“Politics at the wheel” was one of the key slogans of the Maoist period of the Chinese Communist Party, especially during the period of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. It signaled the rejection of a “technocratic” approach to questions of economy and social organization and underscored the insistence that the ultimate criterion should be political and concerned with social transformation. “Reds and not experts” was after all a slogan of the Red Guards which precisely underlined that the correct political line was more important than formal scientific validity.
Certainly it was precisely this line that was abandoned after Mao’s death, when the upper hand was taken by the wing that argued that the main bet was development and the main one was technical efficiency. “White cat, black cat, the point is to catch mice,” argued Degg, and this line prevailed, eventually leading to the very acceptance of capitalism as a necessary condition for the development of the productive forces, prior to the socialist transition, refuting the position of Chiang Ching, Mao’s widow, at the Gang of 4 trial in 1981 where she spoke of “ants who want to turn back the carriage of history”.
The train of history eventually continued down the road that the defenders of the Maoist line saw as regression, and China found itself the world’s second largest economy, albeit at the cost of significant internal inequalities. The “politics at the wheel” principle was abandoned and management became much more technocratic.
The paradox is, however, that the concept of “politics at the wheel” seems to be adopted by the authorities of the European countries in relation to the management of the pandemic and especially in relation to visitors from China.
China’s line change in relation to the pandemic
China for a long time insisted on a zero-covid strategy that relied on long and particularly strict lockdowns in all areas where there were cases. This strategy, together with the closed borders for a long time and later the quarantines of those entering, managed to significantly limit the spread of Covid 19 on Chinese soil, but it had a large social and economic cost as it often meant a “freeze” of economic activity in businesses and sectors that were at the same time critical for global supply chains, with negative effects on the global economy as well.
This fact, combined with the great discontent inside China about the restrictive measures, led the Chinese leadership to a 180-degree turn in the strategy for dealing with the pandemic.
The new strategy is based on the assessment that the dominant variants, which were basically imported into China from abroad, are much more contagious but do not have the same lethality as the original wave, that China has now reached a level of vaccination, and therefore, any wave will not have the same weight as in 2020.
So the Chinese leadership essentially rejected the zero covid strategy and adopted a strategy of lifting restrictive measures which refers to a choice to have now a large wave of mass disease, on the ground of a number of people who have been vaccinated, so they will not show severe symptoms, so that in the end to form a sufficient level of immunity in the population. To some extent it even looks like a conscious choice to achieve herd immunity and at a relatively fast pace.
This change has put a lot of pressure on the Chinese health system, but there are no detailed figures on the situation and there is international concern about the quality of the statistics. Nor, however, do there seem to be any signs of a great outcry or panic.
The reaction of other countries
China’s zero covid strategy had recently caused several reactions. Governments of western countries as well as western mass media, roughly accused the Chinese leadership that with this strategy it endangers critical global supply chains and increases the possibility that the global economy will find itself on the path of recession.
When this strategy was relaxed, another series of statements began regarding the concern about the new outbreak of the pandemic in China and the risk of it spreading to other countries.
Of course, if we look at the actual data the picture is somewhat different. As for whether China can “export” a pandemic wave, we must note that the pandemic has not stopped in the countries of the West, and in fact it is possible that there will be a new outbreak, as a new, more contagious variant of the virus has appeared. In a sense, European and Western countries have enough dispersion and contagion within them that they don’t even need… Chinese reinforcements. In fact, at this time it is more correct to say that the West exported the Omicron variants, including the latter to China.
Of course, there is the question of whether there is a risk that the new outbreak in China will cause new variations. This is always present, but at the same time we see variants emerging in other countries, and anyway, with such a spread of the virus, the geographical appearance of a new variant is of little importance, especially when so far the evolution of variants follows the general outline that is increased transmissibility, but not increased morbidity or mortality. Anyway, in this phase where we are talking more about an endemic condition and where we are already talking mainly about reinfections of people who have already been vaccinated and become ill, any outbreaks do not have the same effects.
A “political” understanding of science
Against this background, the reasons why certain restrictive measures are chosen for arrivals from China, mainly in the form of preventive controls, have rather to do with some political reasons.
On a more immediate level they are likely to be part of an effort to ensure that European governments “did something” and not face increased resentment if there is another outbreak of the virus in Europe. Border measures respond to a deep-rooted perception that epidemics are a threat from outside, even if this is not the case in reality.
On a more global level, it is clear that we are dealing with the overall problem of relations between the West and China. Increased economic and increasingly political competition also translates into a greater readiness to take measures against China, even at the level of border measures that epidemiologically “target” travelers from China. This may explain why China has been accused by the West and why it had a zero covid policy and why it chose to revise it, just as it could explain why at the beginning of the pandemic various voices hailed the “Chinese epidemic” thinking that it would weaken China.
All of this also points to a more general problem of how, regardless of declarations to the contrary, politics and science are still intertwined.
