Critical assessments of grassroots democracy in rural China are hard to make: have the reforms that have been undertaken created a genuine democracy that represents a significant step toward participatory government? If so, can they be implemented beyond the village level? Where does China's Communist government fit in? What role will elected village leaders play in the future?
In 1987, the Chinese government quietly launched a program of self-governance at the village level. Originally intended as a means to liberalize agriculture and stimulate economic growth by allowing villagers to freely decide what they would produce, reform-minded officials of the Ministry of Civil Affairs soon introduced local elections that allowed rural farmers to elect local leaders. Gradually, local elections spread to nearly every village and a simple decentralized system of checks and balances between the village committee chief and the village assembly was established. Rural farmers found themselves empowered to organize themselves, criticize some authorities and even dismiss their village chief.
However, democratization has been a local phenomenon limited to the village level. As a country, China remains an authoritarian regime and decision-making is highly centralized. Nonetheless, the emergence of grassroots democracy transformed village power structures by returning political power to the will of the people. As local elections and the right to freely nominate candidates becomes increasingly institutionalized, the centralized power structure of the Party will be slowly eroded by the people's growing desire for self-determination. True to its name, grassroots democracy has planted the seeds for future change.
Certainly, this scenario is at odds with the Chinese Communist Party. In recent years, the Party made determined efforts to weaken village democracy while preserving the fiscal benefits of rural economic liberalization. One strategy for neutralizing local politics can be seen in Party attempts to exert greater influence through the installation of Party officials as heads of village committees. A second method has been to actively interfere and encroach upon village government affairs through higher-level township officials. Such strategies complicate rural politics by producing a highly contentious dual power structure that pits party secretaries and village committee chiefs against one another.
However, despite government attempts at control, the proliferation of rural elections has already laid a solid groundwork for a nation-wide transformation. The establishment of local electoral systems and self-governance has raised democratic consciousness, which will serve as a powerful foundation for future demands for ever higher levels of democratization.
Already, township elections are widely welcomed as a mechanism to stamp out rampant political corruption, as well as reduce conflicts between peasants and the government. Three years ago, under the direction of liberal local cadres, the town of Buyan, in Sichuan Province, held the first-ever direct election of a township chief, the next level of governance above the village.
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Numerous towns have attempted to follow with elections of their own of this type. Demand for township elections is strong, but high-level Party cadres fear a possible further loss of control if townships go the way of villages in terms of elections. In response, the Chinese government prohibited township level direct elections earlier this year.
Despite this disappointing setback, prospects for higher-level democratization within China will continue. Grassroots democracy may at present be limited to the village level, but the Chinese people have tasted democracy and self-governance for the first time and like it. Although the future of local elections and grassroots democracy may appear precarious in the face of government opposition, the experience of democratic empowerment, and the expression of popular will this has allowed, has left a deep and indelible impression on ordinary rural Chinese people.
Political rights and local elections may be at the mercy of the Party, but the historical memory of millions of people will not so easily be erased. Grassroots democracy may be momentarily suppressed, but once the seeds have been planted, the roots can only grow deeper and deeper before an inevitable bloom.
Until that time, village level democracy will continue to inform and educate individual rural Chinese on the fundamental aspects of participatory government. Calls for political reform are strong at all levels in China. Consequently, it is only a matter of time before calls for democratic reform spread to cities and urban communities. The question is no longer ``if'' but ``when.'' The political future of China, and arguably the survival of the Chinese Communist Party, rests on whether the Chinese government chooses to wisely continue to scatter and cultivate the seeds of democracy or foolishly attempt to thwart their inexorable growth. The Party must make a choice, for the seeds of democracy have been planted, and the People are growing ever hungrier for more than a mere taste.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
For the last several years, world leaders have made big promises and laid out bold plans to mitigate the climate crisis and help the neediest countries adapt. At this year's World Bank/IMF Spring Meetings, they must demonstrate that they can fulfill these promises, rather than simply touting new ones.
think policymakers need to get four things right to shore up the credibility of the international system.
With the exception of the extreme right, no one in Israel wants to be stuck in Gaza, responsible for 2.4 million Palestinians, and facing a likely insurgency. Israel can end this war soon and save those hostages who are still alive, having demilitarized Gaza and set the stage for an alternative to Hamas.
thinks the only strategic objective that matters is close – or close enough – to being met.
China’s authorities have powerful economic-policy levers at their disposal to achieve their 5% growth target this year and put the economy on a more sustainable long-term growth path. But several trends – from the shift toward state capitalism to population aging to the loss of goodwill between Chinese and Americans – could thwart China’s ambition to join the ranks of high-income countries by mid-century.
Critical assessments of grassroots democracy in rural China are hard to make: have the reforms that have been undertaken created a genuine democracy that represents a significant step toward participatory government? If so, can they be implemented beyond the village level? Where does China's Communist government fit in? What role will elected village leaders play in the future?
In 1987, the Chinese government quietly launched a program of self-governance at the village level. Originally intended as a means to liberalize agriculture and stimulate economic growth by allowing villagers to freely decide what they would produce, reform-minded officials of the Ministry of Civil Affairs soon introduced local elections that allowed rural farmers to elect local leaders. Gradually, local elections spread to nearly every village and a simple decentralized system of checks and balances between the village committee chief and the village assembly was established. Rural farmers found themselves empowered to organize themselves, criticize some authorities and even dismiss their village chief.
However, democratization has been a local phenomenon limited to the village level. As a country, China remains an authoritarian regime and decision-making is highly centralized. Nonetheless, the emergence of grassroots democracy transformed village power structures by returning political power to the will of the people. As local elections and the right to freely nominate candidates becomes increasingly institutionalized, the centralized power structure of the Party will be slowly eroded by the people's growing desire for self-determination. True to its name, grassroots democracy has planted the seeds for future change.
Certainly, this scenario is at odds with the Chinese Communist Party. In recent years, the Party made determined efforts to weaken village democracy while preserving the fiscal benefits of rural economic liberalization. One strategy for neutralizing local politics can be seen in Party attempts to exert greater influence through the installation of Party officials as heads of village committees. A second method has been to actively interfere and encroach upon village government affairs through higher-level township officials. Such strategies complicate rural politics by producing a highly contentious dual power structure that pits party secretaries and village committee chiefs against one another.
However, despite government attempts at control, the proliferation of rural elections has already laid a solid groundwork for a nation-wide transformation. The establishment of local electoral systems and self-governance has raised democratic consciousness, which will serve as a powerful foundation for future demands for ever higher levels of democratization.
Already, township elections are widely welcomed as a mechanism to stamp out rampant political corruption, as well as reduce conflicts between peasants and the government. Three years ago, under the direction of liberal local cadres, the town of Buyan, in Sichuan Province, held the first-ever direct election of a township chief, the next level of governance above the village.
Subscribe to PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Numerous towns have attempted to follow with elections of their own of this type. Demand for township elections is strong, but high-level Party cadres fear a possible further loss of control if townships go the way of villages in terms of elections. In response, the Chinese government prohibited township level direct elections earlier this year.
Despite this disappointing setback, prospects for higher-level democratization within China will continue. Grassroots democracy may at present be limited to the village level, but the Chinese people have tasted democracy and self-governance for the first time and like it. Although the future of local elections and grassroots democracy may appear precarious in the face of government opposition, the experience of democratic empowerment, and the expression of popular will this has allowed, has left a deep and indelible impression on ordinary rural Chinese people.
Political rights and local elections may be at the mercy of the Party, but the historical memory of millions of people will not so easily be erased. Grassroots democracy may be momentarily suppressed, but once the seeds have been planted, the roots can only grow deeper and deeper before an inevitable bloom.
Until that time, village level democracy will continue to inform and educate individual rural Chinese on the fundamental aspects of participatory government. Calls for political reform are strong at all levels in China. Consequently, it is only a matter of time before calls for democratic reform spread to cities and urban communities. The question is no longer ``if'' but ``when.'' The political future of China, and arguably the survival of the Chinese Communist Party, rests on whether the Chinese government chooses to wisely continue to scatter and cultivate the seeds of democracy or foolishly attempt to thwart their inexorable growth. The Party must make a choice, for the seeds of democracy have been planted, and the People are growing ever hungrier for more than a mere taste.