Public Pledge, Public Indignation, and Public Discussion:The Legal Discursive Field in Contemporary China
季卫东
【全文】
Ji Weidong
Kobe University
I. Introduction
A Recent Example of Electioneering in Rural China
Twelve young researchers from Beijing University’s Rural China Study Group surveyed Ancun, a remote Northeastern village, on basic issues of self-governance and village elections during the period of 29 September - 03 October 2002.They later presented their field research and preliminary analysis in a comprehensive report.This report vividly depicts the tensions and conflicts arising between the peasants, who seek the right and access to knowledge and democratic participation, and the local authorities as the fringes of administrative powers, reflecting the process of democratization at the village level, as promoted by the Organic Law of Village Committee and the related regulations.Furthermore, this report describes the people’s efforts, using the various laws and decrees concerning village self-autonomy as ammunition, to independently conduct a democratic election, despite their prior defeats of three times.The legal struggle or popular resistance included methods as the above-noted self-organized election, as well as appealing to higher authorities for righting wrongs (shang-fang), etc.
According to this report, the villagers of Ancun demanded the disclosure of information regarding village affairs since 1999.This demand arose from the villagers’ indignation towards the “village officials,” especially the Village Party Secretary and Head of Village Committee, who wantonly trampled on government policy as well as village contracts regarding distribution of contracted land and its production responsibilities, and used public power for private gain. However, the villagers’ rational and legal demands remained ignored.Thus the villagers made multiple attempts to remove the “village officials”, starting with the election of village committee members in 2000.However, with the aid of township leaders, the Ancun village committee members nullified the first three elections by distorting elector rosters registered in the town administrative office’s computer, obstructing issuance and delivery of voter registration cards, and stealing ballot papers.Thus, the villagers decided to organize the fourth election themselves.In line with village election procedures, the villagers carried out registration of voters at the beginning of January 2002, held primary election on 15 January, and final election on 20 January.Although mildly violent activities of seizing ballot boxes arose to a small extent, the self-organized and voluntary election succeeded, thanks to many villagers’ support.The election management committee reported the results to the local authorities on the final voting day.As expected, for the fourth time, the authorities nullified the election results.
After hearing the announcement over the local radio and television broadcast on Jan. 26, the Ancun villagers launched anew their battle and began repeatedly appealing to higher authorities against these malpractices by the “village officials” and township authorities.Especially following 12 March, when one of the village organizing leaders were taken into custody, some representatives of the village bypassed the immediate or intermediate institutions of authority, and went directly to Beijing for the third time to present their appeals to state organs and the mass media.To date, this problem is not yet resolved.
No matter how preliminary this short narrative is, we can still see the general trend of changes from peasant to civil society in rural areas—that is, developments in public knowledge regarding law and democracy, and tensions emerging between arbitrary decisions and public or mass discussions. In this scenario, we can observe how the peasants use the powers of popular and public opinion, through the noted self-motivated participations, direct elections, democratic management, mass supervision, and joint decision-making processes. These elements indicate, implicitly, the potential for the construction of a new kind of peasant public sphere. On one hand, the peasants’ side begins to make conscious use of laws and public opinion for the protection of personal rights and interests and rural grassroots self-governance.On the other hand, the Chinese government strengthens its supervision over administrative personnel at the lowest level, aided by rural democratization and these popular resistances.It may also be said that, through the interaction of three institutional factors—(1) the village pacts (cun-gui-min-yue), (2) the village committee elections, and (3) the feedback system of appealing to the higher authorities—and through popular or public opinion connected therewith, the top and the base of the power structure are linked up. As a result, a particular kind of public knowledge concerning a type of “legal community” or justice appears obscurely in its embryonic form from the dynamics of discursive venues.
