|
China's ability to mobilize as one as quickly as it did is no doubt a consequence of strong central control. The same centralization, though, is also to blame for its inadequate early response. Officials in Wuhan didn't have the authority to act on their own without Beijing's permission. After this pandemic has died down, we should compare and contrast different countries' responses and try to appraise objectively just how much of a difference they made. China is trying really hard to make the case that their authoritarian approach is a model for the world, and it's too easy to be persuaded by that rhetoric when everyone is afraid and panicking. Meanwhile, some countries are trying just as hard to persuade their citizens that everything is okay when in fact it isn't. When all is said and done, we'll see how well that works, too. Depending on how things go, I think South Korea could become either a model for the free world or a lesson in the shortfalls of democracy. They were doing pretty well until mid-February without imposing any travel bans or other measures that might be considered authoritarian, but then the number of cases exploded and everyone had to scramble. Instead of strong central control, most things were delegated to local governments. Different cities and provinces took different initiatives, quickly learning from each other when one of them came up with a new idea such as drive-thru testing. The shortage of hospital beds was met by large companies (hello, Samsung) and megachurches donating their own resorts and conference facilities for use as quarantine centers. Hundreds of doctors rushed to Daegu to help with the medical crisis there, and faced very little bureaucratic red tape in doing so. The decentralized approach has its own inefficiencies, of course, especially in places with incompetent leaders or when dealing with a cult that refuses to cooperate. But when South Korea says that there were only 35 new cases last night, compared to hundreds a week ago, you can actually trust that it's a good-faith report because it's been cross-checked by so many independent players. The central government misreported the case count for my city a couple of times lately, and the city immediately issued corrections. |
The way the Chinese bureaucracy works is that lower-level local government officials have less experience than higher-level officials. They get promotions based on results. Xi Jinping himself was, during the SARS period, the head of a province, and did very well within containing SARS within that province. It doesn’t surprise me if local Wuhan officials simply weren’t as competent in matters of disease containment than the central government.
The Chinese government is not a monolith. Comparing to 1984-style authoritarianism wouldn’t be entirely accurate either. I think it is best compared to a large corporation.
You seem to be afraid of China exporting its model. Chinese diplomats have repeatedly said that they are not interested in doing that. They say: the Chinese way of international relations is one of mutual respect: we will not impose our system on you and you will not impose your system on us. But if you voluntarily want to learn from us then you are welcome.