RURAL DEMOCRACY IN CHINA

[nodular]

by Shi Tianjian (East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore)

http://www.worldscibooks.com/eastasianstud...


(I originally mistakenly posted this in General Discussion, so I am reposting it.)

"Why does the Chinese government allow village elections? What implications do these grass-roots level popular elections have for the democratization of China? By tracing the history of village level governance reform, one of the premier authorities on electoral reforms in China tackles these fundamental questions in this volume. According to the author, there are two roots to the emergence of village elections in China: structural changes in the village economy and bureaucratic politics. The author also identifies old guard Peng Zhen, himself victimized by lawlessness during the Cultural Revolution, and officials in the Ministry of Civil Affairs — an otherwise powerless bureaucracy that has jurisdiction over rural governance issues — as the driving force behind the reform in the government.

"The author believes that village elections have enormous political implications for China: they represent yet another aspect of "creeping democratization" of the country. Resistance from the status quo interests will be stiff, but democracy has a chance in the alliance between the disgruntled population and reform-minded elites in the leadership.

"Does economic prosperity increase the likelihood of political democracy? Using 1993 national survey data, the author examines the relationships between the level of economic development and the rate of semi-competitive village elections. Data analysis suggests that economic prosperity is positively associated with the occurrence of semi-competitive elections only to a certain point, above which the association turns negative. In other words, both the least and the most developed villages are less likely to hold semi-competitive elections for the chair of the village committee, which is officially defined as "an organization of self-governance of villagers". The author also argues that rapid economic development may delay the process of political development because incumbent leaders can use newly acquired economic resources to consolidate their power."

There are signs of movement towards democracy, or at least partial democracy, in China. It is somehow tied in with their economic development, but the exact relationship is unclear. No doubt, capitalism, even the modified form practiced in China, requires some aspects of society to be much more open than before.

Does it all add up, in the long run, to a democratic China?

What do you think?

[David__77]

1. In the Western sense, not at all.

China will not develop a Western multi-party system in the next 50 years. They are not susceptible to the ideological tendencies that brought down the Soviet Union. Multi-candidate elections at the local level are not a new thing really. But they are not setting national policy nor are they in a position to challenge the existing ideological foundations of the political system. This is simply a case of administrative decentralization. China was always more decentralized in this sense than other socialist countries.

[nodular]

4. All interesting, but one part in particular...

"They are not susceptible to the ideological tendencies that brought down the Soviet Union."

Why not? (Not disagreeing necessarily. Just curious.)

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

6. Yeah, China's democratic reform is really unique, sui generis

There's no Western equivalent. China if anything is leaning more toward the Parliamentary democracy-style system of Western Europe and Japan-- which the Chinese in general view as less unruly and more capable of delivering pragmatic government-- but even this doesn't quite capture it. China is furthering a very unique style of quasi-republic, with a good deal of power vested in educated technocrats whose plans are modified (and advised) by the popular franchise, which is indeed growing in China. A good Asia Times article: http://atimes.com/atimes/China/HL09Ad03.html

To be honest-- there are some aspects of US-style democracy that maybe aren't conducive to solving critical problems. Environmental measures and deficit reduction for example-- which require often painful and unpleasant short-term measures such as increases in the gas tax and weaning away from foreign oil-- are extremely difficult to accomplish in the US due to the political costs, whereas they're easier to promote in Europe and, I suspect, in whatever system China is advancing. The problem with our current system is that we too often hurtle toward a crisis and only respond when we're in the crisis itself, often too late to truly remedy the underlying situation. Although a "republic" overall is likely the best form of government, there is a lot of variation in the quality of different republics.

[annabanana]

2. It's the ultimate uphill climb.. . . . . n/t

[On the Road]

3. Post-Mao China Has Impoverished the Countryside

while bringing great wealth to the cities. So it would not be too surprising if rural elections were anti-capitalist.

I doubt they will give rise to national elections. The tradition of a strong unelected central government goes back thousands of years and is deeply embedded in China's DNA. Revolutions and revolts usually have a tragic ending, even in cases where they succeed.

I think China's best shot at greater civil liberties is for the people to continue to become more prosperous and better educated. It may take another generation.

[nodular]

5. I tend to agree here...

"I think China's best shot at greater civil liberties is for the people to continue to become more prosperous and better educated. It may take another generation."

This is a hopeful view as their increasing prosperity is beyond dispute. I believe they are doing well in education too.