doing business in China. The risk to intellectual property that Apple are about to face could be significant. It's all stated in the new law which you can read here -
This trend towards tighter control of dissent goes far beyond the internet and it is threatening to anyone with businesses in the country. Besides, the country desperately needs independent institutions (e.g.: courts, press and universities) if it really wants to leave behind the economic model that worked until now (cheap exports and infrastructure building) and embrace a model that pulls it ahead. For such, China needs to rely more on independent entrepreneurship and their internal market. It can't do that when the Communist Party insists on control everything.
Most Chinese know this very well, that's why so many rich Chinese are buying real state in Seattle, Vancouver, etc or moving their assets abroad or trusting their children education in western universities.
Jinping is to remain in power until 2022. Probably he will remain as a shadow godfather of the party even after that. But going his path, China risks a lot of instability.