The glittering jewel of Xi Jinping's China

For the Chinese Communist Party, Macau is a beacon of controlled capitalism, demonstrating the potential of the One Country, Two Systems framework.

When Chinese President Xi Jinping landed in Macau, the gaming capital of the world, the air was filled with anticipation. Macau, often called the Las Vegas of the East, is much more than a beacon of wealth and opulence. For Xi and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), it is a sparkling jewel at the heart of China's vast and complex economic system, a model of the “One Country, Two Systems” framework that allows capitalist practices to flourish under the watchful eye of a socialist regime. Xi's visit highlighted the stark contrasts between the theory and practice of CCP governance and the lessons it offers not only to China's neighbors but to the world at large.

Macau's importance lies in its unique identity. A former Portuguese colony, it returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1999 under the promise of autonomy. Today, its glitzy casinos, luxury hotels and vast special economic zone (SEZ) generate billions of dollars each year, contributing substantially to China's GDP. But while dice and fortunes are made on Macau's gaming tables, the CCP's control remains unyielding.

The irony is palpable. The CCP, a party founded on an anti-capitalist ideology, oversees the world's largest SEZ in Shanghai, nurtures capitalism in Hong Kong, and allows gambling, once condemned as a moral vice, to flourish in Macau. This duality reflects the pragmatic philosophy first adopted by Deng Xiaoping: it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. This approach has played a crucial role in China's transformation into the world's second-largest economy. But it also lays bare the contradictions at the heart of the CCP regime.

Xi Jinping's visit to Macau was not just a ceremony. This was a reaffirmation of the CCP's ability to adapt and use capitalist tools while maintaining a strong grip on power. In Macau, Xi emphasized stability and loyalty to the central government. This fits with its broader strategy of strengthening control over regions that could move toward autonomy or dissent, as evidenced by Hong Kong. The “one country, two systems” model, once considered a masterpiece of governance, has increasingly become a tool for consolidating Beijing's authority. The history of Hong Kong is a cautionary tale.

A dynamic hub of multinational corporations (MNCs) and transnational corporations (TNCs), it has been at the forefront of economic globalization. However, its recent struggles against political dissent and Beijing's heavy-handed responses reveal the limits of the promise of the two systems. The CCP's crackdown on pro-democracy movements in Hong Kong has sent a clear message: economic freedom does not translate into political autonomy. Macau, by contrast, has largely avoided such conflicts, in part because of its economic dependence on Beijing and the absence of a robust pro-democracy movement. However, this does not protect Macau from the tensions inherent in the One Country, Two Systems principle.

While touting Macau's success, Xi also warned against complacency and stressed the need for long-term stability, a euphemism for unwavering allegiance to the CCP. For the CCP, Macau and Hong Kong are not just economic engines; they are experiments in controlled capitalism. The success of these regions reinforces the party's narrative that socialism with Chinese characteristics can coexist with, and even benefit from, capitalist mechanisms.

The underlying contradictions are hard to ignore. The CCP's insistence on ideological purity clashes with its pragmatic adoption of market-oriented policies. This duality is reflected in Xi's leadership, which combines Maoist centralization and Dengist pragmatism.

For Maoists, Naxalites, and urban Naxals in India, as well as other ideologues clinging to rigid dogmas, Macau is a testament to the power of adaptation. The CCP's ability to evolve, to reconcile its Marxist-Leninist roots with the demands of a modern, globalized economy, has been the cornerstone of China's rise. We are far from the ideological purism which often paralyzes left-wing movements elsewhere.

India can also take inspiration from Macau. As the world's largest democracy grapples with its development challenges, it must consider the role of SEZs, multinational headquarters and even industries like gambling in driving economic growth. Although gambling remains taboo in much of India, Macau's success shows how regulated gaming can become a major source of revenue.

Similarly, expansion of SEZs and creation of hubs for multinationals can transform India into a global economic powerhouse. At the heart of this debate is the question of whether ideology should dictate policy. The CCP's approach that opinion is not an iron bar makes a compelling argument for pragmatism. Yet the party's intolerance of dissent, as evidenced by the suppression of Mao's “Let the Hundred Flowers Bloom” campaign, highlights the dangers of unchecked authority. The CCP's success in economic management is undeniable, but its human rights record and stifling of democratic aspirations are a stark reminder of the cost of its iron-fisted rule.

When Xi Jinping left Macau, the world found itself reflecting on the paradoxes of modern China. Under his leadership, the CCP redoubled its centralization efforts, suppressing dissent while championing economic liberalization. Macau's glittering casinos and towering skyscrapers are symbols of this duality, where capitalism thrives in the shadow of socialism. For Xi, Macau is more than a jewel in China's palm; it is a symbol of the CCP’s ability to adapt and endure. Whether on the neon-lit streets of Macau or in the corridors of power in Beijing, the CCP's experiment in controlled capitalism continues to shape the future of China and the world.

(The writer is an associate professor; opinions are personal)