When President and Communist Party General Secretary Hu Jintao
and Premier Wen
Jiabao appeared on TV screens weeks ago celebrating Lunar New
Year with ordinary farmers, it was indeed symbolic.
Many of the two leaders' recent public appearances outside
Beijing have had a rural feel, which is very much in tune with, and
representative of, their proposal to build a "new countryside."
One thing that defines and to some extent distinguishes their
statesmanship, however, is political pragmatism.
A low-profile study session on "new countryside" that ended
Monday in the secluded courtyard of the Central Party School is
widely seen as the prelude to all-out action.
Immediately afterward, the official roadmap was unveiled
yesterday, when Xinhua News Agency published the CPC Central
Committee's Document No.1 for 2006.
The Hu-Wen edition of "new countryside" rose to a new height at
the Party School forum, which gathered both Hu and Wen, as well as
200 or so Party and government chiefs from the provinces and
ministries. At the event, the two added ecological well-being to
their previous blueprint of the ideal rural life.
"New countryside," as interpreted by the two, incorporated
higher productivity, better living standard, communal civility,
democratic management, as well as a clean and tidy look.
If that version of "new countryside" is reflective of the
leadership's appreciation of harmony in civil life, the inclusion
of an ecological perspective has extended harmony to people's
interaction with the environment.
The proposal for a "new countryside" is not new in modern China.
Advocates and experiments date back to even before the founding of
the People's Republic in 1949.
But its re-emergence on our national agenda is the result of an
extensive rethink about rural life in the full context of national
development.
It is increasingly clear that many of the problems pestering
urban China and the national leadership have their roots outside
the cities. And the decades-old neglect of the countryside in
national development planning is not only irrational, but
unfair.
Economists' rediscovery of the countryside has a lot to do with
expectations of our rural residents' largely dormant demands to
sustain the country's proud growth story.
The government has made repeated promises to boost farmers'
incomes. To reduce farmers' financial burdens, it has cancelled
agricultural tax and promised to pay tuition for nine-year
compulsory education in rural areas.
The idea of bringing rural areas into the sphere of public
finance and make it a priority indicates a meaningful shift in the
leadership's development philosophy.
Making industries feed the countryside and cities support rural
regions in return is not only an economic move to balance the
national economic picture. It is repaying a long overdue moral
debt. We must address the rural-urban divide, not because it has
become a clumsy drag on national development, but because the
countryside is home to the majority of Chinese citizens.
A substantial and persistent financial commitment is crucial for
rebuilding rural China. The humble yet challenging tasks to grant
rural Chinese access to clean and convenient running water, clean
fuel, decent kitchens and toilets, paved roads and affordable
medical services require that.
But the "new countryside" on the leadership's drawing board
entails more.
The new Party paper offers a comprehensive course of action that
touches upon all aspects of the anticipated upgrade of Chinese
rural life.
Most of all, we need to see rural areas become a natural part of
our scholarly and official discourse on development.
The study session at the Party school was considered a venue for
consensus building. We do need genuine consensus on this, a
consensus not only among Party and government decision-makers, but
among society as a whole.
The passionate concern Hu and Wen have conveyed on their trips
to poor rural communities needs to be shared by all in leadership
positions.
(China Daily February 22, 2006)