Written by Laurence Brahm - Published by South China Morning Post on 11/06/2007

During the 17th National Congress, the Communist Party amended its constitution to adopt “the scientific concept of development” theory. But, in a surprise to many China observers, it sidelined the concept of a “harmonious society”. Previously hyped as President Hu Jintao’s new ideology, the “harmonious society” concept drew upon China’s own philosophical traditions of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism. These now seem buried under a commitment to sustained hyper growth as a means of ensuring social stability; that is, the promise that everyone can get rich.

In theory, scientific development calls for a recognition of the balance between man and natural science. Arguably, it heralds “sustainable development, [with] a background of environmental consciousness”, as one official explained. However, for a nation that will soon surpass the US – if it has not already done so – as the world’s biggest polluter, such logic seems Byzantine.

Given the party’s ardent commitment to its ruthless brand of Dickensian capitalism, there is danger in this rather naïve explanation of scientific development: it could be used at a later date to justify crushing social, spiritual and environmental hopes. When Deng Xiaoping came up with the concept of a market economy with “Chinese characteristics”, the term was used by some locals to justify institutionalized corruption.

One explanation why the concept of social harmony was not included in the party constitution is that this could be seen as a goal in itself; something to be achieved in the future. Similarly, during the 13th Party Congress in 1987, Deng fixed “socialism” as a long-term goal, preferring the path of economic development as a way of achieving it. Before that, Mao Zedong targeted communism as the goal, and chose the conversion into community property of the agricultural and industrial sectors as the road leading to it. For Mr Hu, “social harmony” is now an abstract notion; something to be achieved in the future, but not a Communist Party “guiding path”.

Instead, the concept of scientific development serves as a way to reach a harmonious society. Likewise, Deng once said that China was at the “first stage of socialism”, and the ultimate goal would take a “relatively long time”. Mr Hu may also be pushing the concept of a harmonious society into the future, knowing it cannot be achieved in the current climate. As one official noted: “How can we adopt ‘harmonious society’ into the constitution as a goal unto itself? It would be an outright admission that our society is unharmonious.”

Party think-tanks have yet to come up with a clear idea of a “harmonious” society. All indicators point to reviving Buddhist values. But there is an inherent conflict between the party’s adherence to the social values of materialistic consumption and Buddhism’s influence on people’s values. Recent events in Myanmar may have served as indicators of what happens when a materialistic mantra promised by an authoritarian state fails to displace broader humanistic aspirations. So, perhaps leaders felt it was better to cancel the ideal of a harmonious society.

Scientific development based solely on materialist values is, presumably, more predictable and easier to control than either idealism or an ideology that reaches out to people’s hopes and feelings. A society of zombie consumers will enable the party to maintain its objective of staying in power indefinitely. Chinese society already accepts the notion that money can buy everything. So why strive for social harmony?

The other point worth keeping in mind is the conservativeness of the Hu administration. Unlike previous generations of revolutionaries and reformers – who brought about momentous change – the current leadership will never think out of the box. So, while the “harmonious society” concept could open the door to idealism, scientific development offers nothing worth debating. As one Beijing-based diplomat said: “Nobody in the world can object to scientific development.” You can’t argue with that.

Laurence Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist and author. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm - The Himalayan Consensus - an innovative approach to development.

Back to Top