No city is immune from tragedy. But in the wake of a heart-wrenching apartment fire in Shanghai this week, which killed at least 58 people and injured well over 100, public anger is smoldering.

Shanghai is no ordinary city: It’s the site of the just-ended World Expo, designed to showcase China’s efforts to meld modernization and globalization. High profile projects, massive infrastructure, and a glistening skyline are promoted as public policy done right.

The fire, though, was a reminder of the many shortcomings of governance in China – failings that were underlined by the government’s hesitant and divided response to the disaster. Shanghai officials appeared to be operating on one agenda; central officials another.

All this must be disquieting for the central government at a moment when it sees itself as a model to be emulated around the world.

Many blogs featured private videos of the fire in Shanghai and decried the absence of an official response beyond Xinhua’s boilerplate account. Bloggers aimed scathing blasts at Chinese property developers for pushing to see their projects completed at breakneck speed, and for regarding safety as secondary and accidents a mere afterthought. Others lamented the lack of accountability in government spending. If the city government can erect expensive World Expo pavilions then why, they asked, can it not offer fire protection for citizens?

The Expo was also a political platform for displaying the achievements of Xi Jinping, the top contender to lead China when Hu Jintao steps down in 2012. Xi was brought to Shanghai to clean up the Party in the aftermath of a major corruption scandal and to accelerate the transformation of the city. His supporters point to his tenure as evidence that he is well-suited to take political command. And while he was in charge of Shanghai for only a short time, Xi has not been at all shy about returning to Shanghai in high-profile visits (Chinese) to associate himself with the city’s advances.

But the fire was another story altogether. Having just begun a high-profile, four-nation trip, Xi did not jump back to China, instead continuing on his travels. Perhaps if Xi came back to offer sympathy and support to the fire victims and their families, he risked associating himself in the public eye with the largely unregulated rampage of rebuilding there.

Whether this was Xi’s choice not to return or indecisiveness in Beijing about him returning is not clear. But as the calamity unfolded, the government appeared confused. Partial footage of the Shanghai fire aired on the early evening news across the nation, but by late evening the main state-run news stations defaulted yet again to the tried-and-untrue method of featuring upbeat stories—in this instance, the Asian Games in Guangzhou. Updates on the Shanghai tragedy were absent on major television channels overnight, a sign that the political script had yet to be forged.

Astonishingly, propaganda officials and Internet overseers appeared to be willing to cede the high ground of commentary to netizens, for many remarks critical of local agencies in Shanghai and government authority stayed online for hours. Perhaps this inaction indicated a secret sympathy with public dismay, possibly reinforced by political paralysis at the top. Or perhaps the daggers are starting to be drawn.

By the next day, though, the official response appeared. A delegation from Beijing, led by Meng Jianzhu, Minister of Public Security, arrived in Shanghai to assess the situation (Chinese). Condolences were expressed, the courage of rescue personnel was noted, and within hours a criminal element that caused the fire was identified in the form of unlicensed welders. Workmen and materials were to blame, not managers or government. The irregular oversight by cadres and departments of construction and housing regulations went unmentioned.

Indeed, the usual tightening has now taken hold to make sure such criticism does not emerge. Journalists have clearly been instructed to stay well back; even the usually-outspoken Southern Weekend was left to largely summarize (Chinese) the reports of other outlets. Renmin Ribao has been almost coy in its reportage, urging cadres to draw lessons from this tragedy and a fire in Jilin earlier in the month but also urging no recriminations (Chinese).

Some officials will find solace in this silence, but others may well question the point of this squelching. A growing number of local cadres notice that transparency and accountability in local affairs are more important to this public than democratic reform. These same cadres argue for more of an open conversation with the public about political matters. They cannot be satisfied by the effort to insulate the government.

Good governance in China would do well to recognize that it’s far better to prevent fires than fight them.