In the last two weeks, ‘news’ about the ‘two sessions’ (NPC, the National People’s Conference; and CPPCC, the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference) has occupied almost every front page of mainstream newspapers and prime-time on television channels in China. From what we can see in the media, the ‘two sessions’ conference was packaged and reported just like a colourful ‘media event’. However, it is a paralysed ‘media event’, because one crucial element is missing – the audience. On the stage there were event organisers – the government and the Party, as well as event promoters – journalists and other media professionals playing enthusiastically. But below was an empty theatre, nobody had the interest to watch the show.

The ‘two sessions’ are supposed to be the most important political events in the country. But Chinese people don’t really care about them. They know that they are all about formalism, and it is nothing but the rubber stump. They have got accustomed to not taking the sessions serious, although this is the occasion in which their government leaders are ‘elected’. They know the real power lies not in people but in Politburo, and that real politics in China is merely the game of a few elite politicians. And apart from electing national leaders, the ‘two sessions’ are essentially a political show, making little contribution to an effective solution to people’s suffering and poor wellbeing.

Nonetheless, the ‘two sessions’ also consists of three players: politicians, media personnel, and the participants of the two sessions. They perform differently in the show.

For the politicians, the ‘two sessions’ are a great chance to illustrate that they are rooted ‘in the people’. Thus, prior to the formal meeting, the Politburo members generally go to hotels to greet members of each delegation and inquire into their living conditions. After the plenary lectures have been given, the Politburo members go to each delegation to join the discussion of the lectures. And usually, they are reported to listen attentively to the members’ speeches and jot down notes intermittently. Of course, it is integral for them to add their own voice in the discussion, in harmony with the session lectures and ultimately the CCP’s policies.

For media personnel, the sessions are normally seen as a great chance for them to train and demonstrate their skills in political reporting. Therefore, it is no surprise that reporting the ‘two sessions’ has become an honour and even a cause for promotion for news staff. Though the ‘two sessions’ are essentially vacuous in substantive content, the media have their own way to deal with it: that is, to make the ‘two sessions’ a standard media event which functions as a ceremony to show so-called socialistic democracy. In other words, the ‘two sessions’ are reported as event-oriented rather than issue-oriented. Thus, a myriad of colourful and vivid pictures and reports appear in the media to manufacture a democratic atmosphere in line with the requirements of the ‘two sessions’. Yet, in essence, these reports are as boring and empty as the ‘two sessions’.

For the deputies at various levels, their main function is theoretically to make proposals to the ‘two sessions’. But as almost everyone understands that the proposals are only made on paper and rarely implemented in practice, the deputies and their proposals are, from this perspective, also empty symbols of democracy. The deputies are reportedly in heated discussions about government policy and busy making proposals. Nevertheless, few media do follow-up investigations of whether any of these proposals are in fact adopted. Actually, participants in such media events know that they are doing little beyond showing that ‘this is democratic’, both inside and outside the sessions. 

As a Chinese, I wonder about the costs involved in hosting the sessions each year. If the (no doubt enormous) expenses were instead invested in education, how many more children in rural areas could attend school? But, I know, nobody can answer me. Even more, few people would think it wise to ask such a silly question.

Regarding the ‘two sessions’, my mind returns to the SARS Epidemic in 2003, which coincided with the ‘two sessions’ of that year. To guarantee the cheerful atmosphere required by the ‘two sessions’, even the outbreak of SARS was forced to give way and was covered up by the Chinese government. The ‘two sessions’ are far from ordinary meetings but a grand holiday for CCP, with the necessary happy beginning and happy ending.

As is clearly evident, this year was no exception.