Self-Government in Chinese Villages

Self-Government in Chinese Villages: An Evaluation

Jiquan XIANG

There has been much academic debate both at home and abroad about China's village elections and village self-government. For some, it is a great innovation by Chinese peasants as well as a historical step toward democracy at both the grassroots and the national level. For others, it is a practical blunder and a formalist sham that has been politically romanticized and theoretically distorted (Thurston, 1998; Shen, 1998). Which side is correct? I think a realistic evaluation of the value of village elections requires a careful and truthful review of its actual situation.

In fact, far from being perfect, the reality of the village self-government and direct elections leaves much to be desired from both popular expectations and legal requirements. At the macro level, much difference exists in levels of democratic development among different regions. A great number of villages are just starting to introduce or experiment with the village election. For example, the village committees in many areas of Guangdong province and Yunnan province are in the process of being established or re-established. With strict and effective implementation in only few villages, direct elections of the village committee are just taking off in most areas. At the micro level, there have been frequent incidences of illegal interventions to impede peasants from free voting in democratic elections. In some cases, with candidate nomination being monopolized by local cadres, the election ended up a mere pretense. In other cases, the result of the election is not announced openly or is even negated by higher authorities. Some village committees are still appointed without election and there are still others that simply do not function. The existence of these phenomena leads to the typical pessimism toward village elections, showing that many issues remain to be solved.

Democracy is a process, a process in terms of not only the operation of democratic politics, but also the formation of a democratic system. It is unrealistic to expect a full development of democracy in China in some ten years, given the historical background of China that is burdened by a rural population of nine hundred million, extreme economic polarization and a deep-rooted legacy of feudalism. Furthermore, democracy cannot be perfect in any country. Democracy itself does not guarantee that anything undemocratic would not occur. In fact, the prevention of such undemocratic incidences rationalizes further reforms in existing democracies. As such, it is both simplistic and unrealistic to deny the value of the village elections simply on the basis of existing problems in the practice of village self-government.

According to existing data, village election, as the micro-organizational form of government in contemporary rural China, is implemented in close to one million villages in different areas. An evaluation of the village election system has to take into account the specific situation of individual villages and areas in addition to that of the entire country. Such an evaluation must measure differences not only between the initial objective and the actual implementation of the system, but also between its implementation and its intrinsic value and relevant requirements. Furthermore, we have to examine and evaluate both direct and indirect effects of the village election system and, in particular, its potential influence on the consequent institutional changes. Finally, this evaluation has to be conducted in historical, social and political contexts.

With the above-mentioned principles, we may reach a basic conclusion that the practice of village self-government in China over the past ten years has had enormous accomplishments. First, village self-government has directly affected the development of democracy at the grassroots level. Moreover, it has far-reaching impact on the development of political system and democracy at the regional and national level.

First, there has been substantial progress in the building of a legal framework for village self-government and village elections. In November of 1987, the National People's Congress (NPC) of China approved the Organic Law of Village Committee (Draft), which lays out clear and comprehensive provisions on the organization, function and election mechanism of the village committee. During the trial period, twenty five provinces enacted the Implementing Rules of Village Committees and nine provinces drafted specific Election Rules of Village Committees. In November of 1998, the Fifth Convention of the Ninth NPC revised and passed the Organic Law of Village Committees (the Organic Law) to provide more legal support and protection for the system of village self-government. After the passage of the Organic Law, some provinces, including Guangdong and Anhui, passed their own implementing rules for the Organic Law. In addition, Shandong, Guangdong, Anhui, Gansu, Hubei, Shanghai and Xinjiang worked out their new Election Rules of Village Committees. Other provinces have also started the legislative process. As such, there has been much improvement in the legal infrastructure for the system of village self-government.

Second, the number of regions in which village self-government and village elections are practiced is increasing. Before 1987, the village committees, established in the process of abolishing People's Communes, had different organizing procedures and powers in different regions. In most places, there was only a change in name. A few provinces, Henan, Jilin, Fujian, Liaoning and Hunan included, started truly democratic elections of village committees. Between 1987 and 1998, even after the Organic Law of Village Committees (Draft) was promulgated, Guangdong province retained the system of district administration("qu gong suo"), in which real administrative power fell in the hands of the administrative district above the village committee. Yunnan province and Guangxi province, at the same time, used the system of village administration("cun gong suo"). In 1998 when the Organic Law was enacted, Guangdong substituted the village committee system for the administrative district system. Yunnan and Guangxi also reformed the system of village administration to reestablish the village committee system. Thus, the village committee system was fully established at the national scale.

Third, village elections are becoming more democratic and its procedures more standardized. Some villages started the election of village committees in the early 1980s and have had as many as six elections so far. With ever more improvement in the relevant legislation, there has been much standardization in the organizational rules of the village committee as well as in the procedural rules of village elections. For example, rules have been established regarding formation of the election committee, recognition of voters, design of votes, nomination of candidates, standards for multi-candidate elections, set up of the meeting place, and monitoring and counting of votes. In particular, there has been much innovation in designing new methods of elections. For example, the "free nomination and election" ("hai xuan") of Lishu county of Jilin province and the "popular nomination and election" ("gong tui gong xuan") in Dachuan county of Sichuan province emphasize direct nomination of candidates by voters. Moreover, candidates have to make speeches and answer voters' questions on the spot. Ballots are cast secretly and counted openly. Results are announced immediately after the voting. These practices evidence the increasing competition and democratization of village elections, gaining popularity in more and more provinces. In 1998, Hubei province had its first direct and competitive village election. Guangdong province adopted direct village elections while reestablishing the system of village committees. Up to the end of 1998, there have been 832,900 elected village committees and 3,586,000 elected officers. Over the years, there has been an evolution from passive to active participation, from party nomination to popular nomination, from non-competitive election to multi-candidate competitive election, and from appointment to free competition. Thus, there has been constant improvement in the design of the system, continuous increase in its encompass and gradual rise in the level of democracy. To be sure, the number of villages that have held truly democratic elections is limited. However, even if only one per cent of China's villages hold truly democratic elections, it still means that twenty to thirty million peasants in ten thousand villages can enjoy direct democracy, which is itself a great achievement.

Fourth, village self-government and village elections have brought about changes in leadership styles of the grass-roots party organizations as well as democratization of these party units. In village communities, the Communist Party's village branch co-exists with the village committee. As the "core of the village leadership," the party branch has the responsibility to "lead the community". However, the village committee, as the self-governing organization, is also empowered to manage public affairs in the community. As such, two governmental authorities compete in the same community, an issue referred to as "dual administrative teams" ("liang tao ban zi") or "dual apparatuses" ("liang kuai pai zi") by peasants and village cadres. The relationship between the party branch and the village committee remains a problem that calls for careful handling. The power, authority and legitimacy of the village party branch as well as of the branch party chief have been seriously challenged due to the absence of popular support from peasants. The village party branch and its chief are elected from closed elections within the party branch whereas the Village Committee and its director are chosen by all villagers. To strengthen the leadership of the party, some branch chiefs have started to campaign for the head of the village committee in order to gain more popular support. For example, in 1997, during the village elections of Lishu county of Jilin province, ten per cent of village party chiefs ran for the position of the village committee chairman. On the other hand, much effort has been made in some places to introduce democracy into the organization of the party branch itself. In 1991, the Hequ county of Shanxi province started the "two-vote system" ("liang piao zhi") experimentation. In the "two-vote system," all villagers voted to nominate candidates for the branch chief and then party members of the branch gathered to elect the party chief. Thus, the party chief would have to gain support from both party members and other villagers. As such, the two-vote system laid a more popular and more solid foundation for the party branch's authority. Indeed, not only has the party branch started to seek more extensive and popular support, the party branch's organizational structure and leadership style have also been incorporated into the framework of rule of law and started to reflect public opinion. This is a historical change that has far-reaching significance to both grass-roots villages and to the nation's political reform. In particular, the change will have significant impact on the relationship between the party and the state, and on the reform of the party's leadership.

Fifth, the relationship between the township and the village is changing from one of direct command to that of instructive consultation. The goal of village self-government is not only to restructure the government administration at the grass-roots level, but also to redistribute power between the country and society and between government and peasants. The goal is especially reflected in the adjustment of the relationship between the township government and the village committee, both of which are grass-roots organs of government in rural China. The Organic Law of Village Committees (Draft) of November 1987 stipulated that "the village committee is a popular grass-roots organization that serves for people's self-administration, self-education and self-services," and that "the people's government of the township, the ethnic township and the county should instruct, support and help the village committee." Thus, a new system of "village government and township administration" ("xiang zheng cun zhi") or "separate administration of village and township" (xiang chun fen zhi) was thus established. Under the new system design, the township government is the representation of the sovereign power while the village committee is an organ of popular village self-government in the village. As such, the township government does not "lead" but only "instruct" the village committee. From the onset, this arrangement drew much criticism from the grass-roots level because of the fear that the township government would lose the power to carry out effective administration. In 1998, redefining the relationship became the focus of the NPC's discussion on the new Organic Law. However, the call for reestablishing the old-style township leadership was rejected by a majority of the delegates. The new Organic Law reiterated that the township's position as the "instructor" for the village committee. In fact, what is more important than the law itself is the peasants' demand that the system of village self-government be laid out by law. Thus, the township authority has met with increasing resistance against its traditional intervention with, and administrative control of, the internal affairs of the village committee. There have been gradual changes in the relationship between the township and the village committee. In 1996, the election result in a village of Huangmei county of Hubei province was vetoed by the township government because the elected director had not been "appointed" by the superior authority. The veto was resisted by the entire village to such an extent that the day-to-day operation of the village literally stopped. Some villagers even made administrative appeals (through personal visits) to higher authorities, demanding that the township authority approve the election result. It was not until three years later that the township government agreed to hold another election, which produced the same Village Director. Later, the township party chief came to realize that "these days only compromise and consultation, not command and suppression, would work."

Sixth, village democracy has had positive impact on democratic reform at higher levels of government. Benefited by village elections, villagers have started to question why there is no election for the head of the township while village heads are democratically elected. This simple question challenges the legitimacy and authority of the township leadership as well as those of the current political establishment, leading to demand for more democracy at the township level. As a result, some rural areas have started to explore methods to improve democracy at the township level. At the end of 1998 and the beginning of 1999, the town of Buyun in Sichuan province and the Dapeng township in Shenzhen held the first direct township elections in modern China. (The elected head of the Dapeng township government was later confirmed by the township People's Congress.) Candidates were required to run campaigns and deliver campaign speeches to their own constituencies. In the two towns, democracy has expanded from the village level to the township level, from grass-roots organizations to formal state organs, and from an autonomous social democracy to a political democracy of the state.

Seventh, village elections are a process of practicing democracy as well as a process of educating and training peasants and village cadres, enhancing their consciousness of democracy and law while strengthening their ability to implement democracy. Recently, there have been an increasing number of administrative appeals by peasants who are distraught with village elections. This fact shows, on the one hand, that there still exists much resistance to village democracy. On the other hand, it clearly evidences a gradual awakening of peasants' consciousness of democracy and rule of law. Peasants claim a dominant proportion of China's population. Democracy at the national level would not be realized without the experiments and practice of village democracy. Only when the eight hundred million Chinese peasants have become used to the process and methods of democracy can democracy have a solid base. This base is being shaped by village self-government and village elections.

Lastly, we have to realize that, from a legal point of view, currently village democracy is primarily a form of social democracy, or self-governing organization, and that the village committee is not a formal state organ. On the other hand, the village committee is not a purely social organization. With functions of organizing and administrating grass-roots communities, the village committee has been regarded as the basis of state power. As such, village self-government and village elections will profoundly impact the socio-political system and its democratization process. Thus, the practice of the village self-government has not only triggered multi-faceted changes in the power structure of rural communities, but also propelled institutional changes in the form and structure of state power. In addition, village elections have provided a solution for fundamental issues in national politics such as the legitimacy of the Party's leadership, and they will lead to the democratization of the Party itself. Until now, China's political reform has been an institutional reform, focusing on the adjustment and reallocation of power within existing political apparatus. In contrast, village elections have for the first time raised the question of the source of political power. State power can only be derived from the authorization and consent of the general populace. This principle is the true starting point of democracy. Before reallocating power within the existing political apparatus, we have to first answer the question of the origin and legitimacy of political power. Though China's political reform has been following a top-down approach, village self-government and village elections might potentially propel China toward democracy in a bottom-up way. Safe, stable and gradual, this approach is also comprehensive, lasting and profound.

In summary, more than ten years of village self-government and village elections have attained great achievements. The system of village elections not only has empowered millions of peasants at different levels, it is also fundamentally changing the rural socio-political environment and its power structure. The experiment of village self-government and village elections, as a new political element and also institutional variable, has triggered a series of changes in politics as well as in the entire society, generating ever greater positive impact on democratization nationwide.

(The author is Associate Professor at the Research Center for Rural Issues at China Central Normal University in Wuhan and Visiting Scholar at the East Asia Research Center at Stanford University. This article is translated from Chinese by Xujun YING.)

References:

1. Shen, Yansheng. "The Rise, Fall and Reconstruction of Village Politics." Strategy and Management 6 (1998).

2. Thurston, Anne. "Muddling toward Democracy: Political Change in Grass-roots China." United States Institute of Peace.