Nanjing Tree Fight Refreshingly Free of ‘Stability’

Russell Leigh Moses is a Beijing-based analyst and professor who writes on Chinese politics. He is writing a book on the changing role of power in the Chinese political system. Read more by Mr. Moses

Russell Leigh Moses

It’s rare in China to see a showdown between the government and the governed in which the ruling powers are forced to yield to public dismay and change course.

But that’s exactly what we saw this week. The battle wasn’t about democracy — it was about trees.

Here’s what happened. The former Republican-era capital of Nanjing has embarked on a massive expansion of its subway system; from 2 lines to perhaps 20 or more in as many years. Making urban China modern entails building major transportation networks no matter what the cost. A dozen or so Chinese cities already have subway systems; nearly twenty more have plans. These projects are attempts by municipalities to deal with the growing gridlock on China’s streets produced by cars and urban sprawl. They are also paths for political promotion of cadres yearning for elevation to Beijing.

Nanjing is no exception. And it’s difficult for anyone in China—high or low–to argue against urban development.

But matters got complicated. To make way for at least two of the subway lines, the Nanjing authorities decided that they needed to remove over a thousand trees, many of them wutong trees, whose distinctive shape and foliage provide shade and respite from Nanjing’s famous furnace heat. Visitors to Nanjing always notice how special these trees are, and residents of the city are justifiably proud of the distinction that the wutong trees bring to their city.

Many residents tied green ribbons around the trees to signal their support for efforts to save them (report in Chinese). They were irked by the lack of notice given by the government to remove the trees despite assurances that some would be transplanted elsewhere. Many knew from online forums and even the local media in Nanjing that an earlier effort at transplanting trees years before had led to many of them dying. Public dismay and distrust grew, and many called for demonstrations on the weekend to persuade the local government to back off.

Nanjing authorities would have surely preferred the issue to remain local. Vice Mayor Lu Bing went so far as to invite journalists for a press conference, explaining the government’s case, thanking the public for its concern, and even hinting that the removal procedures were under review (report in Chinese). Nanjing officials must have believed that pressure from below would dissipate before Beijing became anxious and intervened.

But the national media was already starting to cover the controversy, noting both the local government’s line and that there was public restlessness. While some media urged Nanjing to find a balance between construction and protection (report in Chinese), one of the central Party newspapers noted (Chinese) that while removing trees was not new in Nanjing, neither was civic dissatisfaction with those policies every time it was done. Astonishingly, a leading Kuomintang legislator in Taiwan weighed in, protesting that the Nanjing city government was smearing the legacy of Sun Yat-sen through their actions—and his comments were carried in the popular nationalist newspaper in China, Global Times (Chinese).

By Thursday evening, it was clear that the local authorities had lost the high-ground, and a truce was called. Both the Nanjing Party secretary and the mayor appeared publicly to assure that the removal of the trees would be halted pending further study and more public input (report in Chinese).

Nanjing officials presented this decision as a triumph of listening to the public. Some netizens praised (Chinese) the response of the government.

So what does this all mean?

These events showed yet again that much remains missing in Chinese policy-making. The lack of transparency, the absence of meaningful public hearings before decisions are made or initiatives get underway, the dearth of accountability to the public where official conduct is concerned—these are all much more important at the present stage of China’s political development than democracy.

Nanjing residents were not eager to subvert the government or to take command; but they did want to save officials from making what they saw as a monumentally stupid decision.

One positive sign in Nanjing in the past days was that when calls for public protest began in the blogosphere not a single official talked about the need for social stability. Some in government circles have acknowledged for months that the emphasis on stability at all costs has gotten far too costly; that cadres have become tone-deaf to local concerns. Reformers have lost some recent struggles to the truncheon-swingers but this one was a win.

Better politics in China starts with better policy. Nanjing shows what some cadres have already been saying: That having residents involved in local decisions earlier remains an attractive alternative to keeping the public out. Perhaps those waiting to take over the Party leadership next year were taking notes.

  • Email
  • Printer Friendly
  •  

Add a Comment

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

Comments (5 of 5)

View all Comments »
    • First of all Nanking story is not drivel at all for every educated Chinese knowing even a little about her history. Thanks to KMT who helped our citizens out of the difficult situation of being alone against the stupid government policy.

      Secondly, to the ’20 subway lines’ complaint of its inaccuracy by someone who suggested 5 as a probable number, I have to say that this report was no misleading. Now there are already more than 15 lines already on the transport construction plan. Based on my knowledge, the author just made 20 a fair estimation- at least fairer than 5.

      Finally, I appreciate the author’s enthusiasm of the common affairs of chinese politics. And the report itself is in time and has disclosed most of the necessary information.

    • Former Nanjing major Wulong Wang, notoriously known as the “cutting tree major”, was arrested years ago for corruption. Upon his fall, his decision to remove thousands of Wutong trees ( many of them of more than 100 years old) to widen Nanjing streets despite Nanjing people’s protests became one of the major accusations on him.

      That’s why cutting trees has been a sensitive zone officials have to consider before they tread on it in Nanjing. Somebody “fell” because of this before.

      If it is somewhere else, not so much. Historical town Dinghai got pushed flat to ground in Zhejiang province. As long as no local officials’ ass were kicked for that, “people’s voice” remained highly optional.

    • Mr. Moses needs to check his facts.

    • I really do not understand why this man is allowed to write for the WSJ. I first saw Mr. Moses on CCTV analyzing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and now he is off to analyzing Nanjing politics. The Nanjing story is drivel. I do not see how he uses the government back pedaling on tree removal to showcase the need for citizens to be more apart of the decision making process. I doubt any local government that is planning a subway line is going to coordinate a citizen council. Moreover, it seems superfluous to setup a citizen council if the government is already reacting to the wishes of its citizens. Wouldn’t this in fact show that government is actually working and sensitive to the needs of its citizens. Also, I would like to point out that Nanjing has no plans to construct “20″ subway lines in the next 20 years. Both Nanjing lines have been established over a 7 year period so 4-5 lines is more likely. Not trying to be nit picky but for a journalist to provide foreign readers with incorrect facts is not helpful for them to understand the true situation on the ground. I really hope WSJ finds a more reputable “China Expert.”

    • (http://tinyurl.com/28vtsaz) this is good, but to me I think this is an exceptional case, not necessary will be repeated elsewhere, if you can recall, a lot of things that are of historical values were destroyed in Beijing, in the name of development and Beijing Olympics

Expert Insight

  • Nanjing Tree Fight Refreshingly Free of 'Stability'

    It’s rare in China to see a showdown between the government and the governed in which the ruling powers are forced to yield to public dismay and change course. But that’s exactly what we saw this week.

  • Jungle of Problems: Beijing's Failure to Protect Consumers

    Like the U.S. in the early 20th century, China faces a food- and product safety crisis--one that will take more than legislation to solve.

  • Deepening Shadows Over Chinese Law

    While China's tightening control over social media and the Internet has attracted widespread attention lately, the government in also engaged in widespread, sometimes violent suppression of activist lawyers.

  • Mideast Protests a Concern for Party, not Police

    Beijing is getting very good at preventing color revolutions from becoming a national conversation about the shortcomings of governance. The main concern is the way that events in the Middle East could play out within the Communist Party.

  • Will the Internet Advance Chinese law reform?

    With Internet activism seemingly on the rise in China, what are the chances social media pressure will lead to reform of China's corrupt legal system?

About China Real Time Report

  • China Real Time Report is a vital resource for an expanding global community trying to keep up with a country changing minute by minute. The site offers quick insight and sharp analysis from the wide network of Dow Jones reporters across Greater China, including Dow Jones Newswires’ specialists and The Wall Street Journal’s award-winning team. It also draws on the insights of commentators close to the hot topic of the day in law, policy, economics and culture. Its editors can be reached at chinarealtime@wsj.com.