A Comparative Analysis of the Cases of

Dingxian, Zouping and Jiangning Counties*

[Contents]

I. Introduction: History, Reality and Approaches

II. Structure: Government, Political Party and Civil Organization

III. Subject: Villagers, Village Sages and Cadres

IV. Process: Election, Decision-making and Supervision

V. Content: Public Welfare, Development and Administrative Affairs

VI. Methods: Mobilization, Cooperation and Compulsion

VII. Environment: Economy, Politics and Culture

VIII. Conclusion: Models, Problems and Orientation

I. Introduction: History, Reality and Approaches

Since China implemented the policy of reform and opening to the outside world, there have been the two most conspicuous changes in China’s rural areas: economically, the implementation of the household contract responsibility system with remuneration linked to output; politically, the institution of self-governance among villagers. Self-governance among villagers has been introduced to most of China’s rural areas since the 1980s (hereinafter referred to as the period of the Reform). This has brought about a fundamental change in the entire rural political life, and a new model of governance is emerging in China’s rural areas. Sociologists and political scientists have conducted a great deal of research and obtained many results. However, some difficult problems concerning theory and practice arise in the reform of rural governance centering on self-governance among villagers. For example, what is the model of China’s rural governance? What are its features? What is the status of self-governance among villagers in the political development of the whole country? What are the main difficulties and the future for the reform of rural democracy and governance? How are relations between self-governance and the Party’s leadership? How are many villagers mobilized to take an active part in government and political affairs? Is it possible to make a shift from direct elections for village heads to direct elections for township and town heads?

Historical inquiry often helps solve difficult practical problems.

Reform of governance, namely the rural self-governance movement, was introduced to China’s rural areas during the period of the Republic of China. The rural self-governance movement during the period of the Republic of China originated from the self-governance of Zhaicheng Village, Dingxian County, Zhili Province(now called Dingzhou City, Hebei Province). Afterwards, the village governance of Shanxi Province practiced by Yan Xishan was an anticipatory action for the rural self-governance system across the country in the 1920s.[1] After the Nanjing National Government was established, local self-governance which was regarded as the central task of political construction during the Period of Tutelage was extended to the whole country according to the principles for national reconstruction included in the Three People’s Principles put forward by Dr. Sun Yat-sen,[2] but the results were not gratifying. To gain experience in the reform of rural governance, the National Government strengthened construction of counties experimenting with self-governance after 1932. After the Anti-Japanese War erupted, a new county system was implemented in Kuomintang (KMT)-controlled areas. The government tightened control over the grass-roots units, so that the basic spirit of the rural self-governance system was distorted. Reform of rural governance during the period of the Republic of China became a mere formality in most of the areas and produced no practical results, but it played a positive role in stabilizing rural society, promoting economic development and raising the quality of villagers in some areas where the reform was better carried out, exerting a wide influence. Many scholars at that time conducted follow-up investigations and research on experimentation with the reform of rural governance and published many Case Study Reports and academic works.

With regard to the current above-mentioned difficult problems arising in self-governance among villagers, we may learn something useful from the comparative research on the success or failure of the rural self-governance movement during the period of the Republic of China. Regrettably, no scholars have conducted systematic and in-depth comparative research on the two rural governance innovation movements which happened in the first and second halves of the 20th century so far. Our research is designed to make up for the deficiency. The purpose of the research is to try to conduct comparative research on the rural governance reform movements centering on self-governance among villagers under the leadership of the KMT and the Communist Party of China (CPC) respectively, analyse their own foundations and operating mechanisms, discover their similarities and differences, make generalization of the model of China’s rural governance through historical comparison and analysis and put forward some ways of thinking for solving some general difficult problems concerning rural democracy and governance on the basis of enlightenment from history and reality.

We choose Dingxian County, Zouping County and Jiangning County as the cases studies mainly because the three counties were model areas experimenting with the rural self-governance movement during the period of the Republic of China, engaged in the rural self-governance construction for a long time and exerted a great influence. Therefore, they were typical examples in the rural governance reform movement at that time. There is another important reason. All original documents, records, archives, Case Study Reports and works about the reform of rural governance in the three counties have been preserved in the main. These documents and materials can facilitate our historical comparative research.

At present, research on the issue of rural governance has almost become a common discourse of the Chinese academic circles. Rural research has attracted many scholars, especially young ones and drawn the great attention of the government and society. In recent years, many foundations are interested in providing their financial support to research on rural governance as a major field, some academic organs which specialize in rural research have emerged, and research results on the subject have been legion.[3] There are three reasons why research on rural governance has become a hot issuer. First, problems concerning rural areas, agriculture and farmers will be important factors which will hold back China’s social development for a fairly long time to come. Therefore, they are also major practical problems facing the Chinese government. Second, government officials and intellectuals usually regard the reform of rural governance as the cornerstone of China’s democracy and the testing ground for political democracy. Third, many scholars try to find, through research on the practice of China’s rural governance, a model of political development which is different from the one of Western countries, but suited to China’s actual conditions.

After we sort out a great deal of literature on research on China’s rural governance, we find that most of the literature is an account of evidential materials. Although it furnishes important materials for further study, it lacks theoretical framework for analysis. In some analytical literature, we really notice some scholars’ efforts to try to construct, ascertain and develop some analytical frameworks. For the analysis of the political development of China’s rural areas after the reform and opening up, scholars at home and overseas like using such main analytical approaches as economic analysis, institutional analysis, cultural analysis and the state-civil society analysis, etc.[4] These analytical approaches have different features, are of great significance to helping people gain a full, thorough understanding of the law on the political development of China’s rural areas and are indispensable analytical instruments for a thorough understanding of actual rural governance. But we should be aware that these analytical approaches have some deficiencies and need to be constantly improved and that we need to invent new analytical approaches and overcome deficiencies in existing framework for analysis.

Economic analysis is the core of historical materialism and also an approach which is frequently used by us. It proceeds from social economic relations and level of economic development and aims at analysing sociopolitical life and development. It is designed to analyse political reality in two ways. First, it tries to find out economic reason and foundation behind political phenomena. Second, conversely, it deduces the results of political development on the basis of the logic of economic development. The political economics and economic political science we usually call fall under the category of economic analysis. The greatest advantage of this approach is that it grasps the essence of the thing. In the final analysis, economic factors are decisive variables for political phenomena. Fundamentally speaking, all political development including rural governance has political reason and economic foundation. But sociopolitical development has its own inherent logic. There does not exist a simple one-to-one correspondence between politics and economy. All non-economic factors play an important role in political development as well.

Culture is a very important non-economic factor affecting sociopolitical development. Cultural analysis is designed to gain an understanding of sociopolitical life through the analysis of people’s traditions, customs, rites, psychology, attitudes and emotions. While analysing rural political development through cultural approach, political scientists mainly employ the political cultural analysis approach. To be brief, political culture is people’s model of political orientation. It includes people’s political cognition, political attitude, political faith, political emotions and political values. Political scientists think that political culture dominates people’s political behaviors. There exists a political culture in any political community. It determines citizens’ methods of political behaviors and gives special meaning and form to the political process. Political cultural analysis can help people understand the deep-rooted foundation for political behaviors, political models, political systems and the process of governance. But political culture is also affected by other factors to a large extent. Obviously, it is inappropriate to regard political cultural analysis as the main and even only analytical approach.

In fact, both economic foundation and political culture affect political life mainly through the sociopolitical institutions. Political institutions are direct decisive factor for sociopolitical life. As norms for political life, political institutions restrain people’s political behaviors. As the condensation of political life, political institutions are also the characteristic of political reality and development. Therefore, institutional analysis is the main approach of political analysis. Traditionally, political analysis is mainly analysis of national political system. A renowned political scientist once said that “analysis of political science starts in the state and ends in the state.” This is a typical institutionalist view. Although neo-institutionalism which is very popular in modern times is different from traditional institutionalism with regard to the definition and analysis of institution, the two are the same with regard to the basic points: they try to gain an understanding of sociopolitical life through the analysis of political system and procedures. The fact that this analytical approach has predominated in the political theory for a long time shows its tremendous value: diverse political institutions directly standardize and restrain human political life and process and political analysis cannot be separated from the analysis of political system. Of course, this does not mean that institutional analysis has no defect. Its greatest defect is that it is mainly a static, superficial analytical approach.

The “state-society” analysis approach which young scholars have paid great attention to and frequently applied while conducting research on rural governance is also a very useful approach of political analysis. From the perspective of political analysis, we can divide society into the two parts: political society (political state) and civil society. The former is public political sphere, and the latter is private social sphere and civil public sphere. In fact, every citizen in modern society lives simultaneously in the two spheres. For example, when a government official performs official duties on behalf of the government, he conducts activities in the political state. When he joins a civil organization for his own interests or interest, he conducts activities in civil society. Political state and civil society are two quite different spheres, and each has its own norms and behavioral approaches. In a sense, the process of modern political development is a process of interaction between the state and society. Through research on the process of growth of the state-society and interaction between them, for example, studies of state building, nation building and growth of civil society, we can acquire an understanding of changes in rural governance. This is of great help to our mastery of rural politics indeed. But such a dichotomous approach is likely to separate the state from society, and it is prone to draw one-sided conclusion.[5]

While employing the above-mentioned approaches in our research, we will focus on introducing another two frameworks for analysis, that is, comparative historical approach and governance approach.

Comparative historical approach combines vertical (historical and timely) comparison with horizontal (regional and spatial) comparison and integrates general comparative approach with historical approach. It supposes that in the process of social modernization, political development in different regions will follow the same law and that in the same region in different historical periods, its political development will be at different levels. In the following research, we will make historical comparative analysis of the same region in Dingxian County, Zouping County and Jiangning County and will make auxiliary historical comparative analysis of rural governance in different regions.

The theory of governance and good governance is a new framework of political analysis as well as a main analytical approach employed by us. The basic meaning of governance is to exercise public authority to maintain order in a community and increase public interests. It seems that there are not great differences in governance and government, but their actual implications are quite different. First, the fundamental difference in governance and government is that governance needs authority, but the authority is not necessarily government; the authority of government must be the government organizations. The subject of government must be official public organ, but the subject of governance can be both official department and civil organization and can also be cooperation between official department and civil organization. So governance is a concept which includes much more than the concept of government. Second, the orientations of the operation of power are different in the process of management. The orientation of the operation of the government’s power is always from top down. It employs the government’s political authority to exercise one-directional management of social and public affairs by issuing orders and formulating and implementing policies. On the contrary, governance is a process of all-directional interactive management. It mainly exercises management of public affairs through cooperation, consultation, identification and recognition. The ultimate goal of governance is to achieve good governance. Good governance is a process of social management for the purpose of maximizing public interests. The essential feature of good governance is that it is the management of public life through cooperation between the government and citizens, a new relationship between the political state and civil society and the best state of the two. There are 10 key elements of good governance: (1) legitimacy; (2) rule of law: (3) transparency; (4) civil engagement and civil participation; (5) accountability; (6) responsibility; (7) effectiveness; (8) stability; (9) justice; and (10) cleanness.[6]

We choose the analytical framework of governance and good governance mainly because it has its own conspicuous advantages in comparison with economic analysis, institutional analysis, cultural analysis and the state-civil society analysis. First, it offers a new analytical perspective and category. It focuses on the network of cooperation between the government and citizens. Second, it is more complete than other approaches while analysing political development. It includes much elements of institutional analysis, economic analysis and cultural analysis. At the same time, it overcomes the defects of other approaches to varying degrees. Second, it shows the orientation of political development. It lays particular emphasis on cooperation between the state and civil society and stresses self-governance among citizens and non-governmental public authority. All this requires special attention in rural governance. Moreover, the theory of governance and good governance breaks with the traditional way of thinking in the dichotomous approach that “one divides into two” which has existed in social sciences for a long time, that is, market and plan, public sector and private sector, political state and civil society, and national state and international community. It regards effective public management as the process of cooperation between the two. It tries to develop a set of completely new technology for management of public affairs. It emphasizes that management means cooperation. It holds that the government is not the only source of legitimate power and that civil society is also the source of legitimate power. All this shows that it can be applied to more areas than other approaches. Rural governance is a complex sociopolitical phenomenon. It consists of governing activities by the government and self-governance among villagers. It has legal systems and village regulations and folk conventions. It involves state intervention and civil participation. Application of the analytical approach of governance and good governance can help us gain a fuller and deeper understanding of such a complex process of political development.

In the following parts, we will make comparative historical analysis of the structure, subject, process, means, content, environment, significance, features, difficulties and orientations of rural governance in Dingxian County, Zouping County and Jiangning County in different historical periods respectively.

II. Structure: Government, Political Party and Civil Organization

Rural governance is a process of management of rural community by rural public authority and increase in public interests of rural community. Public authority in rural governance is either official or civil or cooperation between official and civil organizations. Since the modern times, the structure of public authority in governance of China’s rural areas consists of the government, the political party and the civil organization. The government and the political party are official authoritative organizations in modern China’s context. They play a decisive role in China’s rural governance.

Reform of rural governance in China originated from the New Deal of the late Qing Dynasty and local self-governance was an important content of the New Deal in the late Qing Dynasty. On December 27, the 34^th year (1908) of the reign of Emperor Guangxu, the Qing government promulgated the Rules of Local Self-governance in Towns and Townships and the Rules of Elections for Local Self-governance in Towns and Townships, which provided that all towns established the councils and managing boards and all townships set up the councils and township managing boards as the authoritative organs of local self-governance. The councils, managing boards and township managing boards consisted of members elected by local residents through voting. The New Deal in the late Qing Dynasty was a political reformist movement from top down initiated by the Qing government under the pressure of the situation at that time. The Rules clearly stipulated that “local self-governance focuses on specially handling local public affairs and assisting in official administration.”[7] So the modern reform of governance in China’s rural areas centering on local self-governance was deeply stamped with the brand of government promotion that the government played a leading role while the people played an auxiliary role from the very beginning.

Although self-governance of Zhaicheng Village, Dingxian County which was thought to “break a path for local self-governance with administrative village as the unit in China” and was called “a model of rural self-governance in the whole province of Zhili” by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Beijing government “had a high power of self-governance” and “the government has not intervened in its concrete affairs of self-governance” (Le Defang, 2003), we can still see that the government played a leading role in it. Governance of Zhaicheng Village was first proposed by government officials. It received important financial support from the government and was subject to the financial supervision by the government. Governance of Zhaicheng Village was inseparable from the name of Mr. Mi Digang, a village sage. But research shows that experimentation with governance of Zhaicheng Village by Mi Digang was first proposed by Sun Faxu, magistrate of Dingxian County. “In 1914, Sun Faxu, magistrate of Dingxian County who took office before long found that Zhaicheng Village was developed in education, he proposed establishing a model village of self-governance in China by following the example of the model village of Japan. Mi Digang quite agreed with this. In the autumn of the same year, Mi Digang went to Suiyuan to reclaim wasteland, and preparatory work for the model village of self-governance, Zhaicheng Village was done by Mi Xiaozhou and Mi Jieping. In the summer of the next year, the Ministry of Internal Affairs promulgated the Regulations on Local Self-governance for Trial Implementation and the Detailed Rules for Implementation. After local self-governance was implemented, Yuan Shikai gave an order to handle ‘model area of self-governance’ in Jingzhao and required Jingzhao to ‘follow the example of urban management in Western countries, copy village regulations in the eastern neighbor, worked hard to catch up with them and achieve this goal very soon.’ Sun Faxu was encouraged. He immediately appropriated 300 yuan to Zhaicheng Village, which was specially spent on construction of the model village. In September of the same year, the self-governance office of Zhaicheng Village was set up. In October, the village head, village assistant, district head and other staff assumed office. In November, Sun Faxu designated the village as the model one and reported this to the governor’s office of Zhili Province, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the record.” If we say that rural elites and civil organizations in a couple of villages like Zhaicheng Village might enjoy a high level of self-governance and initiative in rural governance and even play a leading role, extension of reform of rural governance to the whole country had to be promoted by the government. After experimentation in Zhaicheng Village, extensive introduction of the rural self-governance system to Shanxi Province and the whole country was almost pushed forward by the government from top down as a government behavior.

When Liang Shuming, a scholar, realized his ideal of rural reform in Zouping County, Shandong Province in the 1920s and 1930s, an internal impulsion was to free from the government’s power and allow villagers to exercise governance. This was obviously shown in his theory on rural construction and his design of rural self-governance. He altered the traditional governance model of combining official governance with gentry governance in China’s rural areas, regarded the township private school and the village private school which integrated education with politics as the public authoritative organs for rural governance, combined learning with administration and tried to incorporate the role of the rural intellectual elite with that of the political elite. He belittled the role of government authority in rural governance. His principle of dealing with government authority was “to contact the government and make use of it” and “only accept government allowances and free from its intervention”. Unfortunately, in fact, the effort to be free from the government intervention did not work, but it became an important reason for failure in the reform of governance. In his words, “peasants suffer from exorbitant taxes and levies” and “we cannot reduce their burden”; “peasants have no land, and we cannot distribute land to them”; peasants “want quite a few things which need to be handled through political means”; likewise, “there is no strength for tackling political issues.” Some lower-level administrative tasks undertaken by rural organizations, for example, census, measurement of land, sort-out of taxes and levies, etc. not only originated from the peasants’ needs, but also met the requirements of the government. This created a situation in which rural self-governance “embarks on the road to remold peasants on the side of the government, but not to remold the government on the side of peasants”, so that there was a contradiction of “so-called rural movement was inactive in rural areas, and loud talk about social transformation led to dependence on the government.”[8] Actually, it was inseparable from the government support that Liang Shuming’s experimentation with rural construction in Zouping County was able to be carried out and achieved some results. He chose Zouping County, Shandong Province as the site for experimentation, because he won the full support of Han Fuqu, a local military governor who held power and the then governor of Shandong Provincial Government. “Han Fuqu quite appreciated his view on rural self-governance. He thought that the reform of self-governance of rural grass-roots organizations was conducive to keeping local political power stable. Likewise, Liang Shuming’s experimentation with rural self-governance needed the support of those who had strength and held power, because experimentation with self-governance required funding. Funds only came from the government. This needed the recognition and support of the government. In October 1930 Henan Village College stopped operation because of the civil war among warlords. At that time, Han Fuqu was transferred to serve as Governor of Shandong Provincial Government. Soon after he took office, he invited Liang Shuming and the backbone of the original village college to Jinan City to discuss rural self-governance in Shandong Province, plan the establishment of an institution like Henan Village College and designate an area as the experimental zone. In March 1931 Liang Shuming and others received 100,000 yuan of initial funds appropriated by the provincial government and began preparing for establishment of Shandong Rural Construction Academy.” (Zhuang Weimin, 2003) The National Government’s approval of rural self-governance and relevant legal system were political preconditions for Liang Shuming’s substantial development of experimentation in Zouping County. “In December 1932 the KMT Nanjing Government held the National Second Meeting on Internal Affairs, passed motions for ‘reform of county administration’ and ‘reform of local self-governance’, formulated the Regulations on Establishment of County Political construction Experimental Zones in All Provinces, stipulated that all provinces were able to choose areas for experimentation on their own and retained 50% of local revenue as experimental funds. In February 1933, according to the regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Shandong Provincial Government formulated 11 articles of the Rules on Experimental Zones of County Political construction Research Academy in Shandong and 20 articles of the Regulations on Implementation of the Rules on Experimental Zones and designated Zouping and Heze as county political construction experimental zones (Zouping was also called the first experimental county) and placed them under Shandong Rural Construction Academy. The special laws and regulations promulgated by the central government and relevant implementation rules promulgated by local government furnished the basic legal framework and basis for the reform of local self-governance. In this way, rural self-governance in Zouping won the official recognition of the Nanjing government and was ‘legalized’. From then on, rural self-governance and governance entered a new stage.” (Zhuang Weimin, 2003)

Rural self-governance in Jiangning was promoted by the National Government. Moreover, the National Government purposely set a model county of local self-governance at that time. In February 1933 Jiangsu Provincial Government designated the county as the one experimenting with self-governance on the grounds that “Jiangning is close to the capital and needs to present a better view internationally.” According to the Regulations on Organization of Jiangning County Experimenting with Self-governance in Jiangsu Province, the provincial government engaged 9 to 13 persons to organize Jiangning County Political Construction Committee, which had full authority to direct and supervise county administration on behalf of the provincial government. There was the county government under the county political construction committee, and the county government had a county magistrate. The county magistrate obeyed the orders of the provincial government and accepted the guidance of the county political construction committee, but was not subject to the supervision and direction of other higher authorities. Mei Siping who served as magistrate of Jiangning County was Dean of the Department of Politics of the Central Political School with Chiang Kai-shek as its president.[9] Jiangning County experimenting with self-governance enjoyed extensive right to make decisions freely. “For the matter which the provincial government ordered the county to handle, the latter was able to explain reasons and asked for postponement if there were any special difficulties.” It was able to be exempt from provincial taxes and used them for the development of local undertakings.[10] It also reformed the existing system of local self-governance, designated the self-governance areas once again and decided that village heads were not elected at the village meetings temporarily, township and town heads recommended more qualified candidates than needed from among the villagers, and chose and appointed village heads. In Jiangning, the village was no longer one-level unit of self-governance, “township and town self-governance units did not have the right of independent self-governance and did not have the system of democratic elections, but they were actually the administrative instruments of the government in the form of self-governance.” This obviously ran counter to the essential spirit of local self-governance envisaged by Dr. Sun Yat-sen.[11] Therefore, from the very beginning the reform of rural governance in Jiangning was a rural reformist movement from top down directly manipulated by the government. “This movement obviously has the features of government behaviors in terms of theory, motivation, legislation and other matters.” Under the guidance of the government, Jiangning County was engaged in the tax reform, the police administration rectification, public security management, control of domicile, universal education, hygiene advocacy, customs reform, rural relief and popularization of agricultural technology and other aspects of rural governance. (Ma Junya, 2003)

The authority of rural governance during the period of the Republic of China was a typical official-civil dual structure. Except for the government and civil organizations, the political party only played a macro role in state governance. At rural grass-roots level, the organizations of the KMT as a ruling party exerted hardly influence. The party governance existed almost in name in local governance.[12] To take Zouping for example. “During the period of the Reform of rural self-governance, there were only over 30 members of the KMT in the whole county. The power of local organizations of the KMT generally did not infiltrate the countryside. In 1935, the county KMT headquarters was dissolved. Several organizations led by county KMT headquarters were dissolved or stopped activities at that time. Under these circumstances, the KMT found it hard to directly and effectively control the local government and rural grass-roots organizations in Zouping County.”(Zhuang Weimin, 2003) The situation in Dingxian County was similar to that. “The Nanjing National Government claimed to have the country ruled by the political party, but the local KMT headquarters did not play a leading role in rural governance in Dingxian County. There were 208 KMT members in the whole of Dingxian County in 1929, including only 20 from peasants. There were few KMT members in the countryside. Due to lack of funds, the county and district peasants’ associations and women’s associations led by the county KMT headquarters seldom conducted activities and exerted little influence. When rural self-governance was implemented in an all-round way, the party work stopped in Dingxian County. After the party work resumed in Dingxian County in 1931, the KMT members in the whole county dropped drastically to 127. There were almost no KMT members in the vast rural areas.” (Le Defang, 2003)

The situation following the 1980s was quite different from that during the period of the Republic of China. Governance in China’s rural areas showed a triple structure of authority, namely the primary organizations of the CPC, the government and villagers’ organizations. The organizations of the CPC as the only ruling party not only played a decisive role in macro governance, but also played a core role in grass-roots rural governance. The leading role of rural Party branches in self-governance among villagers was clearly and legally affirmed by the Organic Law of Villagers’ Committees of the People’s Republic of China promulgated in 1998. “The rural primary organizations of the Communist Party of China (CPC) work according to the Constitution of the CPC, play a leading and core role, support and guarantee self-governance activities conducted by villagers according to the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and other state laws and directly exercise democratic rights.”[13] There are 65 million CPC members. Although CPC members from peasants account for the lowest percentage in the history of the CPC, they still account for about 32% and rural Party branches usually play a core role in rural governance. There were only more than KMT members in the whole of Zouping County in the 1930s, but the CPC members were 1,000 times more than the KMT members in the whole county in the 1990s and came to over 30,000. According to a recent questionnaire about the current conditions in rural governance, 90% of the villagers and 100% of the village cadres think that the village Party branches currently play a core role in the governance of villages in China. (Wang Fengming, 2003) Only 8% of the villagers think that the villagers’ committees should be the core of governance among villagers. (Wang Zhenhai, 2003)

Within the current Chinese political framework, the CPC as a ruling party is the leading core of all political activities in the state and society. Party organizations and government departments are established simultaneously in local organizations of state power at all levels. Cadres of all leading bodies at and above the township and town level also enjoy the materials benefits of public servants in government departments. Therefore, the CPC organizations are not only a component of public authority in the state and society, but also a main official public authority. Party organizations can be regarded as same as government authorities of rural governance in a broad sense, if not in a strict sense. On the basis of this logic, from the reform of rural governance centering on self-governance among villagers introduced in an all-round way since the 1980s we can see that the decisive role of the government or the official role in rural governance is more obvious and more powerful and even more thorough and more complete. The government plays an almost maximal leading role in rural governance. It is mainly manifested in the following aspects:

First, the government directly promotes the reform of rural governance including self-governance among villagers. People generally think that the reform of rural governance centering on self-governance among villagers in the 1980s originated from democratic practice in China’s rural areas. This view is correct if only time is considered. After the system of the people’s commune disintegrated, there was the power vacuum in the rural society and quite a few problems arose. “At the end of 1980, peasants established an entirely new primary power community – villagers’ committee in place of production brigade and production team which were rapidly disintegrating in the rural areas of Qishan and Luoshan counties in Hechi Prefecture of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region.”[14] This new type of political organization was established soon in rural communities. However, as a nationwide rural governance reform movement, self-governance among villagers resulted from government promotion from top down. The new Constitution of the People’s Republic of China promulgated in 1982 clearly stipulated the self-governance system of villagers’ committee. The No. 36 Document of the CPC Central Committee issued in the same year required experimentation with self-governance of villagers’ committee in some rural areas. From efforts of the new round of establishment of model self-governance counties in the 1980s, we can clearly see that the government played a role in promoting self-governance among villagers. Case studies of the reform of rural governance in Jiangning show that “construction of self-governance among villagers can be roughly divided into the three stages: start-up, development and climax. (1) The stage of start-up: establishment of the villagers’ self-governance organization – villagers’ committee. In 1985, Jiaocun Village, Chunhua Town, Jiangning County, one of the two villages experimenting with election of villagers’ committee in the whole province, elected the first villagers’ committee in the whole county through centralized voting among voters. In the same year, all villages of the whole county completed the transition from the administrative village to villagers’ committee. This indicated that the village-level system shifted from administrative management to self-governance among villagers. (2) The stage of development: effort to extensively demonstrate self-governance among villagers. In 1992, Jiangning County took the lead in choosing Dongwang Village, Moling Town to demonstrate self-governance among villagers, concentrated on establishment of all self-governance systems with village regulations and folk conventions as the main content in the whole city and clearly put forward institution of democratic election, democratic policy-making, democratic management and democratic supervision in rural areas for the first time. Afterwards, all townships and towns also chose one to two villages to demonstrate self-governance among villagers. (3) The stage of climax: all-round establishment of model county of self-governance among villagers. In June 1998 the county CPC committee and county government decided to conduct activities to establish a model county of self-governance among villagers in an all-round way. Organizations were set up at the three levels of county, township (town) and village. They drew up work plans, specified targets and responsibilities and started an upsurge of establishment of model county in the whole county by giving typical demonstration, spreading the experience gained at selected units to an entire area and providing classified guidance. This vigorously pushed forward the process of construction of self-governance among villagers.” (Jin Taijun, 2003)

Second, the government formulates rules and regulations and fundamentally normalizes, checks and guides the structure, functions and orientation of rural governance. With regard to the state, after the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China promulgated in 1982 clearly specified the legal status of self-governance among villagers, the Central Government promulgated the Organic Law of Villagers’ Committees of the People’s Republic of China (for Trial Implementation) in 1987 and formally issued the revised Organic Law of Villagers’ Committees in 1998. After 1982, the CPC Central Committee and its General Office issued a series of documents on promoting self-governance among villagers and strengthening construction of rural grass-roots democracy. In following the spirit of laws and documents formulated by the Central Government and the CPC Central Committee, local governments at all levels formulated detailed rules and regulations on self-governance among villagers in light of local actual conditions. For example, in Hebei Province, the provincial people’s congress promulgated the Regulations on Organization of Villagers’ Committees in Hebei Province in 1990, and the provincial Department of Civil Affairs formulated the Regulations on Elections of Villagers’ Committee at the Expiration of Office Term in Hebei Province for Trial Implementation in 1993. According to the relevant laws and regulations formulated by the central and provincial authorities, governments at the levels of county (city), township and town formulated various detailed rules on implementation of elections of villagers’ committees and procedural regulations. Governments at all levels formulated not only various rules and regulations on self-governance among villagers, but also various rules and regulations on other aspects of rural governance, for example, family planning, discussion of matters among villagers, financial management, rural stability, economic contracting, etc. The Detailed Rules on Implementation of Standardized Construction of Village and Town Work in Zouping County issued by Zouping County CPC Committee and County Government contain a total of 50 articles which basically include the main content of rural governance. (Wang Zhenhai, 2003)

Third, the government basically controls the rural governance elite. According to the provisions of laws and the Constitution of the CPC, members of village Party branches and of villagers’ committees as the main rural governance elite must be directly elected. However, the village Party branch and the villagers’ committee are elected under the leadership of township and town Party committee and government, election of village Party branch is directly organized by the Party committee at the higher level, and villagers’ committee is elected under the leadership of special organs such as township and town election guidance committee. In most cases, township and town Party committee and government can turn candidates who satisfy them into publicly elected governance elite through legal procedures by controlling election procedures and choice of candidates. If we say that as rural grass-roots democracy expands, township and town governments find it increasingly hard to control directors and members of villagers’ committees who must be elected by all villagers, but the former is generally certain to choose candidates for members of Party branches as the leading nucleus of village governance and can even directly appoint secretaries of village Party branches. The government still plays a vitally decisive role even in elections of villagers’ committees. To take elections of villagers’ committees at the expiration of office term in Zouping County in 1999 for example. “The county authorities established a leading group for elections of villagers’ committees at the expiration of their office term with deputy secretary of the county CPC committee and an office, and 17 supervision, direction and liaison groups consisting of 51 staff members from the organs directly under the county authorities went to all towns and townships to provide guidance to the work separately. The Z.F. [1999] No. 4 and with Z.C.Zi, [1999] No. 1 Documents were issued, and clear requirements for elections at the expiration of the office term in the whole county were set. On January 29, the county authorities held the working meeting on elections at the expiration of the office term attended by secretaries of all town and township Party committees, director of the people’s congress, members in charge of organization and director of the office for civil affairs, mobilized the above-mentioned staff members, planned the work and gave them one-day training. The system under which heads, deputy heads and members of leading groups contacted towns and townships in different areas and the system of the dispatching meeting were implemented, and leading cadres of the county Party committee and the county government and those in charge of the respective work went deep down to towns and townships many times to conduct investigations and research and provide on-site guidance. All towns and townships also established special leading bodies, held mobilization meetings, organized training at different levels and sent cadres from government departments to all villages to work there. The chief leading cadres of the town and township Party committees and governments personally did the work and assumed overall responsibilities. Those who were responsible for the respective work took the lead in doing the work and effectively strengthened the direction of elections of villagers’ committees at the expiration of the office term. All this highlighted the role of leading nucleus of grass-roots Party organizations and supported Party branches in their active participation in elections in clear-cut terms.” (Wang Zhenhai, 2003)

Fourth, government officials directly live in villages to participate in village governance. With regard to the current model of village governance, it is a common practice for township and town governments to send Party and government officials to all villages to directly participate in village governance. Those cadres sent to villages are usually called “cadres staying in villages”( zhucun ganbu or baocun ganbu). They are generally responsible for the governance of the affairs of the whole village. These cadres living and working in villages are actually government representatives in the countryside. Their main responsibilities are to manage, coordinate and supervise villages which they are responsible for on behalf of township and town Party committees and governments. They generally do not participate in the routine management of village affairs, but they often directly take part in the management of elections of villagers’ committees and Party branches, coordination of relations between villagers’ committees and village Party branches, supervision of village cadres, family planning, tax and fee collection and other major village affairs. In Dingzhou, sending liaison cadres to all villages is even thought to be a main method of the management of and guidance to village affairs by township and town Party committees and governments. “Quite a few township and town authorities transfer cadres directly under the town authorities who have rich experience in rural areas, knowledge about the economy and management and a strong sense of responsibility from among cadres from government departments to villages and streets to serve as deputy secretaries of Party branches or acting deputy directors of villagers’ committees. Leading cadres of township governments often go to villages to provide guidance to their work and exercise management and provide guidance by formulating and carrying out standard documents.” These cadres living and working in villages not only perform the above-mentioned functions, but also help villagers solve some practical problems. In Dingzhou, “the working groups responsible for villages who participate in rural governance and are assigned by the authorities at higher levels come from government departments at all levels, and the working groups at different levels of province, city, county and township and with different aspects of the work go to the countryside and provide guidance to its work. For example, the working groups of Hebei Provincial Department of Finance living and working in Gedatou Village, Zhoucun Township, Suquan Village, Pangcun Town, Nanzhihe Village, Qingfengdian Town and Caocun Village, Dongting Town make outstanding achievements and help complete such projects as construction of village roads, transformation of low-voltage power, building of village primary schools and transformation of sandy and unreclaimed land. This is appreciated by the villagers.” (Wang Fengming, 2003)

Fifth, the government provides subsidies to rural governance. During the period of the Republic of China, China’s rural economy was extremely backward, rural areas were generally poor, and there was almost no public finance in the countryside. Therefore, in fact, whether the government furnished necessary funds to the rural self-governance movement at that time was often the precondition for the reform of village governance. After 1949, the collective economic system of the three-level system of ownership of the means of production in the people's commune, with ownership by the production team as the basic form, was implemented in China’s rural areas. In some localities, some funds were accumulated in the village finance. Since China implemented the policy of reform and opening up, the productive forces of China’s rural areas have been greatly unleashed and the peasants’ living standards have risen quickly. This lays a good foundation for the public finance of the village. Therefore, the funds appropriated by the government are no longer the precondition for the implementation of self-governance among villagers. However, in comparison with towns, China’s rural economy is not developed, the peasants’ income is still low, and public accumulation in rural areas is generally inadequate. So subsidies from the government are still an important factor affecting the management of village affairs. The main method which the government applies to affect village governance through economic means is to provide post and welfare subsidies to village cadres. To take Dingzhou for example. “The basic method of control in many localities is institutional control of income, namely, direct control over subsidies to village cadres. Xingyi Town furnishes living and property insurance to village cadres, carry out the policies of granting subsidies to cadres who have left their posts, served as village cadres for a few years and made some contributions and free them from their worries.” (Wang Fengming, 2003)

Sixth, the government provides training and education to village cadres at regular intervals. Providing education and training to the management elite in rural areas was a common practice in experimentation with rural self-governance during the period of the Republic of China. One of the main purposes of Liang Shuming’s establishment of the Rural Construction Academy was to train the rural self-governance personnel. This practice is still extensively employed in the current village governance. Providing rotation training and education to newly elected secretaries of the village branches and the villagers’ committees at regular intervals is one of the routine tasks for the management of rural affairs by county (municipal), township and town Party committees and governments. County (municipal) CPC committees at all levels establish Party schools for training of cadres. County Party schools are designed to mainly train cadres at and above the level of township and town, but they usually hold short-term training courses for secretaries of the village branches and directors of the villagers’ committees. Party committees of some economically developed townships and towns also establish Party schools. Their main function is to train key cadres of the village branches and villagers’ committees. For example, the Publicity Department of Jiangning County Party Committee formulates and issues the Theoretical Study Plan for Party Members and Cadres, the Rotation Training Plan for Party Members and the Suggestions on Implementation of Winter Training for Party Members and Cadres year by year. Party committee of all townships and towns also formulate corresponding study and training plans for Party members and cadres. Over 95% of Party members and cadres in rural areas in the whole county participate in winter training, about 25,000 persons take part in winter training every year, and Party schools of all townships and towns train over 10 groups of cadres every year. (Jin Taijun, 2003) The political education activities to stress the need to study, be politically-minded and be honest and upright and to emphasize the “Three Represents” are actually the main method of political education among rural cadres.

Although rural governance was promoted and directed by the government during the period of the Republic of China and in modern times, official authoritative organs have played a decisive role in rural governance. But formally and institutionally, the main public authority for rural governance is civil self-governance organs and other civil organizations.

According to the Organic Law of Counties promulgated by Nanjing National Government, all counties were divided into a few districts according to household registration and local conditions. A district had an office with one head who was responsible for management of the affairs of self-governance. Head of the district was publicly elected at an appropriate moment. There were townships and towns below the district, township and town offices were established, heads and deputy heads of townships and towns were elected at the meeting of township and town residents, and the district and public offices presented the name list to the county government for the record. Before head of the district was publicly elected, more candidates were elected at the meeting of township and town residents, the district and public offices presented the name list to county magistrate for choice and appointment, and county magistrate reported the head of the district to the Department of Civil Affairs for the record. With regard to township and town residents, 25 households were a lü and five households were a lin. Heads of lü and lin were elected at the meeting of lü and lin residents, and heads of townships and towns reported them to the district and public offices which reported to the county government for the record.[15] According to the Resolution on the Bill for Completion of Self-governance of Counties adopted at the Second Plenary Session of the Third KMT Central Executive Committee, the preparatory organs for self-governance in all localities were completely established at the end of 1933 and finished local self-governance in 1934.[16] But most of the provinces throughout the country had only finished organizing county governments, delimited districts of self-governance, determined townships and towns and divided lü and lin by March 1934. Few provinces held the meeting of township and town residents, elected heads and deputy heads of townships and towns and supervisory members of townships and towns and organized township and town offices.[17] A number of surveys and investigations had shown, however, that the actual results of rural self-governance were not satisfactory.

The above-mentioned institutional structure was only a legal form, implementation was not the same in all localities. Particularly in counties experimenting with self-governance, civil organs of governance were different. In Liang Shuming’s experimentation in Zouping, the organizations responsible for self-governance among villagers were private schools in townships and those in villages. Their leading organizations were the boards of directors of schools which elected heads of learning and rural directors. The former consisted of persons who were old and had moral integrity and who won popular support. They mainly served as moral models and mediators for disputes. The latter were responsible for concrete matters. (Zhuang Weimin, 2003) During experimentation with self-governance, Jiangning greatly changed the administrative divisions of self-governance as prescribed by laws. It transformed the four levels of county, district, township and town and lü and lin to the three levels of county, district, township and town, divided villages, made villages one element of township and town instead of one level of self-governance unit. It further extended townships and towns and disbanded district and public offices, so that the levels of self-governance became the two levels of county and township and town.[18] The Chinese National Association for Mass Education planned to abolish the original rural self-governance system in Dingxian County and implement the system of the township and town construction committee based on citizens’ service corps under the county government. (Li Defang, 2003)

Unlike that during the period of the Republic of China, the current structure of self-governance authoritative organs in China’s rural areas are the same throughout the country. The villagers’ committee and the village Party branch are the self-governance authoritative organs of a village. Director (village head) of the villagers’ committee and secretary of the village Party branch are the supreme leaders for village affairs. The villages’ committee generally has groups or committees for public order, mediation, family planning and women’s federation. In fact, in most cases the village Party branch or the joint conference of the village Party branch and the villagers’ committee is the organ of the highest authority of a village, but institutionally, the villager representatives’ conference and the villagers’ general meeting are its organs of the highest authority.

In addition to the legally prescribed rural self-governance authoritative organs, other civil organizations which are established by peasants or the government also play an important role in rural governance. These civil organizations mainly fall under the three categories. First, they are formed because of China’s traditional culture, for example, clan or family organizations, temple fairs, etc. in rural areas. Second, there are mutual aid public welfare organizations, for example, cooperatives, associations for green seedlings, agricultural and forestry associations, halls for accumulation of good deeds, etc. Third, there are auxiliary self-governance organizations, for example, public security associations, patrol parties, democratic financial groups, militia organizations, family planning associations, the aged associations, etc. The traditional culture exerts more influence in rural areas than in urban areas. So clan or family organizations there had a great impact on rural governance during the period of the Republic of China. This is true even now. In some fields, their influence even goes beyond that of legal organs of self-governance. Public welfare organizations in some rural areas do things for villagers and win their support. They also play an indispensable role in rural governance. During the period of the Republic of China, the hall for accumulation of good deeds in Tangshan, Jiangning County and the Chinese National Association for Mass Education in Dingxian County, Hebei Province exerted greater influence than formal authoritative organs of self-governance among many villagers. A special study of contemporary rural civil organizations shows that since China implemented the policy of reform and opening up, civil organizations in China’s rural areas have expanded rapidly and their influence and role in rural political activities are increasingly greater.[19]

To sum up, the authority of rural governance was a typical official-civil dual structure during the period of the Republic of China, and it shows a triple structure of the Party, the government and the civil organizations during the period of reform. But in essence, the Party and the government are an official authoritative structure. Although the authoritative structure of rural governance during the period of the Republic of China was different from that during the period of reform, the governmental or official authority plays the same leading role in rural governance. The government directly promotes the reform of rural governance and normalizes and checks the pace and orientation of the reform of rural governance through economic, political and legal means.

III. Subject: Villagers, Village Sages and Cadres

Of course, the subject of rural governance is vast numbers of inhabitants in rural areas. If different roles are determined according to the status and role in governance, the subject of rural governance can be divided into common villagers, rural elite (that is, generally called village sages, country gentlemen and able persons) and village cadres.

Active participation of villagers is the foundation of the entire rural governance. Their quality, capability and enthusiasm for participation in government and political affairs have a direct impact on the superiority or inferiority of rural governance. The modern reform of governance in rural areas centering on self-governance among villagers sets at least three basic requirements for common villagers: minimum living conditions, cultural and educational foundation and enthusiasm for participation in government and political affairs. The reform of rural governance during the period of the Republic of China generally is designed to raise the comprehensive quality of villagers from the above-mentioned three aspects. This is true of the reform of rural governance nowadays.

At first, Liang Shuming’s experimentation with construction of rural self-governance started with establishment of the peasants’ school (renamed the school for common people soon) and the agricultural cooperative and transformation of agriculture. All this showed the above-mentioned way of thinking for nurturing modern qualified villagers. The Rural Construction Academy founded by him carried out education among villagers by setting up peasants’ schools. In January 1932 the Training Department sent over 300 teachers and students to go to various districts and townships respectively and establish peasants’ schools. In the winter of the same year, 91 peasants’ schools were established in the whole county, and 3,996 villagers participated in study. At the beginning, peasants’ schools were set up in big villages with better conditions, there were 5 to 8 peasants’ schools in every district. Later, several small villages jointly established a peasants’ school. Peasants’ schools accepted the guidance of the Rural Construction Academy, and students of the Training Department served as all instructors of the schools. A group of villagers studied for three months. Courses included the Three People’s Principles, moral cultivation, literacy, history and geography, rural self-defence, agricultural science and technology, etc. In addition to formal peasants’ schools, some village primary schools established peasants’ evening schools. The object of education was men and women, old and young in the whole village, and the content of study was literacy, current affairs, agricultural knowledge, etc. By the end of the winter of 1933, 156 evening schools had been set up in the whole county, and 5,241 peasants studied in evening schools. In addition, women’s departments or women schools were set up in some villages to impart household affairs, health and knowledge about raising children to women in rural areas.[20]

Yan Yangchu carried out the reform of rural governance in Dingxian County under the banner of “education of the common people”, its leading body was named “the Chinese National Association of the Mass Education” which followed the same way of thinking. He thought that the crux of China’s problems was the issue of people and that in the final analysis, the issue of people was education. Only by educating common people was it able to cultivate their vigor, improve their lives and consolidate the foundation of the state. Because peasants accounted for 80% of China’s population and rural areas were its economic and political foundations, the object of education of the common people was first of all peasants. Through social survey, he found that peasants had four shortcomings. They were ignorant, poor, weak and selfish. He put forward the corresponding measures. Literary and artistic education was designed to eliminate ignorance and increase peasants’ knowledge. Livelihood education was designed to eliminate poverty and expand peasants’ productive forces. Health education was designed to eliminate weakness and increase peasants’ strength. Citizen education was designed to eliminate selfishness and increase peasants’ unity. The methods of realizing the four aspects of great education were three means, namely, school, society and family. (Li Defang, 2003)

In view of the local widespread illiteracy, Tangshan Peasants’ Education Hall in Jiangning County conducted general education, opened schools for common people, employed rotation teaching method, focused on students in those schools, let students impart what they learned to their family members and ensured that more villagers had opportunities to receive education. The women’s work-study classes were initiated to make use of the leisure time of rural women, teach them some words and general knowledge, encourage household handicraft and improve their lives. (Ma Junya, 2003)

Although education among villagers offered during the period of the Republic of China included rich content, for example, four aspects of education in Dingxian County, more courses given in schools for common people in Zouping and Jiangning counties, sponsors had to concentrate on eliminating illiteracy because 80% of the villagers were illiterate. So far, this situation has been fundamentally changed.

Beginning in the 1980s, the Chinese government enforced the nine-year universal compulsory education in urban and rural areas, and the basic national education among rural residents was basically guaranteed. In the three cases we chose, the literary rate of young and middle-aged peasants has reached or approached 100%. Against this new educational background, basic general education is no longer the first requirement for raising the quality of villagers, and professional capability to become rich and training in agricultural technology and the awareness of democracy and the legal system become the primary task for training modern qualified villagers.

The four priorities were emphasized in giving education among peasants and cadres in Dingzhou City. Education in the legal system was stressed to combine the need to perform official duties according to law and handle affairs according to law with all aspects of the work and ban cadres’ illegal performance of official duties. At the same time, activities to publicize laws to households helped give more education about laws and regulations among peasants. This made the peasants use laws to protect their legal rights and interests and gain an understanding of the uniformity of rights and obligations and created a good atmosphere of enforcing and abiding by laws. Education about knowledge concerning the market economy was stressed to conform to the law governing the market economy, use the law governing the market economy to guide production, processing and marketing and fundamentally solve the problem of heavy burden on peasants. Education about knowledge concerning modern agricultural science and technology was stressed to raise the scientific and technological level of cadres and peasants. Ideological and moral education was stressed to increase the peasants’ awareness of social ethics and family virtues and maintain a high standard of social conduct. In addition, the municipal authorities also carried out the project of training 10,000 young people aiming at new century, new countryside and new science and technology and turned the great attention of vast numbers of rural residents to the effort to do everything possible to increase their incomes. (Wang Fengming, 2003)

The County Communist Youth League (CYL) Committee of Zouping County has conducted activities to strive to create the advanced youth unit and the good hand for youth post for the main purpose of training young professional and technical personnel. From 1996 to 1998, the rural CYL organizations in the county concentrated on training rural young leaders of the scientific and technical spark program and establishing demonstrative bases and carried out the project of making rural youths become rich. In May 1996 the County CYL Committee made exhibition boards for the project of making rural youths become rich, which were displayed in the county town. It also invited vegetable experts of the provincial academy of agricultural sciences to give training courses in Sunzhen Town, and 140 good hands at planting vegetables in the whole county listened to the technical lectures and on-site guidance given by these experts. In July of the same year, it invited 10 professors and experts to Zouping County to provide guidance to the effort to become rich by relying on science and technology, and rural youths in Batian, Handian and other towns and townships acquired a great deal of information about becoming rich and learned some skills necessary for becoming rich. In 1997 the County CYL Committee conducted activities of “one helping one to lead a fairly comfortable life”, and 1,500 rural young leaders of the scientific and technical spark program in the whole county were willing to pair off to help one poor Youth League member to lead a fairly comfortable life within the specified time. All primary CYL organizations also made use of various associations and bases to provide training to the youth and printed and issued over 50,000 scientific and technical brochures. In November 1997 the County CYL Committee raised 110,000 yuan of funds, set up Zouping County CYL Committee farm with rabbits of good breeds, provided comprehensive services and furnished all services such as spreading breeding rabbits, purchasing cony hair, preventing and curing diseases, selling cages and other articles, issuing technical brochures and providing training. (Wang Zhenhai, 2003)

In almost every village there are some villagers who have a high educational level and a high capability of management, are relatively rich, handle matters fairly or enjoy high prestige and command universal respect. They were the rural elite. They play a vitally important role in rural governance. Through comparative studies, we find an interesting thing. In the eyes of villagers, standards for the elite slightly vary during different periods. On the whole, in addition to objective family conditions, the rural elite must have the dual qualities of integrity and ability. However, during the period of the Republic of China villagers valued the integrity of rural elite, namely village sages who enjoyed high prestige and commanded universal respect. At present, villagers pay great attention to the ability of rural elite, namely able persons who are capable of becoming rich and exercising management. But in any cases, the rural elite plays a major role in rural governance. They exert even greater influence in some fields than the official village cadres.

For example, in Tangshan Township, Jiangning County during the period of the Republic of China, people unanimously thought that Tang Qingjie who managed the Jishantang (House for Public Good) enjoyed high prestige than the town head. When people were in trouble, they always liked to ask Tang to handle matters instead of the township head. In the recent visit to Tangshan Township made by us, old men gave a vivid account of the incident of fleeing from banditry in the model forestry farm, a clash between villagers and the forestry police, local government and the regular army with the help of Tang Qingjie. In the autumn of 1931, several hundred villagers in Xixiang, Dongxiang, Nanxiang and other villages in Liugangtou Village, Yan Village, Zhoujiabian, Wangjiazhuang, Xiaofuniushan and Jurong attacked the model forestry farm under the direction of Liu Zhiyin (Liu San), a local gentlemen, destroying the houses of the forestry farm and capturing the guns of the forestry police. The Nanjing Metropolitan Garrison Command sent troops for suppression. Liu San hurriedly asked Tang Qingjie for help. The latter used his social relations and hid Liu San in the army led by Zhang Shixi. Then the incident came to an end.[21]

The rural elite also plays an important role in the present-day rural governance. After some villagers who have great ability become rich, they enjoy high prestige in the village if they are upright, handle matters fairly and make some contributions to the village’s collective undertakings. Even if these people do not become members of the villagers’ committee or the village Party branch, they still exert great influence among the villagers. On the contrary, if a legally elected village head or secretary of the village Party branch is not capable of becoming rich, does not make himself rich first or all villagers rich, his authority will meet a great challenge. Some researchers on rural governance think that the current model of governance of China’s rural areas is an able-persons governing model. A case study of Guquan Village, Jiangning County shows that the personal subjective will and ability of an able person plays an outstanding role in rural governance. The strong self-governance is not self-governance among the villagers in the true sense of the word, but it is self-governance among the villagers under the leadership of able persons and a kind of able person politics. (Jin Taijun, 2003)

It is necessary to do everything possible to encourage the rural elite to take an active part in management of public affairs, elect them the leading authority of the village through legal means, ensure that the “opposition” social elite becomes the “ruling” political elite and prevent them from becoming forces against the legal rural public authority and the government. This is essential to realizing good governance in rural areas.

Obviously, Liang Shuming was fully aware of this key point in designing the rural self-governance system in Zouping County. He paid particular attention to including the country gentlemen who enjoyed prestige, had status and exerted influence in rural areas in township schools and village schools as the rural authoritative organs of self-governance and appointed them as members of the boards of directors of schools and heads of learning. According to his institutional design, the boards of directors of township schools were organized before local township schools were established. Members of the boards of directors of township schools consisted of those leaders who enjoyed credibility and prestige in townships. “For nothing can be done without rural elite’s approval and help.” To secure the approval and help of rural leaders, the Rural Construction Academy and the government of the county experimenting with self-governance first sent instructors to all townships, visited those people who enjoyed prestige in rural areas to explain the methods of township schools, asked them to lead others in local reform undertakings and then organized the boards of directors of schools. The boards of directors of schools consisted of a dozen or dozens of members according to the size of townships. Directors of all village schools and heads of villages without village schools in townships were members of the boards of directors of schools. In addition, the county government appointed one to three persons in townships who enjoyed prestige and were devoted to public welfare as members of the boards of directors of schools. After the boards of directors of schools were established, one person who was old and had moral integrity and who won popular support was chosen as heads from among members of the boards of directors of schools. One to three persons who were devoted to public welfare and were quite capable of handling matters were chosen as executive members of the boards of directors of schools, of whom one served as township director. The process of establishment of village schools and their structure were similar to that. (Zhuang Weimin, 2003)

From 1949 to the time prior to reform and opening up, the ruling CPC regarded political quality as the overriding criteria for cadres. This was true of choice of rural cadres. Therefore, besides the exception that the village revolutionary committee held power during the special period of the “cultural revolution”, the Party branch has controlled rural power for a long time, Party members basically monopolize the rural political power, and the traditional elite of country gentlemen and village sages is extremely marginalized. Undoubtedly, the CPC absorbs the elite of workers, peasants and intellectuals, but it cannot incorporate all the elite into it. Because the village Party branch monopolizes all political power in rural areas, Party members among peasants have some political status and forces. So some Party members and cadres try every means to reject admission of other elite to the Party organization to safeguard their own interests. Since the household responsibility system with remuneration linked to output was implemented in rural areas, many able persons have come to the fore. These rich able persons become a new generation of the rural elite. But the original village governance system excludes them from the public authoritative organs. Therefore, the political elite and the social elite become two different forces in many rural areas. In the 1980s the CPC Central Committee decided to implement the self-governance system of villagers’ committees in rural areas across the country, and members of the villagers’ committees – the same village governance authority as the village Party branch were elected from all villagers. Of course, the villagers’ self-governance system is implemented to meet the needs of developing rural democracy, but in the perspective of rural governance, this makes it possible to absorb the rural elite in participation in management of village affairs to the greatest extent.

The villagers’ self-governance system paves the way for enabling the new generation of the rural elite to become legitimate authority for village governance and pushes China’s rural governance to a new stage of development. This constitutes a milestone in the overall progress and development of China’s rural society. However, it brings a new problem which did not arise during the period of the Republic of China, that is, how to coordinate relations between the two authoritative organs for rural governance – the village Party branch and the villagers’ committee. Under the current rural political system, the two are legitimate rural public management authorities. The village Party branch is the rural “leading nucleus” prescribed in the Organic Law of Villagers’ Committees, and the villagers’ committee is the rural self-governance organ of power prescribed in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and the Organic Law. The villagers’ committee is directly elected from among all villagers within the entire village, and the village Party branch is elected from all Party members. Therefore, from the scope of sources of the elite and the opinion of the people we can see that membership of the villagers’ committee is broader than that of the village Party branch, but the village Party branch is the unshakable leading nucleus for village affairs prescribed according to the current system. This institutional arrangement and the process of replacement of the old rural elite by the new during the period of the transition in China’s rural society necessarily constitute a tension between the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch. In fact, studies have proved that the issue of relations between the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch in rural areas has become an essential factor which seriously affects rural social stability and development. It is quite common that contradictions and conflicts between the villagers’ committee and the village Party Branch caused financial chaos, negligence of village affairs and loss of control of village’s order. There are even direct antagonisms and conflicts between villagers and the government in some localities, for example, “Dawangtuo Incident”, “Tanliu Incident”, “Muwang Incident”, “Handian Incident” and “Luoquan Incident” which happened in Zouping County in 1993. (Wang Zhenhai, 2003)

Scholars mention three possible means to ease the current tension between the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch in rural areas. First, there is the need to lower the traditional authority of the village Party branch and raise the authority of the villagers’ committee so that the villagers’ committee plays a major role in management of village affairs. Second, there is the need to reinforce the village Party branch, maintain its leading and crucial role in village governance and make it clear that the villagers’ committee plays an auxiliary role in management of village affairs. Third, there is the need to integrate the key members of the villages’ committee and the village Party branch and make them a unified rural governance authority. At present, the first means is unrealistic. The second and third means have been put into practice in various ways in rural areas throughout the country. In some localities, Party committees and governments at higher levels clearly require that the village Party branch assumes the chief responsibility in village governance, that is, “secretary of the village Party branch is the first-in-command”, and village head is the second-in-command”. Some scholars further point out that the village Party branch serves as the village’s policy-making organ, the villagers’ committee is the executive organ, and the villagers’ general meeting is the village’s highest organ of authority. In some localities, governments at higher levels clearly require that the joint meeting organized by the village Party branch and the villagers’ committee is the highest policy-making organ of the entire village and that major affairs of the village must be examined and approved at the joint meeting. The method of electing the village Party branch through the “two-vote system” extended to rural areas across the country by the Organization Department of the CPC Central Committee is, in essence, an institutional reform designed to increase the legitimacy of the authority of the village Party branch and consolidate its leading role in the village. Electing members of the village Party branch through the “two-vote system” means that vote of confidence is first cast for candidates of members of the village Party branch and that only those candidates who win a set number of votes can be eligible at the meeting of the village Party branch and Party members formally cast votes to elect them. The two votes refer to vote of confidence and true vote for election. However, in those localities where election based on the “two-vote system” proceeds smoothly, the first vote is of vital importance to election of candidates. Members of the village Party branch and members of the villagers’ committee are encouraged to hold posts simultaneously in the two organs. In particular, one person is encouraged to serve as secretary of the village Party branch and director of the villagers’ committee concurrently in quite a few localities. For example, Zouping County Party Committee and County Government emphasize the leading role of primary Party organizations, clearly support Party branches in participation in elections, and vigorously encourage secretary of the village Party branch to serve as director of the villagers’ committee concurrently and members of the village Party branch and the villagers’ committee to hold posts concurrently. During elections of the seventh villagers’ committee at the expiration of the office term held in March 2002, 805 administrative villages which succeeded in elections at the expiration of the office term in the whole county elected 2,592 members of villagers’ committees, including 1,095 members of village Party branches and 42% of the total members holding posts concurrently, and 206 persons served as directors of villagers’ committees and secretaries of the village Party branches and 26% of the total holding posts concurrently.[22]

From the above we can see that the subject of rural democracy was always villagers during the period of the Republic of China and the period of the Reform, and the village cadres, those in charge of legal governance chosen from among villagers and those village sages, country gentlemen and able persons who were not village cadres, but were influential among villagers played a greater role than common villagers. Standards for the rural elite have undergone great changes from the period of the Republic of China to the period of the Reform. But the elite still plays an important role in rural governance. How to make the rural social elite become the political elite through formal institutional means and prevent antagonisms and conflicts between the official and civil elites is still a decisive link in rural good governance. In the present rural governance, a new pressing problem is how to coordinate intensive relations between the two rural elites who enter the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch through legal means and prevent them from structural conflicts.

IV. Process: Election, Decision-making and Supervision

As mentioned above, basic material conditions, overall quality, enthusiasm for participation in state and political affairs and management capability of villagers, especially the elite from among them, are preconditions for rural good governance. But ensuring that the rural elites who have integrity and ability, handle affairs fairly and win the respect of villagers become the legal governance authority through institutions and procedures and that common villagers have the right to participate in elections of village cadres and supervision and management of major village affairs is of vital importance to rural good governance. We have every reason to say that election, policy-making, management, supervision and other activities constitute a basic process of contemporary rural governance.

One of the major content of the Modern rural governance reform was the introduction of the electoral system as the foundation of modern democracy and it was the reason why the reform was progressive. Since the end of the Qing Dynasty, legislation in local self-governance had stipulated for the content of election of the rural self-governance authority. For example, the Rules of Local Self-governance in Towns and Townships at the end of the Qing Dynasty stipulated that residents of towns and townships had the right to elect personnel for self-governance. At that time, electoral qualifications were very stringent. Those men who were 25 years old, lived in the same town and township for over three years and paid two yuan of tax or fee for public good annually had electoral qualifications. At the same time, there were seven articles on disenfranchisement, including smoking opium and illiteracy. Women had electoral qualifications unless they paid more taxes than those voters who paid the largest amount of taxes.[23] The Organic Law of Counties promulgated by the Nanjing National Government stipulated that district heads were elected by district residents (district heads were elected by the people one year after the law was implemented, and the provincial government determined the time in light of local conditions in counties and carried out elections after this was reported to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for approval). Deputy township and town heads were elected at the conference of township and town residents. Before district heads were elected by the people, more candidates were elected and chosen and appointed by county magistrate. The lü and lin heads were elected by the residents of lü and lin.[24] At that time, the scope of voters was larger than that at the end of the Qing Dynasty. Except for those persons who were disfranchised as stipulated in explicit terms, “The people of the Republic of China, male or female, who live in the township and town for one year or own the housing for over two years, are 20 years old and become citizens of the township and town through affidavit and registration have the right to attend the meeting of township residents or the meeting of town residents and exercise rights of election, dismissal, formulation and reconsideration.”[25] According to the provisions of laws, there were strict electoral procedures at that time, and the levels of elected self-governance officials were higher than those in modern times. However, since democratic traditions were lacking and the economy and culture were very backward, such democratic elections necessarily had great limitations. Owing to lack of relevant materials, academic research about concrete elections of rural self-governance officials at that time was rather vague. We are sure that in localities where the electoral system was implemented, only elections of lü and lin heads were authentic, that elections of district heads never happened and that in fact, election and appointment of township and town heads (township and town heads mentioned in the Organic Law of Counties were roughly equivalent to present-day village heads) retained traditional methods of recommendation and election and concrete practices varied in all localities (this was particularly true in counties experimenting with self-governance).

Zhaicheng Village, Dingxian County in the early days of the Republic of China copied the practices of model towns and villages of Japan, and village heads, village assistants and other self-governance staff members were nominated and elected by villagers. The method of nomination and election by villagers was obviously not true democratic election, but this reflected the will of villagers to a great degree. Although this was still within the scope of gentlemen governance, undoubtedly the method expanded the foundation of popular will. Village schools in Zouping County were the legal governance authority of all villages and consisted of members of the boards of directors of schools, heads of learning and village directors (village heads). Teachers of village schools first chose candidates of members of the boards of directors of schools from the village and then held the villagers’ general meeting for consultation and approval, who were appointed by the county government. While seeking advice from villagers, one representative came from one household, representatives who took part in consultation had to exceed half of all peasant households of the whole village, and the principle of unanimous consent was followed. If someone had objection to a candidate, over one-third of the representatives supported the proposal and a new candidate had to be nominated. When the number of representatives did not come one-third, the county government decided on this. After Jiangning County Government re-delimited areas of self-governance, it thought that “all villages and lis were newly established, so their residents were not capable of exercising self-governance and the four rights.” To be prudent, village and li heads for the first term were not elected, but all township and town heads were instructed to recommend two times more than the actual number of candidates for village and li heads from the residents of villages and lis, and the county government temporarily chose and appointed some of them. (Ma Junya, 2003)

Election of village cadres by villagers is an event of vital historical significance in rural democracy in present-day China and represents the most substantial progress in rural democratic governance. This democratic process is roughly divided into the two stages. At the first stage, cadres of villagers’ committees are indirectly elected during the initial period of experimentation with self-governance among villagers. Villagers first elect their representatives, and then these representatives formally elect village heads and other village cadres designated by the higher authorities through voting. At the second stage, villagers directly elect village cadres, which is generally called “sea election”. It first originates in Lishu County, Jilin Province.[26] To be brief, “sea election” means that the government does not designate candidates for members of villagers’ committees and village heads prior to election, that voters nominate candidates according to the Electoral Law. Finally, villagers directly elect village heads and other cadres of villagers’ committees. After the 1990s, the method of “sea election” – direct election of cadres of villagers’ committees was gradually introduced to rural areas across the country. But now the two electoral methods still exist in China’s rural areas. In Dingzhou County, members of the villagers’ committee for the latest term were indirectly elected by villagers. Villagers elected their representatives, and these representatives elected cadres of the villagers’ committee and village heads. Although the method of “sea election” was employed in the recent elections of villagers’ committees in rural areas in Jiangning County, there was a great deal of formalism to a significant degree. From 1999 “sea election” was better employed in elections of villagers’ committees for the sixth term in rural areas in Zouping County. Since direct election by villagers is something new, involves laws and policies and complex procedures, carelessness in the process of operation may cause conflicts and this may adversely affect the overall situation. Therefore, the township and town governments in Zouping County grasp the three key links in terms of procedures. First, the villagers’ electoral committees are strictly established, the villager representatives’ conferences or the conferences of villagers’ groups recommend and elect members of the committees without designation by the higher authorities. Second, the time is guaranteed. The name lists of voters are made known to the public 20 days prior to the polling day, elections are held within 5 days following preliminary election, and sub-committees are established according to law within 10 days following elections to recommend and elect heads of villagers’ groups and villagers’ representatives. Third, there are strict public notices. The uniform form of public notices is stipulated in the whole county, and six public notices must be issued. The “four must’s and four prohibition’s” are upheld in concrete operation. Operation must proceed in strict accordance with legal procedures to handle affairs according to law, and designation, appointment or dismissal of members of villagers’ electoral committees are prohibited. Candidates for members of the villagers’ committees must be directly elected by villagers, and changes in legal procedures for recommendation and election of candidates and arbitrary dismissal and election of formal candidates are prohibited. The electoral conferences attended by all voters must be held, and convocation of the electoral conferences attended by the household representatives or the “mobile ballot boxes” in place of the electoral conferences is prohibited. The names of candidates must be called out in public, ballots must be counted openly, and the results of elections must be made known to the public, and counting of ballots or failure to announce the results of elections is prohibited. All this makes sure that all legally prescribed procedures are carried out and all due rights are given to the people. After public notices are posted and the time and locations of elections are made known to the public in some townships and towns, written notices are printed for all voters. Members of the electoral committees send these notices to voters of all households. This leads to a notable rise in the rate of participation in election. Elections of villagers’ committees for the seventh term in 2002 reached 93%. Comparative studies of the composition of villagers’ committees before and after “sea election” show that the quality of cadres of villagers’ committees who are directly elected is obviously higher than that of cadres who are indirectly elected. (Wang Zhenhai, 2003)

As the highest organ of authority for governance of affairs in a village, the rural self-governance authoritative organization that is appointed, recommended or elected actually enjoys the supreme power to make decisions and exercise management within the village. The realistic situation is much more complicated, however, than what the laws and regulations prescribed. During the period of the Republic of China, laws and regulations on self-governance underwent frequent changes, the decision-making power of rural self-governance entity was gradually delegated to lower levels, and the legal right of participation of villagers gradually increased. The Law on Implementation of Self-governance in Townships and Towns revised and promulgated in 1930 stipulated that villager representatives’ conferences or town residents’ conferences had rights to examine specific regulations, adopt budgets and final accounts, and decide on matters entrusted by township and town offices and affairs related to all lüs and lins or mentioned by citizens. (Article 21) As mentioned above, the articles of the laws fell far short of the reality once again, and there were great differences between regions. In Zhaicheng Village, Dingxian County in the early days of the Republic of China, the village conference consisting of village head, village assistants, staff members of all sections of village office and public office and district heads of the village was the highest decision-making organ of the whole village. All important matters of self-governance concerning the village had to be decided on by the village conference. The regular village conference was held every month. In case of an emergency, head of the village conference temporarily held a provisional conference. When staff members of all offices and district heads met with important problems and a conference needed to be held to decide on solutions, head of the village conference was asked at any time to hold a provisional conference. Only if over half of members of the village conference attended it was it able to be held. The village conference followed the principle of simple majority. A decision was valid if it was adopted by half of the participants. Matters to be decided on at the village conference were handled by village and public offices. Because most of members of the village and public offices were members of the village conference, the decision-making and implementation powers of the village were actually centralized. The decision-making mechanism in rural areas of Zouping County was alike except for slight differences. The board of directors of a village school was the highest decision-making organ of the whole village. Directors of the village called the meeting and head of school, township instructors and teachers of the village private school attended it as observers. The regular meeting of the board of directors of the school was held at least three times every month. Directors of the village were able to call a provisional meeting of the board of directors of the school if necessary. Directors of the village were responsible for implementing the decision made by the board of directors of the school.

Comparatively speaking, the decision-making and implementation mechanisms in rural areas of present-day China are very complex. From the current relevant systems and regulations we can see that the villagers’ committee, the village Party branch, the joint meeting of the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch, the villager representatives’ conference and the villagers’ general meeting are the decision-making organs for village affairs. According to the provisions of the Organic Law of Villagers’ Committees, the villagers’ general meeting is the highest decision-making organ of the whole village. The villagers’ general meeting consists of all adult villagers who are over 18 years old. But according to the provisions of the Organic Law of Villagers’ Committee that “in villages with a large number of people or scattered villagers, villagers’ representatives can be recommended and elected, the villagers’ committee holds villagers’ representatives to hold a meeting and discuss and decide on the matters authorized by the villagers’ general meeting”, the Detailed Rules or Regulations on Implementation of Elections of Villagers’ Committees in most of the provinces and municipalities stipulate that the villagers’ general meeting is established in a village with over 400 to 500 villagers as the highest decision-making organ of the whole village. Members of the villagers’ general meeting vary between 20 and 70 according to the size of the population. The villager representatives’ conference or the villagers’ general meeting is called by director of the villagers’ committee or secretary of the village Party branch. The following important matters which are discussed and decided on by the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch must first be discussed and approved at the villager representatives’ conference or the villagers’ general meeting and then can be handled. These matters are as follows: (1) the method of collecting township pooled funds and the collection and use of the funds retained by the village; (2) the number of persons in the village who enjoy subsidies owing to loss of working time and standards for subsidies; (3) the use of earnings from the village collective economy; (4) the plan for raising funds for village-run schools, village-built roads and other village public undertakings; (5) the plan for determining the village’s collective economic projects and contracting them and the plan for construction and contracting of the village’s public undertakings; (6) the plan for villagers’ contracted operation; (7) the plan for use of the house site; and (8) other matters related to the interests of villagers which the villager representatives’ conference thinks that the villagers’ general meeting should discuss and decide on.[27] After these important matters are examined and approved by the villager representatives’ conference or the villagers’ general meeting, the villagers’ committee is responsible for handling them. But in reality, the distribution of powers is quite different in all villages. The highest decision-making power is seldom vested in the villager representatives’ conference or the villagers’ general meeting. In some localities, the joint meeting of the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch is the highest decision-making organ. In some localities, the villagers’ committee is the highest decision-making organ. In other localities, the village Party branch is the highest decision-making organ. From the current distribution of village powers in Dingzhou, Zouping and Jiangning counties we can see that in more cases, the village Party branch is the real decision-making center and the villagers’ committee is its implementation organ.

Villagers’ effective supervision of rural powers in charge of administering them is the important content of modern rural democratic governance. Like supervision of other powers, supervision of village powers mainly comes from the three aspects: first, supervision by the higher authorities; second, supervision by the organs of power at the same level; third, supervision by the people. Although institutional design aimed at ensuring that village powers were checked by villagers with regard to rural governance during the period of the Republic of China, the effective check was not democratic check, but that of the higher authorities because the true system of rural democratic election was lacking and the decision-making and implementation powers were relatively centralized. For example, with regard to the governance structure of the village private school in Zouping County, head of school had the highest status in the village as the teacher of the village. But he was not responsible for concrete village affairs. Directors of the village (village head) were responsible for handling village affairs. Directors of the village had the right to govern the village. Villagers had no right to directly supervise directors of the village, and they were able to supervise directors of the village with the help of head of school. The main responsibility of head of school was to supervise and check the powers of directors of the village. Head of school was to “supervise directors of the village and avoid their malpractices”. The methods of supervision were flexible. “When one director of the village was arrogant, he was sincerely advised in private; when he had shameful secrets, he was promptly warned.” When a director of the village ran into conflicts with villagers and there was no way to mediate, head of school was able to “persuade him to resign or saw county magistrate to report this to dismiss the former.” (Zhuang Weimin, 2003) The right of supervision was finally vested in the administrative authority.

Since the 1980s, a more reasonable system of supervision of village powers has been developed in China’s rural areas. With regard to institutional design, the villagers’ committee, the village Party branch, the villager representatives’ conference and the villagers’ general meeting have the functions of mutual supervision and restraint. The system of direct election by villagers constitutes the most effective check of village powers. Villagers can use their votes to choose the administrators who satisfy the former. According to the Organic Law of Villagers’ Committees, if over one-fifth of the villagers with the voting right in the village jointly sign, they can request dismissal of members of a villagers’ committee. The villagers’ committee should promptly hold a villager representatives’ conference and put request for dismissal to the vote. When over half of the villagers agree on dismissal at the villager representatives’ conference, dismissal will go into effect. In addition, villagers can supervise village cadres with the help of the villagers’ group for democratic handling of financial affairs and other organizations. Although there has been a whole set of better systems of democratic supervision, actual effect is limited. It is reported that the first case of dismissal of village officials by villagers in China’s rural areas occurred in Jile Village on the outskirts of Harbin City, Heilongjiang Province.[28] Therefore, in reality, the most effective supervision of village powers is still the restraint by the government at the high level. Legally, the township and town governments cannot intervene in the work of the villagers’ committee and has no right to dismiss the cadres of the villagers’ committee. But the Party committee and the government can directly restrain village powers through the two basic means: first, they have the right to decide on the appointment and dismissal of members and secretary of the Party branch, and the village Party branch is the de facto power center in most of the rural areas; second, they guarantee election of those persons who satisfy them by controlling the process of election. In few extreme cases, the government at the higher level even can directly control village powers by sending village cadres to lower levels. For example, in Dingzhou, the municipal Party committee lists the appointment of the ninth-grade officials at the village level as an important item on the agenda and ensure that young cadres with a high quality become bellwethers to make peasants rich by smoothing channels at higher and lower levels and through inner election, sending cadres to lower levels and external appointment. (Wang Fengming, 2003)

Villagers’ participation in governance of village affairs to the largest extent is the substantial content of rural democratic governance. As we usually emphasize, self-governance among villagers is mainly manifested in the process of democratic election, democratic decision-making, democratic supervision and democratic management. In other words, self-governance among villagers must ensure that vast numbers of peasants effectively participate in election, decision-making, supervision and management in rural areas. From what has been mentioned above we can see that the institutional channels which enabled villagers to participate in election, decision-making and supervision were generally lacking during the period of the Republic of China. At that time, a major means to make it possible for villagers to participate in village affairs was to join the various villagers’ self-governance organizations and participate in management of village affairs through these villagers’ organizations. In Dingxian, Zouping and Jiangning counties, reformers of rural governance attached vital importance to the role of villagers’ organizations and tried every means to mobilize and encourage more villagers to participate in these villagers’ organizations. In Zhaicheng Village, Dingxian County, in addition to the self-governance institute and the new school which were established, the young crop association, the lawsuit ending association, the sanitation association, the agriculture and forestry association, the unbound and natural feet association, the security team, the education association, the pest prevention and elimination association, the thrift and savings association, the harmonious association, the patriotic association, the moral practice association, the patriotic publicity association and other villagers’ organizations were set up, a complete self-governance organizational system was formed, and there were more ways to make villagers participate in village affairs. In the early 1920s, those persons who directly participated in management of village affairs in all names involved 10 surnames in the whole village and came to over 40. Over 10 persons were qualified to take part in the villager representatives’ conference and affected decision-making for village affairs.[29]

With regard to institutional arrangement, all adult villagers in rural areas of present-day China have had channels for participating in management of village affairs. They participate in direct elections of villagers’ committees and deputies to people’s congresses at the two levels of county and township, in the work of villagers’ groups, in discussions of major village affairs at villager representatives’ conferences or villagers’ general meetings and in appraisal of members of the Party branches and their work and supervision of villagers’ committees. All this has become the major means to facilitate villagers’ political participation. In addition, other systems of villagers’ participation are playing an increasingly important role. For example, In Dingzhou, Zouping and Jiangning counties, every village generally has the supervisory leading group for making village affairs known to the public, the group for democratic discussions of village affairs and the group of democratic handling of financial affairs. Members of these villagers’ special groups are recommended or elected at villager representatives’ conferences or villagers’ general meetings, participate in management of village affairs on behalf of villagers and are responsible to all villagers. Villager representatives’ conferences or villagers’ general meetings have the right to dismiss members of these groups who neglect their duties. Women’s conferences, the Communist League organizations and militia companies (battalions) are mass organizations established in rural areas throughout the country as required by the government. Their role is gradually weakening. Meanwhile, the role of some new villagers’ organizations, such as the able persons’ association, the aged association, the marriage and funeral association and the association for prohibiting gambling is gradually rising.[30]

Participation of more poor peasants, rural women and other underprivileged groups is vital to rural democratic governance. In China’s rural areas with the long traditions of masculine authority, the status of women is much lower than that of men. The rural women have been the most outstanding social underprivileged groups. We can say that the status of rural women in rural governance shows depth and breadth of villagers’ participation to a large extent. Our case study shows that during the period of the Republic of China, great attention was paid to women’s participation in the reform of rural governance in Dingxian, Jiangning and Zouping counties. First, institutionally, women began enjoying the equal right to vote like men, although the actual participation of the former was still low. Laws on rural self-governance promulgated by the Nanjing government of the Republic of China gave women the citizen’s rights.. “By attending the township and town residents’ conferences and participating in elections of township and town heads, some women first exercised democratic rights and began taking part in rural political activities.” (Li Defang, 2003) Second, women began having the right to receive education like men. In addition to encouraging women to receive formal school education, rural women in counties experimenting with the reform of rural self-governance. In 1929, Tangshan Peasants’ Education Center, Jiangning County opened the women’s work-study class in the people’s school. Those women who were more than 12 years old and less than 45 years old and who were illiterate or learned to read some Chinese characters were able to sign up for enrolment. The length of study for the junior class was four months, and that for the senior class was eight months. They did not pay tuition, and Tangshan Peasants’ Education Center bore handwork and material fees. After the finished products were sold, Tangshan Peasants’ Education Center deducted their handwork and material fees (they prepared other materials for free handwork). No matter the students in the work-study class graduated, Tangshan Peasants’ Education Center bought their products with cash and transported them to the county town for sale. To make things easier for the women engaged in work and study, Tangshan Peasants’ Education Center specially opened a provisional class to take care of the children of students. Most of the students in the work-study class came from the lower strata of society. The first group of students in the work-study class run from September 1929 to January 1930 mainly came from agriculture, groceries, restaurants, firewood shops, bean curd shops, eateries and laborers. In particular, most of them were engaged in agricultural work, accounting for 62.79% of the total.[31] Professions of students who were recruited later were quite similar. In Dingxian County there was the special common women’s school, and compilation of the Thousand Character Text for Women was planned to eliminate illiteracy among women. The traditional feudal ethics and customs which oppressed women physically and mentally, such as mercenary marriage, bandages used in binding women’s feet and widowhood for women, were eliminated. To effectively eliminate these bad habits, all localities even took some compulsory measures. In Zouping County, the county government established the supervisory committee for removing bandages used in binding women’s feet and the supervision division to change these bad habits. It sent a woman worker to every township and was responsible for promoting the removal of bandages used in binding women’s feet in rural areas. She gave publicity and education in the township and the village, was responsible for assisting rural organizations in examination of the removal of bandages used in binding women’s feet and punished those women who insisted on binding their feet. (Zhuang Weimin, 2003) The rights and interests of women were protected and improved by establishing special women’s organizations, for example, all types of women’s evening schools, women’s work-study classes, women’s associations, mothers’ associations, housewives’ associations, daughters’ associations, the committee for removing bandages used in binding women’s feet, women’s talk associations, health associations for women and babies, etc. These women’s interest groups play an important role in cultivating and increasing their awareness of participation in government and political affairs and modern consciousness and in promoting their emancipation, protecting their rights and interests and helping rural women overcome difficulties.

The circumstances and participation of women in China’s rural areas during the period of the Reform were quite different from those during the period of the Republic of China. During the period of the Reform, participation of rural women is not limited to the basic goals of women’s emancipation such as receiving education and reforming bad habits, because these goals were attained very soon after the CPC came to power in 1949. They not only have their rights prescribed in laws, but also begin enjoying the right of participation on the basis of equality of men and women. This is highlighted in three aspects. First, the rate of women’s participation in election greatly rises. Second, women play an increasingly important role in management of village affairs. Third, the rights and interests of women are earnestly protected. Study of current conditions of rural governance in Dingzhou, Jiangning and Zouping counties shows that women enjoy the same rights as men in elections of heads of villagers’ groups, villagers’ representatives, villagers’ committees and township and town representatives. Like male villagers, over 90% of the female women participate in elections. The increasingly important role of rural women in rural governance is chiefly manifested in steady increase in female villagers’ direct participation in villagers’ committees and Party branches. In Zouping County, directors of women’s conferences began entering into villagers’ committees and village Party branches from 1996, and 99.3% of directors of women’s conferences joined villagers’ committees and village Party branches. Directors of women’s conferences joined villagers’ committees and village Party branches through direct elections and appointment at the village level. In the recent elections, 121 persons joined villagers’ committee through direct election, accounting 14.1% of the 858 villages (same below) in the whole county, 75 persons joined village Party branches through election, accounting for 8.8%’, and 691 persons entered villagers’ committees through appointment, accounting for 80.5%.[32] Although the status of rural women is quite different, they remain to be in an unfavorable position in comparison with male villagers. Effectively protecting the rights and interests of women is still an important task for present-day rural governance. Governments at all levels have taken many administrative and non-administrative measures in this regard. For example, the plans for the development of women in all localities formulated according to the Program of the People’s Republic of China for the Development of Women and the special collegiate benches for the legal rights and interests of women and children established in basic-level courts according to the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Women set clear requirements for the percentages of women cadres and offer training to them at regular intervals. Affirming the “half the sky” role of women and ensuring equality of men and women are the basic goals of the CPC and the government. From the practice of rural governance we can see that rural women play an increasingly important role in political activities. However, case study also shows that in comparison with male villagers, rural female ones still play a limited role in rural governance. For example, female members of villagers’ committees and village Party branches are mainly directors of village women’s conferences. Their role is less important in village governance. A very small percentage of female villagers become directors of villagers’ committees or secretaries of village Party branches. In 1999 there were only five women directors of villagers’ committees and three women secretaries of village Party branches in Zouping County.[33]

To sum up, the process of the development of rural democratic governance is a process of continuing to increase the participation of villagers, especially a process of participating in village elections, management of village affairs, making decisions about major village affairs and supervising village cadres. Ensuring the participation of underprivileged groups including impoverished peasants, women and others in rural areas is an important measure to promote and protect the legal rights and interests of villagers. This has been effectively proved in the reform during the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform. Participation of women is a notable achievement of the reform of rural governance. In comparison with that during the period of the Republic of China, democratic governance in rural areas in present-day China makes a breakthrough in all major fields, for example, all-round implementation of direct elections of villagers, great increase in the rates of villagers’ participation in election and the extensive practice of making village affairs known to the public, etc. But democratic election, democratic decision-making, democratic management and democratic supervision and other basic aspects of governance among villagers still fall far short of the ideal and goal of rural good governance.

V. Content: Public Welfare, Development and Administrative Affairs

The content of rural governance is numerous and jumbled. The relevant laws during the Period of the Republic of China listed the following 21 items: matters of census and personnel registration, matters of land survey, matters of road, bridge, park and other public civil engineering, construction and repair, matters of education and other cultural undertakings, matters of security, matters of national physical culture, matters of health and rehabilitation, matters of water conservancy, matters of forest cultivation, planting and protection, matters of reformation and protection of agriculture and commerce, matters of grain reserves and regulation, matters of protection and prohibition of land reclamation, animal husbandry, fishery and hunting, matters of organization of and guidance to cooperatives, matters of reformation of customs, matters of raising children, taking care of the aged, relieving the poor and providing disaster relief and offering equipment, public matters, matters of formulating joint pledge on self-governance, matters of revenue and expenditures and management of public funds and property, matters of formulating budgets and final accounts, matters entrusted by the county government, district and public offices and other matters handled by townships and towns as prescribed by laws.[34] The comparative principles in the relevant provisions of the Organic Law of Villagers’ Committees of the People’s Republic of China currently in effect include the following items: (1) “A villagers’ committee handles the public affairs and undertakings of the village, mediates in a civil dispute, helps maintain social order and reports the opinions and demands of villagers to the people’s government and makes suggestions.” (2) “A villagers’ committee should support and organize villagers to develop cooperative economy and other sectors of the economy according to law, take charge of the service and coordination for the production of the village and promote the agricultural production and construction and the development of a socialist market economy.” “According to provisions of laws, a villagers’ committee manages the land and other property of the village and those collectively owned by villagers and teaches villagers to rationally use natural resources and protects and improves the ecological environment. (3) “A villagers’ committee should publicize the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, laws, regulations and state policies, teach and urge villagers to perform obligations as legally prescribed, take care of public property, protect the legal rights and interests of villagers, develop cultural and educational undertakings, popularize scientific and technological knowledge, promote unity and mutual assistance between villages and conduct all kinds of activities to promote socialist spiritual civilization.”[35] Some scholars divide management of public affairs in a rural community into seven aspects, such as public resources, public facilities, public culture, public security, public economy, public guarantee and public government affairs.[36] These are the main content of rural governance. If we make them more abstract, we can generalize the content of governance as the protection of public interests, the development of the politics, economy and culture of a community and the performance of administrative affairs.

Every village constitutes a small society. This was true during the period of the Republic of China while it is also true during the period of the Reform. The content of rural governance almost includes all aspects from the development plan of the whole village to family disputes. However, the concrete content and priorities of rural governance differ greatly against the different historical background. For example, developing basic education was an essential task of rural governance during the period of the Republic of China. Now that the nine-year compulsory education is being made universal, the government mainly undertakes the task and this is no longer the main task of self-governance among villagers. The reform of rural governance during the period of the Republic of China did not involve the issue of family planning, but it is a major task of rural governance.

Developing rural education and raising the educational level of peasants were the most important content of the rural self-governance movement during the period of the Republic of China. From 1915 to 1916 when a self-governance model village was constructed, Zhaicheng Village, Dingxian County used its public funds and financial subsidies from the provincial and county governments and vigorously developed education. It requisitioned over 3.3 acres of land, built and owned a lower and higher primary school with 80 classrooms and 9 teaching and administrative staff. Its scale ranked first in Dingxian County. With the rise of self-governance, the women’s private school in Zhaicheng Village became a formal primary school. (Li Defang, 2003) After the Chinese National Association of the Mass Education experimented in Dingxian County in the late 1920s, it took education as the starting point and the central task of all the work.[37] The management model featuring the integration of education with politics was employed in experimentation with rural construction in Zouping County. The township private school and the village private school were both political organizations and educational ones. Their main work included two aspects: school education and social education. With regard to school education, the village private school established the children’s department (namely the primary school), the adult department and the women’s department in light of actual conditions. The children’s department was equivalent to the lower primary school of the national primary school. Pupils went to class in the daytime and learned the same courses as those in the national primary school. Pupils in the adult department and the women’s department went to class in the evening. The main courses included literacy, singing songs, talk about the spirit, and military training. Other courses were given in light of actual needs and specific local conditions. The township private school established the preparatory department for school of a higher grade and the vocational training department in light of actual conditions and handled instruction which the township needed, but the village private school was not able to offer.[38] Local self-governance authorities in Jiangning County even took compulsory measures in schools and stipulated that every teacher had to teach no less than 50 children, that if the number of children was less than 50, the sufficient number of children had to be recruited in the shortest time and that those who failed to abide by the regulations or falsified the number of children would be severely punished. During the two years, the classes and grades of primary schools in Jiangning County experimenting with self-governance increased from 161 to 353 and the number of pupils rose to 13,976. In addition, the grades of the schools for common people increased from 33 to 103 and the number of pupils rose from 965 to 4,570. There was a new secondary school with 92 students and 82 affiliated farms. There were 112 offices for enabling the common people to inquire about the Chinese characters; 185 qualified private schools with 5,465 pupils were assessed. “Increases in these numbers, stable allocation of educational funds and strict choice of teachers were higher than statistical figures in terms of actual progress.”[39]

Reforming agriculture and developing the rural economy were another important task of rural self-governance in the Republic of China. In China’s rural areas during the period of the Republic of China, agricultural productive forces were extremely backward, and peasants led a very poor life. Advocates of rural reform were gradually clear that in comparison with the living pressure facing the common people, literacy was of little importance. Therefore, they laid more and more emphasis on the measures to provide peasants with training in knowledge about modern agricultural science and technology, introduce improved strains of crops, establish agricultural technological experimental bases and set up the center for spreading the use of agricultural products, so as to help them increase their productivity, increase their incomes and raise their living standards. Beginning in 1929, Tangshan Peasants’ Education Hall in Jiangning County gave peasants cotton seeds supplied by the Agricultural School of the Central University free of charge and purchased cotton reaped from these seeds.[40] In 1929, about 500 kg of cotton seeds was given to 64 peasant households, and 23 acres of fields was planted with these seeds. In the following year, 1,613.5 kg of cotton seeds was given to 211 peasant households, and 76 acres of fields was planted with these seeds. In addition to provision of cotton seeds, Tangshan Peasants’ Education Hall also gave peasants improved wheat seeds free of charge. Great efforts were made in spreading the use of improved varieties of animals and plants and popularizing modern agricultural technological knowledge and means in Zouping and Dingxian counties, and great achievements were scored.

Rural mutual assistance cooperatives were established, and peasants were encouraged to actively engage in mutual assistance and become strong. Establishment of rural mutual assistance cooperatives aimed at standing all risks by relying on the collective strength and maximizing economic returns through cooperation. Therefore, mutual assistance and cooperation often became important methods of rural governance in rural areas with backward economy and inability to stand risks. After rural self-governance was introduced to Dingxian, Jiangning and Zouping counties, mutual assistance cooperatives expanded rapidly. For example, after township schools and village schools were set up in Zouping County, the number of cooperatives continued to increase. In 1934, the number of cooperatives was 133, and cooperative members came to 4,446. At the end of 1935, cooperatives came to 336, and cooperative members increased to 14,939. At the end of 1936, there were 307 cooperatives with 8,828 members.[41] Cooperatives were of significance to developing the rural economy and increasing peasants’ interests. At that time, someone summed up this in the four aspects. First, the use of new technology and improved strains was spread. In 1936, 7700 acres of fields was planted with cotton in the whole county of Zouping, including 6433 acres for cooperatives, accounting for 83.5%. Second, peasants’ incomes were increased. After cotton peasants who joined cooperatives planted improved cotton, they generally increased 15 to 25 kg of unginned cotton every 0.165 acres. Third, cotton peasants were free from the middlemen’s exploitation. Cotton peasants solved the problem of difficult sale of cotton through the joint transport and sale of cooperatives. They increased an income of about 3 yuan every 50 kg of ginned cotton. Fourth, after peasant households joined cooperatives, they were able to easily obtain loans, and the loan interest rate fell sharply.[42] In fact, rural cooperatives also played another very important role. Because of lack of the social security system, they played the role of social insurance for vast numbers of poor peasants and constituted a living guarantee mechanism.

Abolishing bad habits and evil customs and cultivating a healthy atmosphere were also an outstanding feature of the reform of rural governance during the period of the Republic of China. The dross of the Chinese traditional culture left over by feudal society remained in old rural areas, for example, feudal superstition, male superiority, harmful feudal ethics, gambling, drug taking, etc. These evil things seriously shackled people’s thinking and concepts and hampered the development of rural productivity and the emancipation of peasants’ personality. Reformation of customs was regarded as the important content of the rural self-governance movement in Dingxian, Zouping and Jiangning counties during the period of the Republic of China. Village governance authorities advocated new customs in place of old bad habits. For example, in Jiangning County the furniture exhibition, the seed exhibition and the oxen competition replaced the original temple fair. They initiated special movements to remove evil habits, for example, prohibiting gambling and drug taking in Zouping County. Zhaicheng Village, Dingxian County also specially formulated the Rules for Reforming Customs which clearly stipulated that “men get married unless they are 20 years old, and women get married unless they are 16 years old. Women are prohibited from binding their feet. Those girls who are less than 16 years old and who have bound their feet must have their feet unbound. When there is a funeral, storytelling in a temple, chanting of Buddhist scriptures, preparation of paper persons and other activities are banned. The Gregorian calendar is stressed in wining during the Spring Festival, and pasting of kitchen god is prohibited. Except for the compliance with old feudal ethics by the children of the deceased in the funeral, bowing is practised in other celebrations, congratulations and condolences and kowtow is prohibited. Other customs involving superstition must be changed.” (Li Defang, 2003)

Because of turbulent social environment during the period of the Republic of China, the public security work in a community was very important. Preventive measures were taken not only against petty thieves in villages, but also against bandits and even the foreign enemy. Members of the various villages in Zouping County formed self-defense groups and constituted the rural self-defense system together with township groups. Village self-defense groups received training at regular intervals, went to township schools to attend the “township shooting” ceremony every month and conducted military training together. In the summer and the autumn, heads of township groups led village and group leaders and members to go to the various villages to patrol at night. Self-defense groups of the various villages led villagers in patrol in inspecting villages, guarded against the harassment of bandits and robbers and made theft and robbery disappear. (Zhuang Weimin, 2003) The security group system was established in the whole county of Jiangning. Every village established a group. Every administrative area formed a group, and the county established a group. All those men who were less than 18 years old and more than 35 years old and had moral integrity became members of the group. In the slack season of farming, they received training in the group. In peacetime they usually participated in capturing thieves. In wartime they defended strategic passes. (Ma Junya, 2003) Village security groups in Dingxian County originally only “patrolled and sounded the watches at night, maintained public order in villages and guarded against robbery and theft”. When county administration was reformed in Dingxian County in the early 1930s, Hebei Province became the outpost of resistance of the Japanese invaders for national salvation. Therefore, the Chinese National Association for Mass Education designed the system of the township and town construction committee based on the citizen service group and prepared to resist foreign enemy by making use of civil forces. (Li Defang, 2003) In fact, following Japanese invasion, the people of Dingxian County engaged in vigorous resistance.

In modern times, some of the above-mentioned important content of rural governance during the period of the Republic of China has become not important. Some even has not existed, and some new functions begin emerging and become vitally important, for example, family planning, retention of three fees and overall collecting of five fees, economic contracting, examination and approval of house sites, making administrative affairs known to the public, etc.

Family planning has been a basic national policy of the Chinese government since the Reform China. To control the too rapid population growth and effectively reduce the number of the population, the Chinese government has begun implementing the family planning policy featuring “one couple, only one child” since the 1980s. This policy is a great challenge to most of the Chinese rural households which have been influenced by the concept of “male superiority” and needed male farming labor for a long time. We can image that it is extremely difficult to implement this policy to the letter. It will even the most important task of governance for villagers’ committees and Party branches at all levels in most of the rural areas for a fairly long period of time. Even if levels of social, economic and cultural development have greatly risen and a flexible policy has been introduced to allow the household with one girl to have the second child in rural areas, it is still a very arduous and important task for village Party branches and villagers’ committees. Governments at higher levels institute the rigorous responsibility system for the implementation of the family planning policy, namely “one-vote vetoing”. So long as this basic national policy is violated, relevant cadres must bear responsibilities and be punished correspondingly no matter what other achievements they score in their political career. Therefore, almost every village has formulated the Villagers’ Self-governance Rules on Family Planning, which clearly stipulates for the responsibilities and obligations which villagers should bear. Almost every village establishes special organs such as the family planning committee and special cadres for family planning, including director of the family planning committee, statistician, publicity staff and drug test staff who are responsible for implementation and examination of the family planning policy. The villagers’ committee and the Party branch take careful preventive measures to deal with family planning. As soon as a rural woman reaches the child-bearing age, she will put under the monitoring of family planning cadres.

Retention of three fees and overall collecting of five fees is also called village retention and township overall collecting. It refers to village retention of public accumulation fund, public welfare fund and management fee while the village completes overall collecting of fees for running schools at the two levels of township and village, family planning, special care given to disabled servicemen and to families of servicemen and revolutionary martyrs, militia training, construction of rural roads and rural health assigned by the township government. Village retention and township overall collecting is actually payment of taxes and fees. It has a direct bearing on the immediate interests of villagers and is very sensitive. Especially when the collective economy is lacking in rural areas, peasants are poor and relevant fees are too high, it is very hard to complete retention of three fees and overall collecting of five fees. The villagers’ committee and the village Party branch usually make great efforts to collect these fees and even resort to compulsory measures. For example, the following steps are generally taken in rural areas in Dingzhou. The first step is to hold the conference of township and village cadres several times, organize them to study relevant laws and regulations, invite the cadres and policemen of the administrative tribunal of the municipal people’s court to explain the Administrative Procedure Law and other laws, increase the township and village cadres’ awareness of the importance of the law and raise their ability of governance according to law. The second step is to extensively publicize regulations on fees borne by peasants and on labor management promulgated by the State Council and Hebei Province through radio, slogans, publicity motor vehicles and other means and raise the peasants’ awareness of the need to perform their obligations. The third step is that with regard to those peasant households which refuse to pay these fees without good reason, every village provides the name list and the township government issues the decision and the letter of service for payment of these fees within the prescribed time and urges them to pay these fees within the specified time. Applications are presented to the court for compulsory implementation for those who do not lodge appeal and do not perform their obligations. (Wang Fengming, 2003)

Family planning and village retention and township overall collecting are the government affairs of the state handed by village self-governance organizations as well as the toughest things in the current village governance. They expend a great deal of manpower and energy of the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch in most of the rural areas and are the principal tasks of cadres from the township and town governments stationed in the village. The two tasks are usually the direct reasons for antagonism and conflicts between village cadres and peasants. Therefore, villagers often jokingly call the governance activities of village cadres and the township and town governments as “wanting both money and lives”. Since they have become important factors affecting rural social and political stability, the central government has tried to make major adjustments in these policies in recent years. The current implementation of the reform of taxes and fees in rural areas across the country is one of these efforts. From the initial practice in conversion of fees to taxes, we can see that it produces notable results in reducing the burden of peasants. Therefore, this reform will play a very positive role in improving relations between villagers and village cadres and promoting rural good governance.

At present, the collective ownership of land is implemented in China’s rural areas, unlike that during the period of the Republic of China. Legally, peasants only enjoy rights to use and operate their family plots, responsibility fields and house sites, and their ownership is still vested in the collective. Therefore, the contracting of responsibility fields and the examination and approval of house sites are currently the major affairs in rural areas as well as the important functions and powers controlled by the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch. In rural areas, the powers of village cadres are mainly manifested in the management of these affairs. In economically developed villages especially with some foundations of the collective economy, the economic contracting of land, enterprises and other collective enterprises are of particular importance. For example, in Guquan Village, Jiangning County, its collective economy is very developed. In 2000, the total output value of the whole village came to over 140 million RMB yuan (17 million US dollars), including 28.89 million RMB yuan in terms of the output value of the village collective economy. Nanjing Guquan Group Corporation owned by the village has such village-run enterprises as the plastics plant, the quarrying plant, the ecological aquiculture plant (which has been restructured), the filling plant and the tea farm. Against this economic background, the restructuring and contracting of enterprises becomes the important content of management of village affairs. (Jin Taijun, 2003)

Making village affairs known to the public is also the major content of the present day’s rural governance. It enables villagers to have the right to know the public affairs of the village and helps them to supervise the management and economic behaviors of village cadres. It is one of the key measures for facilitating rural good governance. Making village affairs known to the public is also the clear requirement for village governance set according to the Organic Law of Villagers’ Committees and by the central government. All localities generally formulate a detailed system of making village affairs known to the public and clearly stipulate for the concrete matters, methods and ways of affixing responsibilities to those persons who violate the regulations on making village affairs known to the public. For example, the main content of village affairs which are made known to the public in Dingzhou includes the plan for economic and social development of the village and the annual working plan of the villagers’ committee; the yearly financial plan and various incomes and expenditures; the collection of fees under the township overall collecting, the budget for fees retained by the village, collection and use of them, and the use of accumulative and compulsory labor; the name list of persons who enjoy village subsidies and standards for and the amount of subsidies; incomes from the village’s collective economy and the collection and use of appropriations, compensatory fees and donated money and articles; the collection and distribution of money and articles for disaster relief, poverty alleviation and assistance to the disabled; water and electricity prices and the collection of water and electricity fees; the launching of the collectively economic projects, the raising of funds for such public undertakings as village-run schools, village-built roads, culture and health, tender invitation and submission, the plan for construction and contracting and the implementation of the plan; the management and operation of collective property, the plans for the contracting and operation of land, the means of production and other trades and the collection of contracting fees; application, approval and use of house sites for the current year; the name list of persons who can give birth to children and get married through approval, non-planned persons who give birth to children, the collection and use of non-planned birth fees and other matters which are of common concern to villagers and should be made known to the public upon request. In addition, Dingzhou municipal authorities have formulated a series of detailed regulations on the concrete procedures for and methods of making village affairs known to the public, the ways of examination of the implementation, the supervision and report by governments at higher levels and the punishment concerning violations of the system of making village affairs known to the public. (Wang Fengming, 2003)

Through the above-mentioned comparative research, we can see that the content and priorities of rural governance vary greatly in different historical periods. During the period of the Republic of China, rural governance first aimed at solving such problems as developing education among peasants, providing adequate food and clothing to them, reforming traditional customs and guarding against bandits and robbers. During the period of the Reform, the main tasks of rural governance are unknown before, for example, family planning, retention of three fees and overall collecting of five fees, making village affairs known to the public, etc. These tasks are basically the administrative affairs entrusted to self-governance organizations by the state. The fact shows that the material and spiritual life of villagers has undergone earth-quaking changes indeed in modern times, that the control of rural areas by the state administrative powers is increasingly tightened so that completion of administrative tasks is the most important work of self-governance organizations and that the current self-governance among villagers is self-governance under strong administration. Of course, it is common and basic contents of rural governance for both the period of the Republic of China and the Reform to maintain the stability of communities in rural areas, to increase the public interests of villagers and to promote rural public undertakings.

VI. Methods: Mobilization, Cooperation and Compulsion

Like any public authority, rural self-governance authority must use persuasion and education, administrative order, political mobilization, legal compulsion, voluntary cooperation, economic stimulation and moral encouragement and other methods of governance to achieve effect governance in the process of management of village affairs. But social capital as a network of trust, participation and cooperation plays a particularly important role in the process of governance in the rural acquaintance society,[43] and the main methods of governance are not compulsion and command, but persuasion and cooperation.

The main methods of rural governance during the period of the Republic of China were persuasion and education. As mentioned above, the rural governance movement in Dingxian, Zouping and Jiangning counties laid particular emphasis on education among peasants and stressed the need to combine school education with social education. The content of education was very extensive. In addition to general knowledge, there was another important aspect, namely persuasion, education and guidance for peasants with a view to cultivating their new living habits and promoting social reformation. For example, township schools and village schools in Zouping County stipulated for the concrete working methods for township and village directors: to openly discuss a matter if it cropped up to acquire the understanding and consent of most of the people; help the people supervise public affairs; to accept the persuasion of head of school; to talk with the county government on behalf of the township and the village; to be good at conveying the intentions of the county government to the people; and to work together with other members of the board of directors of the school. If a problem arose in the township and the village, legal solution was not favored, but rational solution was advocated. The rational solution referred to the methods of persuasion and education. One item of the important content of the common people education movement initiated by Yan Yangchu in Dingxian County was to conduct social education among peasants, persuade them to have vaccination, reject narcotic drugs, prohibit gambling, build roads, plant trees, set up self-defense groups and stress sanitation, give demonstrations and help them adapt to a new lifestyle. The temple fair, the teahouse, the exhibition, the speech meeting and other sites and methods were often used to give publicity to the people and mobilize them and smoothly promote reform. Of course, their scales, means and effects were not mentioned in the same breath in comparison with those of political mobilization led by the CPC.

The method of ideological and political education which is commonly used in rural areas in present-day China is similar to persuasion and education during the period of the Republic of China, but is quite different from the latter. The method of ideological and political education is actually a political mobilization. Its outstanding feature is to give ideological and political education to peasants through the mass movement, create some momentum and make them comply with and accept some authority and order. Political mobilization was the method which was often used by the CPC during the revolutionary period, and it was still the commonly used political means following 1949. The various mass movements and political movements are most familiar to all of us. Party and government cadres at all levels are very familiar with this method. Therefore, when there are important activities to handle village affairs such as family planning, collection of taxes and fees and election of a villagers’ committee, local governments, the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch are good at using the method of political mobilization. For example, before elections of villagers’ committees at the expiration of office term in Zouping County, Shandong Province, great attention was paid to publicity to whip up opinion and create an atmosphere. Such local mass media as radio, television, newspapers and periodicals extensively publicized the Organic Law of Villagers’ Committees and the Methods of Elections of Villagers’ Committees in Shandong Province. The county TV station established a special column on elections of villagers’ committees at the expiration of office term and broadcast it every day. All towns and townships created a momentum and gave more publicity through meetings, publicity columns, publicity motor vehicles and slogans, so as to make elections of villagers’ committees at the expiration of office term known to the public. (Wang Zhenhai, 2003)

Good village governance must be based on the full cooperation between those persons responsible for management of village affairs and villagers. Tackling various differences and problems through cooperation and consultation was the goal of rural governance during the period of the Republic of China. This is true during the period of the Reform. In experimentation in Zouping County, Liang Shuming did his utmost to oppose implementation of the rural reform through compulsory administrative means from top down and stressed that all townships and villages chose to do so on their own in light of local actual needs and conditions. To avoid direct conflicts between township schools and village schools and township residents and villagers to the largest extent and reach the greatest consensus, he even did not favor introduction of the mechanism of checks and balances of powers to the system of township schools and village schools and thought that it was likely to cause disputes and chaos in rural areas. The method of establishment of the villagers’ supervisory committee for supervision of village powers was not used. As Liang Shuming said, “a rival show was not staged”. With regard to dismissal of grass-roots leading cadres, Liang Shuming thought that “it is not voted at the villagers’ meeting” and “it is a too rigorous and ruthless method.” In short, in his opinion, the principle for rural governance was that “all village affairs are handled through consultation.” (Zhuang Weimin, 2003)

Emphasizing cooperation and resolving contradictions are also the main methods of governance used by the current administrators of Zouping County. When villagers have great complaints against the government and village cadres and interest conflicts cannot be resolved through normal channels, the former often employ the method of “seeking an audience with the higher authorities to appeal for intervention”. If this draws no great attention and is not handled in a timely manner, contradictions may sharpen and conflicts arise. In view of this situation, before elections at the village level at the expiration of office term in 1999, Zouping county Party committee organized 1,843 cadres from 74 government departments including secretary of the county Party committee, who went to every village in seven groups, visited 78,000 peasant households, talked with 200,000 peasants, gathered 13,617 opinions from them, handled 1,281 items of matters for them, provided 2,329 suggestions for the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch and cemented ties between cadres and villagers.[44] The Party committee and the government of Xidong Town, Zouping County formulated the “system of heart-to-heart talk about village conditions and public opinions”. In the first week of every month, the town cadres went to the village to preside over the heart-to-heart talk with members of the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch, villagers’ representatives, heads of villagers’ groups and some villagers. The following things were done. Before the heart-to-heart talk, the town Party committee and government studied and determined the content of and requirements for the activity of this month according to the priorities of the work in the whole town and actual conditions in rural areas, prepared written materials, first provided training to cadres in government departments at the Monday routine meeting and set clear requirements. All villages notified Party members and villagers’ representatives in written form and informed villagers with the use of the column for making village affairs known to the public and through broadcasting. At the heart-to-heart talk, town and village cadres talked cordially with villagers, acquired an understanding of the hot issues and difficulties which were of great concern to them and conscientiously filled in the Feedback Form of the Heart-to-Heart Talk about Village Conditions and Public Opinions and the Form of Knowing and Examining Contradictions and Conflicts. After these forms were signed by cadres stationed in villages, secretaries of Party branches and directors of villagers’ committees, they were collected. After the heart-to-heart talk, the town leading group conscientiously analysed and sorted out the issues which were found out in all villages, clarified division of work and established the working group to concentrate on solving major issues. Solutions were fed back to villagers at the heart-to-heart talk held the next month. After a period of practice, the heart-to-heart talk produced initial results. Many issues which were of great concern to the people were solved in a timely manner. The Party and government policy decisions were favorable to the people and were appreciated by them. (Wang Zhenhai, 2003)

Although cooperation is the foremost method of rural governance, administrative orders and necessary compulsion are always unavoidable. Administrative means are not only simple and quick, but also often effective. So they are favored by local governments and self-governance authorities. Reformers of rural governance during the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform are clear that violations of state laws and government policies by villagers were corrected and deal with rapidly through compulsory means. To advocates of rural good governance, the most thorny problem is the abuse of administrative and compulsory means by rural cadres. In Jiangning during the period of the Republic of China, the government stipulated that if those township and town residents violated current laws, orders of county and township authorities, the township and town pledge or all decisions, the criminal law or decrees, the township and town heads were able to take them in custody or reported this to the county and district governments to deal with them. So some local rural authorities with low quality abused compulsory means and became local tyrants. “They reported all local violations of laws to higher authorities. They had the functions and powers to provide inspection and guidance to all villages, handle the matters of self-governance, resolve disputes among the people and reform superstition and bad habits. They were true local tyrants.”[45] Shortly after rural self-governance was promoted in Zouping County, the phenomena of undue reliance on administrative means and excessive use of strength cropped up. All reforms which were encouraged in rural areas were urged and coerced, so township schools and village schools had to land themselves in a passive position. In the second half of 1934, the Rural Construction Academy began readjusting relations between the government and rural grass-roots organizations and corrected the tendency of undue reliance on administrative compulsion. According to the principle of “indirect use of strength”, all rural matters were advocated and handled by township schools and village schools, and the county government did not resort to compulsion. However, great efforts have to be made to tackle the issue of public security and bad elements.[46] The phenomena of undue reliance on administrative means and excessive use of strength in rural governance exist to varying degrees in rural areas in the present-day China. The current administrative powers are more extensively and intensively exercised than those during the period of the Republic of China. This makes it possible to abuse compulsion. Because of abuse of compulsory means, the phenomena of violent conflicts between villagers and village cadres frequently occur and the grave cases of “dozens of yuan -- administration in violation of law – one casualty – tens of thousands of yuan of compensation – punishment of some cadres” often happen. From the current practice of rural governance, we can see that the most effective method of overcoming abuse of compulsory means is to introduce the principle of rule of law to rural governance, improve the legal system, increase the cadres and villagers’ awareness of the importance of the law and persist in governing village affairs according to law. (Wang Fengming, 2003)

The method of rural governance are varied, and many means of government administration such as administrative orders, persuasion and education, political mobilization, legal compulsion, voluntary cooperation, economic stimulation, moral encouragement and other means are also applicable to rural governance. The methods of rural governance during different periods may vary. For example, the method of political mobilization is often used during the period of the Reform, and it played a minor role in rural governance during the period of the Republic of China. But education and cooperation are the basic means of rural governance during both the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform. Reducing compulsion and increasing cooperation are the essence of rural governance. Cooperation between the government and villagers, between village cadres and villagers and between villagers is the best way towards rural democratic governance.

VII. Environment: Economy, Politics and Culture

From what has been mentioned above, we are clear that the two reforms of rural governance during the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform have quite a few similarities and differences in terms of the structure of governance, the subject, the process, the content, the method and other aspects. Why are these differences and similarities caused? What do they mean to the good governance of China’s rural areas? Answers to these problems can be found to varying degrees from the environment for the two reforms of rural governance.

Fundamentally speaking, reform of rural governance is a grass-roots political reform, and all political reform is closely related to the economic foundation. Change in social and economic life can lead to change in political life and vice versa, sooner or later. In addition, the level of political development and the level of economic development do not entirely correspond in the long process of history, but they are roughly adaptable. To acquire an understanding of the reforms of rural governance during the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform, we should first know the socio-economic environment facing them, especially the economic structure of ownership and the level of economic development.

With regard to the economic structure of ownership, the system of private ownership of the means of production was implemented during the period of the Republic of China, and the main manifestation was the private ownership of land in rural areas. In rural areas in Dingxian, Zouping and Jiangning counties, land was privately owned. Villagers consisted of the three kinds of persons – owner-peasant, tenant-peasant and landlord. Most of them were owner-peasants, and a few of them were landlords and tenant-peasants. Annexation and concentration of land was not obvious in these three counties. For example, according to the survey in 1929, every peasant household in Jiangning County had 4.04 acres of fields on average in 1928, 95.3% of fields were tilled by peasants themselves and only 4.7% of fields were rented and tilled. According to the sampling survey among 80 peasant households in Jiangning County, 79 households tilled fields themselves, there were no tenant-peasants, and only one household tilled and rented fields.[47] The situation was similar in Zouping County. According to the survey among 1,434 peasant households, owner-peasants accounted for 86.36%, every household had 3.83 acres of land on average, and every person had 0.8 acres of land. There were only 26 tenant-peasant and farm laborer households, accounting for 1.8%. There were 16 landlord households, and every household had 1.7 acres of land on average. There were 50 owner-peasant and landlord peasants, and every household had 6.86 acres of land on average, and every person had 1.52 acres of land.[48] Because there were no village collective economic affairs, the function of rural governance in this regard was lacking during the period of the Republic of China. On the contrary, the collective ownership of the means of production is extensively practiced in rural areas of modern China, and land is collectively owned. Since China implemented the policy of reform and opening up, the contract responsibility system with remuneration linked to output has been implemented in rural areas, that is, the collectively-owned land of the village is distributed to peasants and operated by them with a household as one unit and according to the number of family members. Peasants have the right to use and operate land, but do not have the right to own it. Therefore, there are no differences in the identities of landlord, tenant-peasant and owner-peasant in China’s rural areas. The land ownership has a direct impact on rural governance. Because there is the village collective economy in the present-day rural areas, the main content of rural governance is how to manage the village collective economy and coordinate the distribution of the village collective economic interests. This is the basic reason why the contracting of land and other collective-owned property and the examination and approval of house sites have become the basic content of the current village governance.

In 50 years from the period of the Republic of China in the 1930s to the period of the Reform and opening up in the 1980s, China’s rural areas experienced vicissitudes and tremendous changes. The levels of rural productive forces and rural economic development and the living standards of peasants rose considerably. During the period of the Republic of China, productivity in China’s rural areas was extremely low, and peasants lived in dire poverty and almost had no ability to stand natural and social risks. After China implemented the policy of reform and opening up, China’s rural economy expanded rapidly, the proportion of agriculture to the rural economy dropped drastically, and the living standards of peasants rose notably. They had adequate food and clothing. On the whole, they lived a relatively comfortable standard of living. Take Zouping County during the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform for example. In the 1930s, there was no modern industry in Zouping County, and all of the peasants’ incomes were from agriculture and sideline production. In 1935, the total income from agricultural and sideline production in the whole county was 4.3 million yuan, the total expenses were 4.2 million yuan, with the average yearly net income of every peasant being only 1.2 yuan. Under these conditions, “famine immediately cropped up if there was a poor harvest.”[49] In 2002, by contrast, the gross domestic product of the whole county came to 8.4 billion yuan. The agricultural output value was 1.36 billion yuan, only accounting for 16.2% of the total output value. In 2000, the per capita yearly income of peasants in the whole county amounted to 2,861 yuan. (Wang Zhenhai, 2003) But in comparison with the per capita income of urban residents, that of peasants was obviously too low. In comparison with the per capita income of developed countries, there was a tremendous gap. The background of the above-mentioned level of economic development can explain the two points. First, the task of developing the economy for peasants and getting them out of plight was more urgent and important during the period of the Republic of China than for the time being. Second, even at present, developing rural economy and making peasants better off are still a basic task of rural governance.

Like the economic climate, the political climate of rural governance during the Republic of China was quite different from that during the Reform. During the period of the Republic of China, the basic political system implemented by the Kuomintang was the Western capitalist representative democracy. Its main feature was the separation of five powers (actually the variation of the separation of three powers). Since 1949, the CPC has implemented the socialist political system with Chinese characteristics. Its main feature is the system of people’s congress characterized by the single-party rule and the combination of legislative and executive powers. The two different basic political systems lead to tremendous differences in the two regimes of different nature in terms of power structure, government functions, relations between the party and the government, relations between the central and local authorities and relations between the government and citizens. Here we only analyse their differences in relations between the party and the government, political integration and rule of law and their impacts on rural governance.

With regard to relations between the party and the government, the similarity during the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform was that the Kuomintang and the CPC were the ruling parties during the two periods respectively, but their method and governing capacity were quite different. The Kuomintang’s principle of rule of the country by the party was fully manifested at the central level, but administrative power in the local was controlled by governments at all levels and the influence and role of the party were limited. In particular, this was obvious at and below the county level. Kuomintang’s documents clearly stipulated that the methods of the work of party headquarters at and below the county level were to publicize the doctrine of the party; to conduct social survey; and to supervise local self-governance. With regard to their relations with the government, party headquarters played a supervisory, guiding and auxiliary role.[50] Obviously, its status was highly weak. On the contrary, the CPC has the status of leading nucleus in central and local organs of political power at all levels and actually functions as the leading core. The CPC and the government jointly exercise the functions of political and administrative management of society. Members of the Kuomintang were generally very few in rural areas, its primary organizations in rural areas were district branches without village organizations. But the CPC has many members in vast rural areas, and its primary organizations are established in all rural areas. This political background determines that there was only one authority of self-governance in rural governance during the period of the Republic of China, but there are two authoritative organizations of self-governance – the village Party branch and the villagers’ committee in the current rural governance. Therefore, rural governance only involved relations between the government and peasants during the period of the Republic of China, but it has to face a multi-relation between the party and the government, between the party-state and peasants, and other relations.

The capacity of political integration of the Kuomintang government during the period of the Republic of China was poor, and effective integration between the central and local authorities and between local authorities was lacking. Some warlords controlled local organs of political power, quite a few local forces were powerful enough to defy the central government, government decrees were not unified, and the central authorities almost failed to exercise power in vast rural areas. On the contrary, the capacity of political integration of the CPC is very great, the political integration between the central and local authorities and between the local authorities is high, and political power is exercised almost everywhere. Different capacity of political integration and the level of integration determine that there was different models of rural governance during the period of the Republic of China while there is only a single model with homogenous structure during the period of the Reform. Although there were national laws and regulations on local self-governance during the period of the Republic of China, the three different models of rural governance actually existed in Dingxian, Jiangning and Zouping counties under our research. The model of governance of Zhaicheng Village, Dingxian County copied Japanese rural governance, and the plan for rural governance designed by the Chinese National Association for Mass Education later was different from the governance of Zhaicheng Village. Experimentation with rural self-governance in Jiangning County was directly promoted through administrative means and even controlled, and civil forces were lacking. Rural self-governance in Zouping County was an experiment with Liang Shuming’s theory on rural construction. There were great differences in many important aspects of rural governance in the three localities, and it was no exaggeration to summarize them as the model of Dingxian County, the model of Jiangning County and the model of Zouping County as some scholars did. By contrast, the reform of governance introduced to China’s rural areas after we implemented the policy of reform and opening up was the same. The structure, functions, procedures and process of rural governance were basically the same. Differences in all localities were mainly differences in the level of political and economic development and governance technique, and there were no differences in the models of governance.

The Chinese political tradition is not rule of law, but rule of virtue, and it is great especially in vast rural areas. The rural self-governance movement following the Republic of China had corresponding legal basis. The laws during the Republic of China went even farther than the current ones in terms of legislation in self-governance. But most of the laws existed in name only. Rural governance was not rule of law, but rule by man. Liang Shuming’s experimentation with rural self-governance in Zouping County typified rule by man. In institutional design, he clearly opposed the principle of rule of law, upheld the tradition of rule of virtue and regarded the village sage politics as the goal of rural good governance. No lawsuits and dropping lawsuits to settle matters were a common governance method prevailing in rural governance at that time. Although the tradition of rule of virtue is still deeply rooted among the people in the present-day China, greater progress has been made in the people’s awareness of the importance of law and the state’s legal system now than during the period of the Republic of China, and building a country under the rule of law has become the goal of political development which is clearly stipulated in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Handling matters according to law, exercising rural governance according to law and providing education in the law to cadres and peasants at regular intervals have become the main theme of rural governance.

Cultural climate has a profound impact on rural governance. The content of culture is very rich and exerts influence on many aspects of citizens’ behaviors and political activities. Here, we mainly compare and analyse the following two aspects: first, citizens’ national cultural quality and mainly national educational level; second, citizens’ political culture and mainly their awareness of democracy and law.

The outcome of peasants’ absolute poverty during the period of the Republic of China was their low educational level and high illiteracy. Because the Chinese National Association for Mass Education made efforts in Dingxian County, peasants’ literacy rose considerably and was above average across the country, but their illiteracy was still high. According to the illiteracy in the whole county conducted by the association in the spring of 1927, it had a population of about 400,000, those persons who were more than seven years old came to about 330,000, illiterates amounted to about 270,000, accounting for about 83% and literates were about 60,000, accounting for about 17%. If men and women were calculated separately, male illiteracy accounted for about 69%, and female illiteracy accounted for 98%.[51] After several years of efforts made by the Chinese National Association for Mass Education, the situation changed greatly. In particular, literate young people increased notably. At the end of June 1934, literate young people who were 14 to 25 years old accounted for 61% in the whole county, literate male young people 90% and literate female young people 27%.[52] Of course, this achievement was outstanding. But at that time, the Chinese National Association for Mass Education used all funds and personnel to promote rural construction and gave top priority to eliminating illiteracy, but 10% of the male young people and 73% of the female young people were still illiterate, let alone middle-aged and old people. Moreover, literacy through eliminating illiteracy was incomparable to knowledge and relevant quality obtained through formal national education. Of course, the situation in other two counties was not optimistic. According to a survey in 1935, illiterates in the whole of Zouping County came to 139,266, accounting for 84.2% of the total population, male illiterates accounted for about 70% and female illiterates accounted for over 98%.[53] Jiangning County was educationally developed at that time, but in the permanent population in the county, male illiterates accounted for 82.2%, and female illiterates 98.7%. In the temporary population, male illiterates accounted for 82%, and female illiterates 96.7%. Among the people who went out, male illiterates accounted for 63.9%, and female illiterates 87.7%.[54] In sharp contrast with the situation during the period of the Republic of China, the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Making Nine-year Compulsory Education Universal was implemented across the country during the period of the Reform. Literate preschool children in rural areas accounted for over 90% on average. Because Dingzhou, Zouping and Jiangning counties were relatively developed areas in the eastern part of China, nine-year compulsory education was extensively made universal, and literate young and middle-aged people in the three counties accounted for nearly 100%. Great differences in the national education seriously affect the content of rural governance, so that the important matter of developing the basic national education in rural governance during the period of the Republic of China is no longer an urgent task for the present-day rural governance. Great differences in the national education also seriously affect the level and quality of rural governance, because the educational and cultural levels of villagers have a direct bearing on many aspects of self-governance among villagers, for example, elections of village cadres, supervision and decision-making, making village affairs known to the public and villagers’ participation, etc.

The Chinese traditional political culture is the political culture of “the people are subordinate to the ruler”. Its basic political value is not freedom, democracy and equality, but hierarchy, order and unity. It produces a strong sense of subordination and collective identity, but it lacks a sense of independence and a spirit of participation.[55] These features of the traditional political culture were mainly manifested in peasants, produced a great impact on the reform of rural governance during the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform and directly led to the common model of “government control” in the two rural governance movements. The first issue of the two reforms of rural governance after an interval of fifty years was just the same. Most of the villagers lacked a sense of democracy, had no enthusiasm for and capacity of participation in political and government affairs and took a passive attitude toward self-governance among villagers. Take Dingxian County for example. Although rural self-governance came into being quite early in the county, both government officials and rural residents lacked the initiative and had no capacity of participation in political and government affairs. Therefore, in most cases rural self-governance was only formalistic. Hebei Provincial County Political construction Research Academy found through research that except for few rural areas, residents in general rural areas did not gain an understanding of the meaning of self-governance and did not need it. On the surface, township and village heads were generally elected by the people, but the latter did not know the meaning of election, were not interested in it, even were not able to write the ballot, and were easily manipulated, so that the despotic gentry controlled the election. Therefore, the system of general election in rural areas in Dingxian County seemed to be implemented, but this resulted in a false story. (Li Defang, 2003) It is necessary to think deeply that the greatest issue of rural governance in the present-day Dingzhou County is still “both peasants and village cadres are indifferent to villagers’ governance. Some cadres at the higher level lack enough enthusiasm for self-governance among villagers. In collection of taxes and fees, administrative measures are useless, no one dares to resort to legal means, and self-governance among villagers seems not work. Grass-roots cadres expend most of their energy on efforts to collect money and urge the payment of money and little energy on the effort to seek development. The villagers’ method of handling cadres is that they till fields to make a living on their own, they do not comply with cadres in assigning labor and urging payment of money, they ask cadres for help if they encounter difficulties, and they are rude if proper service is not provided.” In a couple of villages, “villagers have little interest in election of village cadres. To arouse the villagers’ enthusiasm for election, those who participate in election can get 2 yuan. If the villagers’ general conference or the villager representatives’ conference does not involve their immediate interests, they are unwilling to attend it. If they attend it, they must be paid several yuan.” (Wang Fengming, 2003)

In short, the reform of rural governance is an important part of China’s social reform. It cannot be separated from the political, economic and cultural climates of society at large. Similarities and differences in reforms of rural governance during the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform are due to similarities and differences in their respective political, economic and cultural circumstance. During the period of the Republic of China, politically, the “representative democracy” was implemented under the rule of the Kuomintang; economically, capitalist private ownership was instituted. The political situation was turbulent, government orders were blocked, and the level of social and economic development was very low. During the period of the Reform, politically, the socialist democracy is implemented under the leadership of the CPC; economically, the socialist market economy with public ownership remaining dominant is instituted. The political situation is stable, government orders are uniform, and China witnesses rapid social and economic development. However, China’s rural areas during the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform are in the process of social transition. The traditional political culture is still deeply rooted in the hearts of villagers, and some laws governing political development in modern China still function. All this fundamentally determines the subjects, structures, processes, contents, methods and results of rural governance during the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform.

VIII. Conclusion: Models, Problems and Orientation

In the above chapters, we expound the structures, subjects, processes, contents, methods and social and historical backgrounds concerning the two rural governance reform movements during the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform and preliminarily compare and analyse their similarities and differences. So we will briefly summarize and comment on the features and significance of the two rural governance reforms and main difficulties which have been encountered as well as ways of overcoming these difficulties and continuing to promote rural good governance.

We are clear that there are many differences in rural governance during the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform and in different localities during the same period. But we still say that all models of rural governance from modern China until now have had some very important common features and that these common features against the background of different reforms of rural governance and symbolize the law on and the road to the development of China’s rural governance.

China’s rural governance is a governance model led by the government. Fundamentally speaking, reforms of rural governance including self-governance among villagers has been promoted from top down since the modern times. It normalizes, checks and guides the structures, functions and orientations of rural governance through laws, institutions and policies in an all-round way. Through various methods, the government basically controls the governing elite in rural areas and even directly sends officials to participate in village governance if necessary. It affects self-governance among villagers by providing funds and subsidies for rural governance and offering education and training to villagers and village cadres at regular intervals. The real significance of the concept of “township administration and village governance” put forward by some scholars is only the combination of the township and village interaction between the rule by the government and self-governance among villagers in the process of village governance. Pressure of higher levels versus lower levels and township administration versus village governance is only an auxiliary function of the model led by the government. The governance model led by the government is deeply rooted in China’s traditional political culture. It has the foundation and value for its existence, so we cannot deny its positive role. The means of governance including the government’s education, mobilization and guidance among villagers derived from the governance model led by the government and the method of “officials force people to become well-off” as sharply criticized by some scholars have their inner defects, but we cannot neglect their historical value.

China’s rural governance is a pluralistic governance model. Legally speaking, rural governance centering on self-governance among villagers should be unitary self-management among villagers. However, the results of the practice of rural governance during the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform show that the structure of governance is pluralistic. The three different authorities directly participate in rural governance. First, the official authority is mainly the township and town governments (administrative divisions below the level of county were changeable and chaotic during the period of the Republic of China. Generally speaking, the lowest administrative level in rural areas was district). Second, purely civil authority is mainly the civil organizations spontaneously formed in rural areas and non-institutional rural authority. Third, public authority between the government and civil organizations is mainly rural self-governance authoritative organizations as legally prescribed, for example, village office and public office, village private school during the period of the Republic of China and the present-day villagers’ committee and village Party branch. These three authorities exert influence on the contents, processes, methods and results of rural governance, and they usually function in some key fields. Generally speaking, government authority mainly affects the structure and orientation of rural governance, legal village authority mainly deals with routine village affairs as institutionally prescribed, and civil authority mainly affects non-institutional village affairs or affairs which cannot be handled with institutions.

China’s rural governance is an elite governance model. No matter what rural political system is implemented, the powerful elite with social status in rural areas plays a decisive role in village governance. There are obvious different standards for the local elite during different historical periods in the eyes of villagers. During the period of the Republic of China, the rural elite mainly consisted of the “country gentry” and “village sages” with moral integrity and prestige. During the period of the Reform, the rural elite mainly consists of the “able persons” who are very capable of becoming well-off. However, these elites play almost the same crucial role in the process of rural governance during different periods. Whether rural governance is good or bad hinges, to a great extent, on whether these rural elites are converted to legal management authority through institutional means or serve the public interests of villagers through other means. When these rural elites are effectively integrated into the legal process of village governance and play a decisive role, they often play the dual roles of agents and masters of the affairs of villagers. In a sense, this elite-governing model is a manifestation of the traditional Chinese political culture featuring Minbenism (Emperor’s citizen first) in rural governance since the modern times.

People generally think that all reforms of rural governance during the period of the Republic of China finally ended in failure and the basic reason for their failures was the final collapse of the political and economic systems which they relied on. But we cannot deny the fact that failures in these reforms were not separable from the problems and difficulties facing them. The new round of the reform of rural governance which has been carried out since China implemented the policy of reform and opening up is based on a new political and economic foundation, is full of vitality and is developing in depth. But we cannot deny the fact that there are many difficulties and problems in the process of progress. From historical and practical experience and lessons, we can see that there are mainly the following five common problems existing in the reform of rural governance.

The system of rural self-governance as legally prescribed becomes a mere formality to a great extent. During the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform, the central and local governments have specially formulated a series of laws and regulations on the system of villagers’ governance and made detailed provisions on the rights of villagers, the mechanisms and procedures for self-governance among villagers and the goals attained in villagers’ governance. But on the whole, the basic systems of villagers’ governance, for example, the electoral system, the decision-making system, the management system, the supervision system, etc. become a mere formality to a great extent and are not truly implemented. In some cases, matters are not handled according to legal systems. In some cases, there is only a formality, but there are no practical results. In other cases, legal provisions are seriously distorted in the process of implementation. The reason for the practical result is partly due to imperfections in provisions on the system of self-governance among villagers which fall far short of actual conditions and are hard to implement. But the main reason is that officials of local governments and village cadres have a weak awareness of law, democracy and responsibility and villagers lack adequate concepts of democracy and rights, enthusiasm for participation and capacity of governance.

The degree of self-governance among villagers is not high and there is too much government’s intervention. The kernel of the reform of modern rural governance is democratic self-governance among villagers and management of village affairs by them. But in the practice of actual villagers’ governance, the function of villagers’ self-management is seriously weakened, and the government intervenes in too many affairs of village governance. In many cases, legal village authoritative organizations become village offices sent by governments at higher levels. They do not embody the aspirations of villagers, but the intentions of governments at higher levels. In addition, local governments directly intervene in governance of village affairs by sending directly government officials to stay in villages and through other means. The strong administration in rural governance seriously weakens the degree of self-governance among villagers, and only the weak self-governance accompanies the strong administration.

The pluralistic structure of rural governance authorities greatly reduces the efficiency of governance. Only when the triple structure of rural governance authorities is highly coordinated can it play a positive role in promoting rural good governance. When they lack coordination and especially they conflict, adverse effects on governance are inevitably produced. During the period of the Republic of China, structural contradictions in rural governance mainly occurred between the authority of villagers’ self-governance and the authority of local governments. This vertical structural contradiction still exists in the present-day rural governance. Moreover, as the government’s power expands and extends to the lower levels, this contradiction is often sharper than that during the period of the Republic of China. These vertical conflicts are mainly manifested among villagers’ committees, villagers, township and town governments and Party committees. But the present principal structural contradiction is not vertical, but horizontal, namely the contradiction among legal village public authorities and the outstanding structural contradiction between the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch. Relationship between the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch in a village determines its governance to a great extent.

Social Capital takes too much its negative part in China’s rural governance. There is a very big gap between the reality and the ideal situation both in the Republic of China and the Reform and the rule of law is hardly followed out effectively in rural governance. Among major reasons led to it is the negative role of social capital that exists in rural society at large. Social capital as a network of reciprocity based on trust and participation can play both positive and negative roles in rural governance. The public interests would be impaired in case a few people exploit their social capital to increase interests of minority that are against the interests of majority. Its negative role would overcome its positive one for rural governance when social capital is exploited to violate laws, regulations and institutions. A complex network of clan, family, nepotism, friends, neighborhood, schoolfellow and so on, as a lot of case studies show, has deeply impacted the process of election of villagers and management of village’s affairs. As a result, injustice of distribution in public goods, out of normal order and failure in legal regulations take place now and then in rural community.

Illegal forces seriously disrupt democratic governance in rural areas. The reform in rural governance during the period of the Republic of China was seriously disrupted by local illegal forces, mainly clan forces, local tyrants and evil gentry. They manipulated elections, controlled village affairs and lawsuits, defiled public opinion and had their own way in everything. Today as reform and opening up goes further, these local illegal forces gradually begin emerging and impair rural democratic governance. In some localities, clan and family forces are still an important factor affecting self-governance among villagers. If clan and family forces are powerful, their members can be easily elected as village cadres and affect the major decisions of the village. In some localities, local ruffians and hooligans and other evil forces attempt to control self-governance among villagers and management of village affairs through intimidation, deception, coercion and luring and other illegal means. In some localities, some well-off villagers begin affecting elections of the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch and major decisions on village affairs through bribery.

Although the reform of rural governance centering on self-governance among villagers was filled with and is encountering many stern difficulties and challenges and even today some people oppose it, no one can prevent its advance. This is because it represents the orientation for the development of China’s modern rural democracy and is of tremendous significance to progress in rural society.

The reform of rural governance centering on self-governance among villagers is a great democratic practice among the peasants who account for a great majority of China’s population. It is a main feature of shift from traditional politics to modern politics in China’s rural areas. Studies of cases of the two reforms of rural governance during the periods of the Republic of China and the Reform fully show that they provide vast numbers of peasants with the legal ways of democratic participation and management, furnish institutional guarantees for realizing the citizens’ rights of peasants through legal means, create political conditions for political participation for underprivileged groups including the poor and women in rural areas and ensure that the Chinese peasants who have been in low social strata for a long time truly enjoy the value of democracy. They are useful experiments in China’s grass-roots democracy, provide much valuable experience for political democracy in the whole country and lay a solid foundation for a high degree of democracy. They have a great impact on the traditional feudal autocratic political culture, vigorously arouse the peasants’ awareness of democracy and law, cultivate the rural residents’ spirit of independence and their capacity of management and ensure that the modern democratic political culture begins expanding steadily among the peasants. In addition, the reform of rural democratic governance is conducive to improving relations between the government and peasants, maintaining social and political stability in rural areas, raising the peasants’ cultural and educational levels, reforming the rural customs and habits, promoting rural public undertakings and expanding the rural economy. Practice of the reform of democratic governance in China’s rural areas fully proves one conclusion in the Report on Human Development for 2002 issued by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Democracy itself is a value, and so far there has not been direct evidence which shows that it will necessarily lead to economic growth. But “a democratic government never does worse than any other governments in raising economic efficiency. Moreover, The democratic government obviously does better in meeting the urgent social needs of citizens. It is particularly true at a critical moment when the destiny of most of the people is affected or when the situation changes. What is equally important is that democratic participation is not only a means to achieve human development, but also an essential goal of human development.”[56]

Development of a socialist market economy, progress in democratic politics and construction of political civilization fundamentally require the need to continue to promote the current reform of rural governance. The orientation for the reform of rural democratic governance should be to gradually embark on rural good governance featuring the essential factors of democracy, self-governance, rule of law, participation, justice, transparency, responsibility and stability. To achieve the ideal democratic governance and good governance in rural areas, at present we should focus on the following five aspects to reform and improve the system of rural governance centering on self-governance among villagers.

To further improve laws and regulations on rural democratic governance, including relevant regulations and policies formulated by all provincial authorities and local governments. Particular attention should be paid to revise and improve laws and regulations on self-governance among villagers, rural family planning and rural taxes and fees to ensure that they are more reasonable, better meet rural actual conditions, are more conducive to protecting the legal rights and interests of peasants and are more feasible. One basic principle for improving these laws and systems is that we must proceed from the actual conditions which vary greatly in China’s rural areas, do everything conducive to protecting the legal rights and interests of peasants and cannot impose uniformity in all cases. For example, with regard to regulations on township and town grass-roots governments and villagers’ committees, the basic principle should be adhered to while full consideration and more flexibility should given to economic and cultural differences in all localities. In addition, great changes have taken place in rural family planning for dozens of years. Relevant policies should be revised at an appropriate time in light of actual conditions and formulate legal provisions as soon as possible. With regard to the ongoing reform aiming at conversion of rural fees to taxes, Great attention should be paid to reviewing experience and legalize and standardize that at an early date.

To integrate the pluralistic structure of village governance authorities as quickly as possible and ensure that village governance authorities form reasonable division of work and make a concerted effort. At present, we should concentrate on tackling the structural contradiction between the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch. Government should conscientiously study all effective approaches to attempting to settle this contradiction which all localities are exploring, for example, the “two-ballot system” in elections of the village Party branch, the system of the joint meeting attended by the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch, the crossing work system for members of the villagers’ committee and the village Party branch, all effective measures of village governance, etc. One basic approach to settling the structural contradiction between the village governance authorities should be that there must be only one legal center of public authority in every administrative village and it must be elected through democratic procedures, embody the aspirations of all villagers to the largest extent, and acquire the largest legal foundation.

To proceed from actual conditions, gradually raise the degree of self-governance among villagers and reduce the government’s administrative intervention. The basic goal of rural democratic governance is to ensure that villagers themselves manage village affairs according to law and finally achieve rural good governance with the help of local governments. On the one hand, the government must voluntarily withdraw from those items of rural governance if conditions for self-governance among villagers permit. On the other hand, if conditions for self-governance among villagers are not ripe, the government must continue to help villagers exercise effective governance to prevent rural governance from being illegal, out of control and invalid and finally impair the public interests of villagers. Therefore, In localities where the comprehensive quality of villagers and cadres is high, the economy and culture are relatively developed and villagers set strong democratic requirements, the government should withdraw from the management of village affairs, boldly promote grass-roots democracy and explore ways of holding direct democratic elections of township and town governments and raising the level of township and town self-governance. In some localities where economic and cultural conditions are backward and the comprehensive quality of villagers and village cadres is low, the government should not completely withdraw from village governance and “good government” is still an ideal goal of rural governance.

To do everything possible to protect and increase the legal rights and interests of vast numbers of peasants, reduce their burden and pressure and ensure that they truly benefit from democratic governance. The rural good governance is designed to maximize the public interests of peasants through democratic governance. If the reform of democratic governance in rural areas only aims at preventing peasants from “making trouble”, fulfilling retention of three fees and overall collecting of five fees and family planning targets without earnestly protecting the legal rights and interests of peasants and notably increasing their economic and political interests, there will be no rural good governance. Since China implemented the policy of reform and opening up, the material life of peasants has improved considerably, but there is still a great gap between them and urban residents. Most of the peasants only have enough food and clothing, many of them live in poverty and their economic burden is still too heavy. Helping peasants develop the economy, alleviate poverty and become rich is still the bounden duty of the government and the solid foundation for promoting the rural democratic governance.

5) To develop consciously positive social capital and improve the informal institutions to participate in rural political life for villagers. Such elements of social capital as trust, reciprocity and participation are essential for cooperation among villagers, rural elite and government officials. Such cooperation is vital for rural good governance. The productive role should be exerted to increase public interests by accumulating social capital based on mutual trust, reciprocity and civil engagement. Firstly, everything possible should be done to extend the network of trust, reciprocity and participation existing in such narrow community as family, clan and nepotism to a much broader rural community so that vast number of villagers could share this social capital. Secondly, the priority of common good to individual interests should be ensured through moral, legal and institutional means when there emerges conflicts between individual interest and common one among villagers. And lastly, legal compulsion should be used to limit negative social capital so that any one should pay higher costs than gains for his or her inappropriately exploiting social capital.

To step up all efforts to improve democracy and the legal system in rural areas, take the initiative to cultivate the peasants’ new political culture and govern the village according to law. The solid foundation for the traditional political culture is laid in rural areas, and the awareness of law and democracy among peasants and rural cadres is rather weak. We should strengthen education in the legal system and democracy among peasants through school and social education and other means. We should improve the work of dissemination of the general knowledge about law in rural areas and raise efficiency in publicizing law. We should increase training in village cadres and raise their level and capacity of management of village affairs according to law. At present, we should step up our efforts to introduce some advanced experience and practices in contractual management of village affairs in rural areas across the country. We should give full play to the important role of village regulations and folk conventions in management of village affairs and ensure the contractual governing in rural areas to the largest extent.

From our studies of comparative cases studies on the history and current conditions in China’s rural governance, we can draw the basic conclusion. China’s rural governance centering on self-governance among villagers originated during the period of the Republic of China, but it has truly laid an actual foundation since China implemented the policy of reform and opening up. The rural democratic governance is a basic embodiment of democratic politics with Chinese characteristics in rural areas and represents the orientation for the political development of China’s rural areas. The reform of rural governance centering on self-governance among villagers that was carried out in China’s rural areas in the 1980s is a breakthrough in China’s grass-roots democracy and an important part of China’s political restructuring. In the 21st century when social, political and economic climates are undergoing tremendous changes, the rural democratic governance faces opportunities and challenges for another breakthrough both in depth and width. To meet these challenges, we should take the initiative to prudently promote the reform of rural democratic governance. This will vigorously promote progress in China’s rural society and even the whole country as a whole.

Elemental References

1. “Rural Governance of Dingxian County during the Period of the Republic of China” (Case Study Report), Li Defang, 2003.

2. “Current Rural Governance of Dingxian County” (Case Study Report), Wang Fengming, 2003.

3. “Rural Governance of Zouping County during the Period of the Republic of China” (Case Study Report), Zhuang Weimin, 2003.

4. “Current Rural Governance of Zouping County” (Case Study Report), Wang Zhenhai, 2003.

5. “Rural Governance of Jianging County during the Period of the Republic of China” (Case Study Report), Ma Junya, 2003.

6. “Rural Governance of Jiangning County” (Case Study Report), Jin Taijun, 2003.