China needs more safety valves for dissent, not more crackdowns

Yet another political landmark has become the target of violent attack on the mainland. This time a series of explosions near the provincial Communist Party headquarters in Shanxi's capital has killed one person and injured eight. This came after a vehicle ploughed through crowds of tourists and erupted in flames in Tiananmen Square two weeks ago, in what was said to be a suicide terrorist act.

With top officials now gathered for the party's third plenum in Beijing, the attacks have fuelled tension and prompted tighter security controls across the mainland. The two incidents do not appear to be related. But unlike previous cases, which usually involved specific targets in remote areas, the attackers have turned to public spaces and symbols of power. The circumstances are unclear but the use of more high-profile ways to get the message across is disturbing.

The shrapnel bombs with metal bearings and nails suggest the attack in Shanxi was designed to cause the widest possible damage. A 41-year-old man has been arrested. The Ministry of Public Security said he wanted to "take revenge against society", but stopped short of elaborating. Whatever the circumstances, the use of violence is to be condemned.

It would hardly be surprising if the Shanxi bombings were fuelled by social discontent. The flaws of the justice and redress system on the mainland have long been blamed for driving those with unresolved grievances to radical measures. In July a wheelchair-bound man set off a bomb at the airport in Beijing after he failed to get compensation for his paralysis, allegedly the result of serious assault by Guangdong security guards.

The influx of petitioners seeking to grab the attention of those in the party plenum has prompted tighter security. Some may even be harassed and blocked from making their way to the capital. The authorities may think a tighter grip is needed as the petitioners seek to get themselves heard at a higher level. But as shown in the past, suppression runs the risk of fuelling more grievances and extreme action.

Petitions may not always bring changes. But a system that allows a fair chance for the aggrieved to seek redress can act as a safety valve in society. Unfortunately, stability at present is being achieved by suppressing dissent and grievances. The latest attack serves as a timely reminder that the conventional approach is not working. A regime that can effectively channel social grievances should be made a government priority.