Centre for Social Investment (CSI), Max-Weber-Institute for Sociology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
School of Labor and Human Resources, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China.
Front Public Health. 2021 Dec 15;9:756677. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.756677. eCollection 2021.
China is generally regarded internationally as an "authoritarian" state. Traditional definitions have assigned many negative connotations surrounding the term of authoritarian. We realize that it might not be considered value-neutral in other countries. But authoritarian in the Chinese context emphasizes more on centralized decision making, collectivism, coordinating all activities of the nation, and public support, which is considered a value-neutral term. Therefore, it is adopted in this paper. We would like to clarify this. Authoritarian governance is considered an important mechanism for developing China's economy and solving social problems. The COVID-19 crisis is no exception. Most of the current research on crisis management and government crises focuses on advanced, democratic countries. However, the consequences of crisis management by authoritarian governments have not been fully appreciated. Although prior research has addressed authoritarian initiatives to manage crises in China, authoritarian interventions have rarely been theorized in public health emergencies. Based on a literature review and theoretical analysis, we use a descriptive and qualitative approach to assess public health policies and mechanisms from an authoritarian perspective in China. In light of the key events and intervention measures of China's government in response to COVID-19, the strategic practices of the Communist Party of China (CPC) to construct, embody, or set political goals through authoritarian intervention in public health crisis management are discussed. China's government responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with a comprehensive authoritarian intervention, notably by establishing a top-down leadership mechanism, implementing a resolute lockdown, rapidly establishing square cabin hospitals, enhancing cooperation between different government departments, mobilizing a wide range of volunteer resources, enforcing the use of health codes, imposing mandatory quarantine on those returning from abroad, and implementing city-wide nucleic acid testing. These measures ensured that China was able to contain the outbreak quickly and reflect on the unique role of the Chinese authoritarian system in responding to public health crises. Our paper contributes to expanding the existing understanding of the relationship between crisis management and authoritarian system. China's response to COVID-19 exemplifies the unique strengths of authoritarian institutions in public health crisis management, which is a helpful and practical tool to further enhance the CPC's political legitimacy. As a socialist model of crisis management with Chinese characteristics, it may offer desirable experiences and lessons for other countries still ravaged by the epidemic.
中国在国际上通常被视为一个“威权”国家。传统定义赋予了“威权”一词许多负面含义。我们意识到,在其他国家,这个词可能不被认为是中立的。但是,中国语境下的威权更强调集中决策、集体主义、协调国家的所有活动以及公众支持,这被认为是一个中立的术语。因此,本文采用了这个术语。我们想对此加以澄清。威权治理被认为是发展中国经济和解决社会问题的重要机制。新冠疫情危机也不例外。目前关于危机管理和政府危机的大多数研究都集中在先进的民主国家。然而,威权政府的危机管理后果尚未得到充分重视。虽然先前的研究已经探讨了中国威权政府应对危机的主动性,但在公共卫生紧急情况下,威权干预措施很少被理论化。
基于文献回顾和理论分析,我们采用描述性和定性方法,从威权主义的角度评估中国的公共卫生政策和机制。根据中国政府应对新冠疫情的关键事件和干预措施,我们探讨了中国共产党(中共)通过威权干预公共卫生危机管理来构建、体现或设定政治目标的战略实践。
中国政府对新冠疫情采取了全面的威权干预措施,尤其是建立了自上而下的领导机制,实施了坚决的封锁,迅速建立了方舱医院,加强了不同政府部门之间的合作,动员了广泛的志愿者资源,推行了健康码,对从国外返回的人员进行强制隔离,以及实施了全市范围的核酸检测。这些措施确保了中国能够迅速控制疫情,并反思中国威权制度在应对公共卫生危机方面的独特作用。
我们的论文有助于拓展对危机管理与威权制度之间关系的现有理解。中国对新冠疫情的应对体现了威权机构在公共卫生危机管理方面的独特优势,这是一个有助于进一步增强中共政治合法性的有益和实用工具。作为一种具有中国特色的危机管理社会主义模式,它可能为其他仍受疫情困扰的国家提供可取的经验和教训。