Opinion Fencing with rumours

But the luxury of political security is not something available to rulers in less normal countries — those run by autocrats. Despite their apparent monopoly of power,self-appointed rulers in all societies live in perpetual fear of losing office. Their fall from grace,just like their rise to the top,depends not on established and respected rules,but on backroom bargains among oligarchs that can change on a dime. Even the most senior officials in such regimes can be cashiered.

This insight helps us understand the current curiosity surrounding the mysterious disappearance of Xi Jinping,China’s heir apparent,from public view in recent days. After making an important speech in Beijing on September 1,Xi abruptly cancelled meetings with visiting foreign dignitaries,such as US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,without providing any explanation. After more than a week of unexplained absence from public view,Xi’s whereabouts have become a hot news item around the world,as well as the centre of speculation and rumour-mongering.

Although he was quoted in the state media a few days ago and the latest reports say he will make a public appearance on Sunday,guesses about what has happened to Xi run from sensationalism to informed speculation. In all likelihood,Xi is indeed suffering from some unnamed physical ailment that requires medical attention. The possibility that he has been the victim of another power struggle at the top is almost nil.

There is ample ground to think that it is genuine illness,not political demise,that has kept Xi from public view since September 1. Recent signs of personnel shuffling at the very top of the Communist Party indicate that Xi is gaining the upper hand. For instance,one of his trusted political allies has replaced a close follower of Hu Jintao,the incumbent party chief,as the equivalent of the chief of staff of the party’s central committee. The size of the standing committee of the politburo,China’s top decision-making body,is likely to be cut from nine to seven,allowing Xi greater control over policy-making than Hu has had over the last decade. After the party suffered humiliating embarrassment from the purge of Bo Xilai,the former party chief of Chongqing municipality,it probably has no desire to inflict another wound on itself. Purging an heir apparent on the eve of the scheduled transfer of power may have been routine when the supreme dictator,Mao Zedong,ran the show. But today,such an act is too horrible — for the party’s own sake — even to contemplate.

What is illuminating about this episode is the fragility of political power in contemporary China.

First,Beijing’s handling of this incident shows a regime not only out of touch with reality but also deeply fearful of the potential consequences of revealing the truth. Facing an onslaught of media attention and public curiosity,a government that is confident and capable should be forthcoming about the unexplained absence of one of its most powerful officials. After all,Xi is a human being and thus vulnerable to physical hazards as everyone else. But Chinese authorities reacted with behaviour and language reminiscent of a sclerotic late-Soviet type communist system,admitting nothing and denying almost everything. The result is predictable. Instead of effectively calming the anxieties of the Chinese people and the international community,Beijing allowed a relatively minor incident to mushroom into a crisis of confidence and a frenzy of rumour-mongering.

Another point one may make about this episode is about the lack of political security for the occupants of the highest office in China. Granted,a top leader’s health is a legitimate topic of public discussion in any country. In a more normal country,leaders have no choice but to let the public know how fit they are and then let the political process decide whether they are fit to govern. In an autocracy,by contrast,the health of the rulers is a top secret of the state. One explanation is that,because these systems follow the rule of men,not of law,the failing health of the top ruler undermines confidence in the regime’s stability.

Another plausible explanation is that any revelation of the health of the top ruler or heir apparent can cast doubt on the legitimacy of the rulers. In the case of Xi,opening up his medical record to the public will most likely set off a spirited political debate,both inside and outside the party. The debate might centre,initially,on his physical fitness for occupying the top slot in the Chinese government. This discussion,however innocent of political malice,will soon touch on the most fundamental issue: the legitimacy of the succession process itself. Such a discussion will put the party on the spot — it will have to answer very difficult questions about China’s secret succession process. If there is one thing we know about autocratic regimes,it is their dislike of impertinent questions.

But we now live in a world in which rulers must answer difficult questions. Based on Beijing’s response to ours regarding Xi’s whereabouts,one has to wonder whether the ruling elites of the largest country in the world are aware of this reality.

The writer is a professor of government and non-resident senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the US express@expressindia.com