Modern day China is said to have had only four core leaders in its third generation of leadership epochs. Of these four, Jiang Zemin is fairly conspicuous. He rose to prominence probably as a passing cloud during China’s most recent turbulent times, but used the thoughts of the two core leaders who came before him – Chairman Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping to build to lay a solid foundation for the current president, Xi Jinping who is the fourth paramount leader that makes the core of four. Never mind that between Jiang Zemin who was president between 1993 and 2004 and Xi Jinping there was Hu Jintao. That’s how consequential the core four of Chairman Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin and Xi Jinping were and are still considered core leaders. Of course, China is a powerhouse of a country with a solid political system anchored on strong leadership structures with a deeply pro-Chinese nationalism politburo. It doesn’t matter who becomes the president; the political system is unlikely to depart from what they have already established, and it does seem no one just tumbles on the presidency on the backdrop of populism.
Jiang Zemin died on November 30, 2022. To situate his leadership, it is important to note that he was the president of China from 1993 to 2003 and the paramount leader of China from 1989 to 2002. Suffice to note, he ascended to power just after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre and presided over landmark turbulent times in China including dealing with the students protest and the calls for democracy. Many critics today appreciate that some of the demands by the pro-democracy protesters would have compromised the foundations China had built for what it is today. Zemin was stoic in his resolve and his introduction of the concept of socialist market economy and approach in opening China boldly set China on a trajectory that fully materialised to a global powerhouse under president Xi Jinping.
In fact, in the twilight of his political time at the helm of leadership and as Hu Jintao was taking over, the leadership that was earmarked to take over from Hu Jintao silently plotted a complete ouster of his Shanghai core that he had moved with from his stint as the Mayor of Shanghai to the top echelons of the Chinese Communist Party. But that’s the nature of politics. When there is a change in power, a few heads must move on. Today that is happening in Kenya, only that in Kenya people are moving on, but structures do not seem to be enduring and neither do we see a going concern.
You see, when people talk about China, they rarely discourse two critical aspects that have defined and characterised the success of the Chinese political and social market economic model. First, was the realisation that capitalism could be integrated in the Chinese socialism and to this end Jiang Zemin continued with the path that had been forged by his predecessors, while at the same time remained alive to the realities of opening up. Key lesson is continuation and adaptability.
His “socialist market economy” essentially meant that rather that have the government centrally plan the socialist economy it was prudent to have a capitalist market economy that is regulated by the government. Today, we have a new government that has come up with grand plans that depart from the previous government. From scrapping of subsidies and claims of saving money yet the borrowing continues. What is not clear is how some of these grand measures serve the interest of the citizenry. It is good to hear that the government has saved money, but I guess the hustlers expect changes in fortune at the basic level – food on their table, affordable living standards and access to both quality education and health services.
Well, lots of what the current regime does, when put in perspective makes a lot of sense to some Kenyans. Subsidies at consumption level cannot build any economy, especially when the products and services subsidised are not produced locally. In fact, subsidy of imported consumables builds other economies and takes money that would otherwise circulate locally to other economies. To that end, scrapping of subsidies make sense; what does raise eyebrows is how the scrapping has been done without the realisation that subsidy at the production is longitudinal if it has to be felt. While the government is busy cutting on cost, majorly predicated on repudiation of anything the previous administration did, the hustlers are suffering. Suffice to note now, is the centralization of resources with dearth of clarity on how such endeavors will address the plight of the hustlers.
Zemin’s second landmark contribution that accelerated the growth of China is his thoughts and eventual enactment of a legal framework on corruption. You see, some of the money saved by scrapping of subsidies is now centralised and in the hands of the elite leaders. The problem then is very simple – for a regime whose policy on corruption is as opaque as what the four IEBC officials saw that prompted their walk out – who would believe any strategic plan that entails holding resources in the hope that subsidies of production will be transparent. Already the establishment has put enough individuals with corruption allegations that are yet to be addressed in key positions. How such appointments allay fears of rampant plunder is not clear.
If the state is to play a pro-citizenry role on economic development in a capitalistic economy, there has to be a deliberate and clear policy and legislation on corruption anchored on solid political will. As recently as four months ago key individuals in the current regime pronounced themselves on not running on an anticorruption platform and it is clear why. Everyone is clean and no one is talking about corruption, but they mention corruption as the reason they have not delivered there 100 day promises. In the 1990s as Jiang Zemin took the reins of power, political corruption was rife and the economic divide was wide and characterized by regional disparities. That is the same with our country today. We mint more dollar billionaires in a financial year than we lift people out of the indignity of poverty; and the main merit of these new age billionaires is the corruption currency and tenderpreneurship. Jiang Zemin laid a robust foundation that continues to slay the corruption dragon in China today and this played a big role in launching the economic awakening. Granted, there were myriads of human rights abuses both before and during Zemins leadership, but on corruption and making the free-market economy serve the interest of the people we can borrow a lot. Maybe addressing the dearth of clarity on corruption would be a good place to begin with. Otherwise, we could be celebrating government savings on subsidies when the money is oiling pockets of a few individuals. And few when it comes to corruption and the current regime are two mutually exclusive words.
