Doctor’s death will not be allowed to tarnish the party
The outpouring of anger in China over the death of Li Wenliang poses a serious challenge to the Communist Party and “people’s leader” Xi Jinping.
Censorship means many may not know that the Chinese authorities were aware that the coronavirus infected humans in early December. But following Dr Li’s death, they do know that a cover-up has allowed the virus to get out of control.
They know that, despite having to deal with the mutation of the Sars and the avian flu viruses in the past, the Chinese government did not act promptly to contain and destroy the new virus when it first emerged at the Huanan Market in Wuhan.
People are furious because their government’s approach – to suppress reporting for more than two weeks in January in order not to spoil large meetings and big banquets important to the Communist Party – put their health, safety and well-being at risk. Many have also seen pictures of senior officials wearing high-specification protective masks while medical staff have to make do with surgical ones.
Dr Li died on the front line, fighting the virus without adequate protection, while top leaders live in the safety of Beijing with masks to spare.
These waves of anger could destabilise the system and threaten their hold on power.
This will not come to pass. Public anger will not be allowed to transform into a social movement precisely because the threat is so serious to the powers that be.
There are some within the Communist Party who dislike the country’s direction under Mr Xi. Some might cherish the prospect that the coronavirus fiasco would weaken him and force him to change tack. But they are at risk, too, as the party is in charge of everything everywhere. They have too much of a vested interest to risk its authority being challenged. As a strongman, Mr Xi cannot afford to appear weak. Accommodating public anger or dissenting voices within the party is a sign of weakness.
As he made clear when he came to power in 2012, he did not become party’s general secretary to preside over the demise of Communist Party rule in China.
Mr Xi will not allow public grief for Dr Li to be used in a way similar to the mourning of the relatively liberal former leader Hu Yaobang in 1989, which was the trigger for massive
Dr Li died on the front line without adequate protection, while top leaders have masks to spare
demonstrations, ended only by the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Mr Xi’s intention is reflected in the composition of the committee he appointed to take charge of the crisis. While one member (out of nine) has responsibility for public health, most are propaganda or security experts.
It will be a while before Mr Xi can win his “people’s war” against coronavirus. But he will lose no time in seizing the narrative over Dr Li’s death. Anyone who chooses to grieve over Dr Li will be required to do so “patriotically”. Let us pray that he finds a better way to contain the virus than tightening control. Until then, the price Chinese citizens and others have to pay will mount.