CFR Presents

Asia Unbound

CFR experts give their take on the cutting-edge issues emerging in Asia today.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


China’s Dalian Demonstrations and a “More Democratic Time”

by Elizabeth C. Economy
August 16, 2011

Residents hold a banner among demonstrators protesting against a petrochemical plant at the People's Square in Dalian, Liaoning province on August 14, 2011. The banner reads, "Give me back my beautiful home". (Stringer/Courtesy of Reuters)

No one has pinpointed the number of protestors—observers are claiming anywhere from 12,000 (the official number) to 70,000—but it almost doesn’t matter. What does matter is that once again, the Chinese people have spoken their mind through mass protest; once again the local government has listened and (apparently) capitulated; and once again civil society has emerged at the forefront of a push for political change.

What Happened?

Over the weekend, on Sunday, August 14, a largely middle-class group of Chinese citizens organized a large-scale demonstration in the coastal city of Dalian via the Internet. They were protesting what they believed to be inadequate safeguards at a local Paraxylene (a carcinogenic benzene-based chemical referred to as “PX”) factory. A protective dike around the factory had been breached by rain and high waves that resulted from the tropical storm Muifa. Residents nearby the plant were evacuated, and in the wake of the evacuation, officials reportedly began to consider relocating the factory.

However, the decision was taken away from the government by the protestors. Although the government reported that the factory had not been damaged and no chemical contamination had occurred, residents were worried about the potential for a future disaster; the chemical plant is only twenty kilometers from the center of the city. The government quickly agreed to shut down and relocate the factory. (Of course, at least one news report has noted that the factory is continuing to operate even after the government’s pledge to shut it down immediately.)

Many news reports have made analogies to a protest in 2007, further down the coast in Xiamen, where the local government, also under significant popular pressure, agreed not to site a PX factory close to the city center. There are similarities—the protesters numbered in the thousands, people communicated via the Internet and cell phones, and the type of plant was the same. In the Xiamen case, however, no plant had yet been built; the opportunity cost for the local government was significant but the actual financial loss was non-existent. In the Dalian situation, the economic losses—first from shuttering the factory and then from relocating it—will be considerable.

What It Signifies

The real significance of the protest, however, is far greater than simply another demonstration of the political potency of mass protest in China. Indeed, an editorial in China’s Global Times warns against considering Dalian simply as a “victory of a ‘protest.” Rather—and this is my interpretation—it is another symbol of how Chinese citizen activism—whether through organized non-governmental organizations, Internet campaigns, running as independent candidacies in local district congress elections, or demonstrations such as that in Dalian—has become a leading source of political evolution in China.

It is important—if often painful—to think about political change in China in the context of the intentions, capacity, resilience, and fate of the larger-than-life political figures, such as Wen Jiabao, Ai Weiwei, and Liu Xiaobo.  At the same time, the Dalian protest reminds us that it is equally important to focus on the evolving intentions, capacity, resilience, and fate of the broader Chinese citizenry. China may well be in the midst of a reform movement born of the masses. The Global Times suggests that the Dalian demonstrations and their aftermath are a sign that “Both the public and the government have begun adapting both their language and actions to a more democratic time.” Let’s hope the Global Times is on to something.

Post a Comment 3 Comments

  • Posted by Kathryn Boussemart

    uhhh … and once again the totalitarian leaders of China are attempting to crush the protests in Tibet calling for their freedom and independence. They have cut off the phone lines and arrested more monks. It has been over 50 years since China conquered the peace loving people of Tibet and still they yearn for freedom. China will never conquer the hearts of the people of Tibet. China is NOT a friend to the West!!! Their incessant cyber attacks on our institutions prove this. Their buying our debt is not the action of a friend … it is the same as giving money to a drug addict to get his drug fix!!! It is just a means to an end. Do not be fooled. The leaders of China do NOT listen to their people or the peoples they have conquered.

  • Posted by Didier BOON

    Ms Boussemart obviously forgot on how our democracies have seen the day… It is also a pity she did not visit Tibet 51 years ago to see how the loving monk hierarchy kept all their citizens enslaved.
    Instead of rejoycing at the numerous signs of change (even if too slow…) it is indeed much easier to fall back on useless denigrating critics…

  • Posted by Phillip

    This incident reminds me of the struggle depicted in the “Warriors of Qiugang”, albeit the Dalian situation played out much more quickly. On the one hand, one can take solace from these cases and know that Chinese citizens occasionally are able exert influence with their political leaders. But I’m nonetheless agnostic about whether citizen action is leading to an overall political evolution, assuming that by evolution you mean development toward democracy. For every case of a citizen victory there seems to be another story about dismissed editor, imprisoned activist, or ignored petitioner. Citizen activism may push China’s leaders to improve Party governance, but I’m not confident it will lead them to embrace reforms that would change the character of the government itself.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required