Chinese tech assault a test for the West
Observing China’s crackdown on technology companies has been both frightening and awe-inspiring. Seeming to have no regard for the effect on investments, Chinese authorities introduced a slew of regulations to contain the power of internet service firms, curb the more undesirable features of products they offer, ban those fostering too much competitiveness and inequality, and protect the interests of employees.
To a parent like me of 10year-old twins who play Roblox at all hours with no regard for their physical, mental or emotional wellbeing, a government putting firm boundaries on children’s ability to access video games sounds like heaven. But the idea of a government banning the same children’s access to online tutoring, regardless of my wishes, is chilling. The knowledge that I could be invested in an asset and have the valuation eviscerated at the stroke of a pen by some man in a suit leaves me speechless.
Friend and fellow columnist Isaah Mhlanga and I have a running disagreement on the desirability of autocratic government. I disagree with his and others’ admiration for apparently successful modernday autocratic regimes such as China and Rwanda. Where he sees political stability, I see lack of civil liberties and human rights abuses. As a black woman I am a member of a demographic whose liberties are hard won and still materially circumscribed in some jurisdictions. I place great value on civil liberties. Where he sees direction and decisiveness, I see a quelling of the curiosity, experimentation and serendipity that supports innovation and is necessary for human progress. As I always tell Isaah, I would rather live in SA, frustrating though it is, than be told how to behave in a China.
Even so, I understand where people who favour control come from. Studies have shown that the traits of liberalism versus conservatism are, to a material extent, genetically determined. Societies need people who push for change and test frontiers, and those who prefer consistency and value safety. At all times there exists an unstable equilibrium between the needs and wants of the two groups.
Authoritarian countries such as China allow individual freedoms to a far lesser degree than liberal democracies such as the US. The starting point for the society itself constrains how far boundaries can be pushed. Sitting in the US, Elon Musk gets to tweet the price of bitcoin into a frenzy. Jack Ma has all but disappeared from public life.
Listening to the debates on Chinese authorities’ recent actions, it has been interesting to observe the differences in interpretation of events. Chinese commentators, including those educated and practising their trade in the West, appear to accept the need for direct government interference in public affairs with ease. Westerners, on the other hand, including those who live in China, struggle to hide their dismay.
At heart are fundamental differences on how to govern the public square and — even more complicated — how to define a public square. How much should a state interfere in the private affairs of individuals and companies? Where do you draw the boundaries between private and public affairs?
I was born into a collectivist society and have spent my adult life in financial markets, which is about as individualistic an environment as one can get. This sometimes creates a dissonance that can be emotionally debilitating, but out of necessity I have learnt to cope. I hold true the quote by F Scott Fitzgerald that “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function”.
As the dominance of Western thought and values is challenged, we will have to live with, at least for some time, the tension between individualism and collectivism, capitalism and socialism, interventionist and passive governance, democratic and nondemocratic government, and hold them all, to some extent, as valid.
Is China wrong, or is it just different?