AsiaInstituteforSocialPoliticalandEconomicResearch

The 75 year old scholar, Sun Wenguang, was severely beaten by five men for performing a ritual honoring the deceased Zhao Ziyang.  Zhao was viewed as a top echelon supporter of the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement and with the 20th anniversary of that movement approaching, Chinese governmental officials wanted to avoid any public recognition of those associated with the movement.  The use of physical force against a 75 year old man seems to be a most egregious and unwarranted suppression of expression.  A society that does not tolerate peaceful expressions of dissent is setting itself up for an explosive expression of dissent if a trigger event such as a major economic crisis or natural disaster unleashes widespread social dissatisfaction.  An extreme concern about preserving a monopoly on political and social power may be what leads China's political establishment to have so little tolerance of discussion of certain taboo topics such as Taiwan, Tibet, Tiananmen, Falun Gong, etc.
 
Social scientists such as Lewis Coser have described how intra-group conflict can allow for the development of cross-cutting cleavages that will allow a society to reduce pressure within it and preserve the integrity of the society, whereas suppressing such conflict will inevitably result in a schism when conflict can no longer be suppressed.  Freedom of expression is a safety valve that could better serve China's desire to preserve the integrity of its political regime than the present pattern of terror and suppression that seems to guide public discourse within the People's Republic. Besides the pressure releasing benefits of free expression, it has the merit of allowing people to speak their mind and own the consequences and promises of their beliefs.  To interfere with this basic right is a simple way to deny human beings the ability to be creative and flourish.  A society of 1.3 billion people will need tremendous creativity to continue the growth that is essential to the present regime's preservation.  

Over the last few weeks I have been surveying some recent trends in Buddhist political engagement and reflecting on an apparent misdirections of Buddhist thought.  Sulak Sivaraksa, a Thai political activist, has been interpreting Buddhist teachings as warranting political action.  He has focused largely on how big governmental development projects such as the Pak Moon Dam have destroyed the livelihoods of local people.  His complaints revolve around how indigenous people's interests are neglected as big business and big government work hand in hand to advance their economic interests.  His solution to this problem has been to negotiate with these interests through methods of non-violent protest.  
 
Buddhism has historically denied the existence of a self and insists upon the interrelatedness of all sentient beings. Practically, Buddhism has focused on liberating the individual from pain and suffering through a disciplined path that will awaken the individual to this interrelated state.  In Southeast Asia, Buddhism has insisted that the monastic life is the surest if not the only path to liberation from suffering.  Monasticism can be realized in many ways.  One, monasteries can become self-sustaining economic communities; two, monasteries can seek voluntary contributions from lay followers, or three, monasteries can seek state subsidies.  Wealth of some sort is necessary to support the meditative activities associated with enlightenment.
 
It would seem Buddhist purposes could be best served by activities that would generate wealth.  Non-violent protests and seeking concessions from the government on particular issues would not be as effective at generating wealth as negotiating for long run institutional changes that would secure property rights to indigenous peoples.  Hernando DeSoto"s The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else makes the case that an appropriate legal infrastructure including property rights can be the source of economic growth. If these peoples were given property rights for lands that they have long occupied, they would be able to generate wealth by raising capital for entrepreneurial undertakings.  Empowering people through recognizing individual rights would make the possibility of Buddhist liberation available to more persons.
 
A stronger regime of property right protection would serve as a limit on what could be achieved through government lobbying.  The state with its monopoly on violence would be restrained from taking resources from the population, and powerful interests would utilize their resources to generate goods and services for the society instead of trying to take resources from the politically impotent.  It is an interesting irony that Western individualism and its tradition of rights is part of the skillful means necessary to bring about Eastern enlightenment.