English
Français
Extract and translated from the French E-bulletin China Analysis – Les Nouvelles de Chine n°10, Nov. 2006, pp. 2-3
French Editor: M.Meidan. Translation: Michael Black
Synthesis and comments by Antoine Richard based on:
- "Why do we need peasant organisations?", an interview with Qin Hui by a journalist on the Nanfang Zhoukan, October 19 2006
In this interview with a journalist on the Nanfang Zhoukan, the historian Qin Hui, professor in the department of History at Qinghua University and an expert on the peasant question in China[1], talks about the question of peasant organisations (农民组织, nongmin zuzhi) in contemporary China.
In the wake of the "Canton consensus" which was initiated during the Forum on the development of rural China, Qin Hui talks about the debates taking place on the Chinese intellectual scene in a global historical perspective, and ponders the singularity of such organisations in the Chinese political context.
Initially, Qin Hui remarks that at present only the elected committees of villagers (村委会, cunweihui) are present in the countryside, having replaced the peasant assemblies (农会, nonghui), the traditional form of peasant organisation, which was the cradle of Maoist political culture. Among the intellectuals who call for the formation of new peasant organisations, the main argument put forward is that they are necessary to defend the democratic rights of the peasants. This is a purely rhetorical argument since the committees are elected by the peasants and prevail over all the other forms of organisation. What need can there then be to create new peasant organisations?
In answer to this question, Qin Hui ponders the function of the committees of elected villagers and their legitimacy. Does the fact that they are elected mean that they should replace any other form of organisation? In other words, is election the source of all forms of legitimacy and representativity ? By analogy, Qin Hui ponders the coexistence in the West of democratic governments with civil societies composed of numerous organisations of citizens (公民组织, gongmin zuzhi).
He recalls that democratic government and organisations of citizens are not the same thing, but the latter are the only basis on which democracy can be built. The task of democratic government is to represent a common authority (in the sense that it is accepted by all), whereas the organisations of citizens represent the power of each individual. Thus, without the existence of these independent organisations, citizens have no means of asserting their own particular demands, and this is how they form the basis of any democratic government. Using this analogy, Qin Hui suggests "breaking" the monopoly of the elected village councils, since the existence of peasant organisations should make it possible to advance specific demands.
At this point in the talk, the journalist does not turn his questions towards the definition of the powers and the administration of government in China, but opts for an even more theoretical line of questioning: Is democracy a denial of freedom? Is freedom of association more important than democracy?
To Qin Hui, the answer is clear. As he sees it, the central question in China today is indeed that of freedom of assembly, rather than the more abstract one of democracy, for the peasant organisations are not in any way political bodies. However, he points out, this does not mean that there are no problems connected with the absence of democracy in rural China.
The peasant organisations are not in any way democratic bodies, because if 10% of the peasants want to create an organisation, nobody can reprimand them on the pretext that they are only a minority. Likewise, if 90% of the peasants want to join similar organisations, the latter cannot use their decision-making power to override the minority.
Qin Hui is determined to clearly separate these two problems, explaining that the peasant organisations are necessary to protect the interests of their members, while the government — represented by its officials at local level — exercises public authority. While the peasants can organise freely, and although the officials are not democratically elected, the peasant organisations cannot claim to take on a legal representative role. Conversely, if the peasants are not free to organise, despite the officials being democratically elected, the latter cannot assume all the rights of the peasants.
Freedom of assembly, although it is in practice a political problem — especially in this particular case, because the cadres would feel threatened by the coexistence of two forms of legitimacy — is not in principle comparable to democracy. On the contrary, the formation of a small organisation requires a much higher degree of trust between its members (as is the case in a family). In the light of this example — and that of the NGOs — the debate must therefore be placed not on the ground of a confrontation between democratic society and non-democratic society, but on that of the social responsibility of each individual within a society. Qin Hui explains that it is this question of responsibilitywhich makes necessary the formation of these peasant organisations, because a growing number of peasants find themselves deprived of any possibility of action in the face of the ever-increasing urbanisation of the Chinese countryside, because of the desire for enrichment of local cadres who sell land at high prices. Thus, he concludes, who other than the peasant organisations is best able to protect the rights of the peasants?