US scholars-not all, but surely a majority-tend to look at China from their own perspective: Why don't they have "one person, one vote"? Why do their citizens have no guns? Why do not the entrepreneurs unite and ask their government for more power? They do not necessarily think in a hegemonic way, but they choose to ignore the differences between China and the United States.

A recent article "The Coming Chinese Crackup" of David Shambaugh, a professor of political science and international affairs at the George Washington University in Washington D.C., published by the Wall Stree Journal that predicts the "collapse" of the ruling Communist Party of China, is a typical example of this myopia. According to Shambaugh, the ongoing campaign against corruption will lead to struggles among different political forces of China, thus threatening the nation's political stability. He also wrote that the call of the leadership does not appeal to ordinary people.

But Shambaugh has made a fatal error. Corruption is the cancer in China's political system that needs to be cut out. Hemis-takes temporary pain as longterm suffering. In fact, the temporary pain is for China to regain its health in the long run.

Some of his judgments are reasonable, such as the root of corruption lies in inefficient and ineffective supervision over power, and secret deals between power and money. However, he groundlessly accuses the Communist Party of China of breeding corruption, when the truth is the anti-corruption campaign's success would not be possible without the Party. It is the central leadership and the Party's discipline watchdog that have brought down some powerful corrupt officials.

Besides, the Party leadership is rendering efforts towards strengthening supervision over power, advancing the rule of law, and propelling officials to declare their property ownership, all of which are necessary to eliminate corruption. It is absurd to assert these efforts, which succeeded in the West, will fail in China. Without the Party's leadership, these efforts would not be possible.

Shambaugh fails to recognize that corruption can ruin people's trust in both the ruling party and the government. As a stable tendency in the long term, political trust mainly refers to the positive evaluation of the governing group. The anti-graft efforts will gain, instead of reducing, such trust for the leadership of China.

People judge the performance of the ruling party on whether it can punish the corrupt officials that cause unfairness in their daily lives. Research results from East Asia Barometer surveys show that corruption hurts public trust in politics. Corrupt officials take up resources that could be used to boost the economy and raise ordinary people's incomes, this dents public confidence in the government. Shanxi is a province with abundant resources, but corruption has curbed its economic growth and upgrading.

Rampant corruption is also fatal to interpersonal relationships in the society, which is the basis of mutual social trust. In a healthy society, a citizen feels the goodwill of other people, as well as groups, thus gaining mutual trust in the interaction process. In a corrupt society, the trust is replaced with idolization of power and officials that hold it. Hence the normal social order is distorted.

Shambaugh, who compares China with the collapsed Soviet Union, fails to see their fundamental differences. Corrupt officials in both countries formed unions tomaintain their privileges; however, while the Soviet Union had a weak leadership that could hardly do anything to stop the corruption, China's leadership has successfully launched an effective anti-graft campaign, and it is drafting regulations to better place power in a cage. Only with corruption curbed can China enjoy more political stability.

The author is a professor at Zhou Enlai School of Government, Nankai University.