A dozen years after Beijing enacted a ban on firecrackers in the
city proper, local residents finally had a raucous Spring Festival
full of jubilant explosions and bursts of light.
Many average Beijingers welcomed the return of firecrackers, but
others were nervous about it. Approximately 500,000 people across
the city, including police officers, fire fighters, medical workers
and community volunteers, were on high alert throughout the week.
They were prepared to cope with any emergencies that might
arise.
This turned out to be an over reaction, much to the surprise of
everyone, including the municipal government. By the last day of
the celebrations, there had been no reports of major fires or
deaths resulting from firecrackers. There were not any reports of
eye excisions, either. These surgical operations are so common in
firecracker-related injuries that they have become a major official
measurement for firecracker safety in Beijing.
Calling that an "initial achievement," the safety-minded
municipal government expressed gratitude to Beijingers for
respecting the rules.
They deserve thanks for more than that, however. Perhaps more
importantly, they presented convincing evidence that firecrackers
are not an evil that has to be prohibited.
In fact, after the relative tranquillity of the first few
no-firecracker celebrations, the ban fell apart. Despite the
theoretical authority of the ban, as well as the strong police
force dispatched to patrol the streets, it was simply impossible to
catch and punish all violators.
The ban was unpopular from the beginning because it deprived
residents of a key part of their Lunar New Year happiness. Even
police officers became tired of the typically futile game of
hide-and-seek, when most of them would otherwise be spending time
with family.
It was actually their inability to enforce the ban that prompted
the authorities to rethink its legitimacy.
Beijing lawmakers deserve applause for coming to terms with the
ineffectiveness of a categorical ban. That knowledge turned every
player in the game from a loser to a winner.
Residents' self-discipline when using firecrackers counted for a
lot in what has so far been a satisfactory citywide security
record. But it would be unfair to ignore the authorities' smart
control programme.
We would have seen quite a different scenario if their efforts
had stopped at telling people when and where firecrackers were not
allowed.
Strict licences for firecracker retailers and detailed technical
standards for firecrackers sold on the local market showed a high
degree of sophistication.
Though some have described the return of firecrackers in Beijing
as a triumph of tradition over law, we instead see it as a victory
of reason over a poorly conceived law. The ban and its ultimate
removal show that a law is not as strong as it appears when it
lacks popular endorsement.
A big problem with Beijing's previous ban on firecrackers was
that there was little meaningful consultation with the public
before it was put into effect. The new scheme, however, was the
result of extensive public discourse throughout the city.
Beijing's lawmakers must have learnt a lot from their rather
embarrassing encounter with firecrackers, which we hope includes
appreciation of the value of democracy in lawmaking and, equally if
not more importantly, the vital significance of management.
An explosion at a firecracker storehouse on the first day of the
Lunar New Year in Linzhou, in central China's Henan Province,
killed 36 people and injured 48. This again showed the potential
dangers of using firecrackers. The investigation concluded that the
incident was the result of poor management, however.
Beijing has managed to avoid firecracker-related deaths and
fatal injuries, and effective management is the reason for this
solid safety record.
(China Daily February 6, 2006)