Analysis | Protests over Zero-Covid policy unlikely to trigger political change in China

The protests posed the first major test for President Xi Jinping barely a month after he was given a record third term as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (File image)

After facing unprecedented countrywide protests against its strict pandemic measures, China began to loosen restrictions on its Zero-Covid policy over the weekend. The latest move raised hope that the government was finally thinking of abandoning the policy that has been in place for three years causing serious damage to the economy and affecting normal life in China.

The pandemic restrictions were blamed for the toll in a deadly residential fire in Urumqi, capital of the Xinjiang region last month, which killed 10 people and injuring nine others. Against the backdrop of the tension that has been building among people for months, the incident acted as a trigger for protests in Shanghai and other big cities and university campuses, against the country’s severe pandemic controls.

The protests posed the first major test for President Xi Jinping barely a month after he was given a record third term as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party.

Open defiance is rare in China, especially when directed at the central government and the ruling Communist Party. Since the brutal suppression of the 1989 Tiananmen Square movement that sought to bring political reforms in the Chinese Communist Party, there have been several protests in the country. But they were mostly over wages or compensation for acquired land, none tried to challenge China’s political system.

However, the protests that erupted last week across multiple cities appear more worrisome for the country’s leadership. In more than 30 years, China has not seen such simultaneous and spontaneous protests that cut across social groups.

“We do not want COVID-19 tests. We want freedom,” the demonstrators chanted, expressing their anger against restrictions on their movement in various cities of China. A few protesters called for Xi’s resignation. But most observers do not see the current unrest as looking for political changes in China.

“This is about COVID-19 restrictions, not fundamental Chinese Communist Party rule,” said Rana Mitter, professor of Chinese history at Oxford.

The US director of National Intelligence Avril Haines seemed to concur. She said that while recent protests are not a threat to Communist Party rule, they could affect Xi’s personal standing.

But this was perhaps the first time that Chinese citizens’ joint efforts managed to push back against a national policy and forced authorities to change course.

"It’s, again, not something we see as being a threat to stability at this moment, or regime change or anything like that," Haines clarified. She added, "How it develops will be important to Xi’s standing."

Xi told European Council President Charles Michel in Beijing recently that “frustrated” students were driving the protests after three years of zero-Covid measures.

Several Chinese cities have already begun to ease controls, even as COVID-19 cases continue to be recorded. The Financial Times said that China reported 31,824 infections on Sunday, December 4, for tests taken the previous day, which was a slight decline from December 3, as testing requirements were reduced.

Cities like Shenzhen and Shanghai scrapped the requirements for commuters to present PCR test results to travel on public transport, following similar moves by Tianjin, Chengdu and Chongqing.

In addition, apartment complexes have also told residents that if they test positive, they could quarantine at home instead of the centralised quarantine facility.

When the COVID-19 virus was new and no vaccine was available, most Chinese supported Xi’s decision of stamping out the outbreak. The strategy of mass testing, city-wide lockdowns and centralized quarantine in makeshift hospitals were found to be most effective. They looked more impressive in the face of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson’s chaotic handling of the COVID-19 situation in their respective countries. China had only one death per 100,000 people in comparison to 300 per 100,000 people in the US.

But when the Omicron virus—a highly transmissible but milder variant—emerged, China’s Zero-Covid policy looked ridiculous, especially as the rest of the world lifted restrictions and resumed normal activities.

China has now realised that the Omicron strain that is driving the nationwide outbreak is less lethal. But only around 40 percent of people aged 80 or above have had three vaccine shots, the dosage required for Chinese vaccines Sinopharm and Sinovac to be effective against Omicron.

But Haines said on December 3 that despite the social and economic impact of the virus, Xi “is unwilling to take a better vaccine from the West, and is instead relying on a vaccine in China that’s just not nearly as effective against Omicron”.

The current situation has put Xi in a bind. Dropping the restrictive policy and letting the pandemic spread would have its own high costs. If lockdowns are lifted, the overwhelming number of hospitalisations that could likely arise would collapse China’s medical system.

But a further delay in lifting the restrictions will only damage the economy further as it is already struggling to recover from the worst downturn in more than 40 years.

The only practical way out is to import or license and manufacture Western vaccines. But this will amount to admitting the failure of the Chinese vaccines. Having crowed over the superiority of China’s handling of the pandemic for all these months, opting for Western vaccines now will be a loss of face for Xi.

In addition, there is also the question of the protesters. If he lets them go, it might encourage similar or even bolder protests in future. But cracking down on them will create deeper and wider grievances and worsen the current situation.

Though Xi is unlikely to take the criticism directed against him lightly, he may opt for more subtle and sophisticated ways of dealing with the protesters. Moreover, the coercive power of the State is much greater than what it was in the days of the 1989 Tiananmen Square movement.

For now, Xi’s priority will be to restore normalcy in the country and ensure the economy is put back on track at the earliest.