With the advent of globalisation and urbanisation, the proliferation of information and increased access to high technology, public crises have become an increasingly regular occurrence globally. In addition to dealing with many other public affairs such as the provision of education and medical care, public crisis management has become one of the day-to-day functions of government. China, a late comer to modernisation, has established a whole set of governance models with unique Chinese characteristics to deal with public crises. This has been especially the case since the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003. There are five important models, steps and experiences in regard to crises management outlined below.
First, is the need for a centralised and unified command system. In its experience of public crisis management, China has adopted a hierarchical management system with strict constraints and responsibilities. The adoption of this system means that under the unified command and management of the central government, sub levels of governments and relevant departments cooperate based on the principle of division of labour. Power is highly centralised in higher levels of government, whose policies and directives are transmitted downward through the system into relevant departments. This institutional arrangement allows the circumvention of disputes caused by decentralisation, while mobilising the power of society and ensuring the fast implementation of policies.
Second is the idea of people oriented governance. Throughout the process of public crisis governance, the priority of the Chinese government is always to ensure the basic conditions for life of its citizenry. Sanctity of human life is therefore top priority. The government and rescue workers do all they can to reduce causalities and suffering. This idea plays a fundamental role in public crisis management and has profound implications for the effectiveness and legality of governance.
Third is the need to normalise methods of governance. After reform and opening up, China instituted several laws and regulations governing public crisis management, including: ‘Provisional Regulations on the Extraordinarily Serious Accidents Investigation Procedure’, ‘Martial Law of the People’s Republic of China’, ‘Production Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)’, and ‘Law of the PRC on Prevention and Cure of Contagious Diseases’, among others. A legal system for public crisis management has been formed. An inevitable demand arising out of the normalisation of crisis governance is to regulate and guarantee the effective resolution of public crisis through law.
Fourth is the structure of collaborative governance. A central element of the current system for managing public crises is to expand the number and type of entities able to make useful contributions to the resolution of a crisis. While the Chinese government plays a leading role, it also mobilises the entire social apparatus and expands the channels by which society can participate in crisis management and resolution. In this way it forms a government centred multi component structure in which experts, the public and global society are closely connected and work together to resolve crises as they occur. Government, non government organisations, enterprises, families, and residents work together and participate in public crisis management. A partnership is formed by consulting and cooperating to co-govern public crises, thereby establishing a public crises response network, which will effectively prevent, solve and eliminate crises. Social interest is maintained and enhanced, and collaborative governance of public crises can be realised.
Fifth is transparency of information. The outbreak of SARS in 2003 represents a turning point in the accessibility of information. Before that event, to effectively control the broadcast and influence of crisis information, the government always adopted a media policy of ‘tight domestic but loose overseas’ and ‘keep inside information from outsiders’. Before the outbreak of SARS, the government kept most information secret, which often caused widespread panic and had a negative impact on China’s international image. After systematic improvement, a whole set of measures to promote information disclosure based on a press spokesperson system has gradually come into effect. This new system played a positive role during the Wenchuan earthquake of Sichuan in 2008. During that incident, the government won public trust, quashed panic, rallied public support, and ensured social order. The effective resolution of the crisis redeemed the government’s international reputation by presenting an image of responsible government.
Public crisis is a challenge but also an opportunity. If the government can review useful experiences and draw lessons from its mistakes, it can learn a great deal from crises, establish a good public image, and win credibility.
Shan Yu is a researcher with the Chinese Central Party School (CCPS) in Beijing.
The best possible way China could help manage a ‘public crisis’ would be to promote the growth of their democratic institutions and loosen their control of modern social communication technology. China’s ‘Public Crisis Management’ almost rivals the US Military’s ‘Kinetic Engagement’ for brilliant wordplay. It is no more than ‘public propaganda management’ and an extension of the State’s electronic means of control. Such forms of ‘management’ will only lead to further promote and entrench abuse and corruption by those already in power, and make it too easy for leaders at all levels to resort to violence or illegitimate imprisonment. It is only through democratic institutions that people will feel that their concerns and needs are being addressed. When people feel legitimately acknowledged through modes of governance that they respect they will be less likely to resort to violence. The more China clamps down on their citizens, the more people will become marginalised, and the more China will have to squeeze harder – this has only one outcome.