【Ｄｅｍｏｃｒａｃｙ　ｉｎ�。簦瑁濉。停幔耄椋睿纭縤n the end

　　The focus of China’s grassroots democracy building has shifted from the countryside to urban areas. In recent years, many Chinese cities, including Beijing, have been actively exploring ways to realize democracy at the grassroots level. What is the driving force behind this campaign? What challenges does it face presently? How can it achieve new breakthroughs in the future? With these questions in mind, Beijing Review spoke with Li Fan, Director of the World and China Institute, a non-governmental think tank based in Beijing.
　　Beijing Review: What is your view of China’s current grassroots democracy development in urban areas?
　　Li Fan: China’s urban areas have just started to develop grassroots democracy, but problems have already risen. At the community level, the problem mainly lies in the improper relationship between the community committee and the government. One of the goals established by the Ministry of Civil Affairs when it set about shaping democracy in urban communities was to separate the community committee from the government, thus achieving community self-governance in a real sense. However, judging from the present state of affairs, the goal has not been reached. Some local governments are still interfering in the operation of community committees, either intentionally or unintentionally.
　　In the meantime, it should be admitted that as budding democracy grows in urban communities, a few auspicious trends have become evident. For example, awareness of democracy among urban residents has been greatly enhanced. The traditionally submissive city dwellers have begun to take an active part in managing community affairs. In addition, they now have better coordination with the government in times of disputes. The emerging democratic atmosphere is, of course, conducive to the positive development of the communities.
　　Another major problem that has cropped up in the process is the increasingly fierce interest conflict between property owners’ committees and property management companies. At present, the property management company is initially designated by the property developer, which may represent government interests. As a result, when property owners run into differences with the property management company over the management model and service charges, the property owners’ committee, an organization aimed at protecting the rights of property owners, can be embroiled in vehement disputes with the property management company. It may go so far as to demand the naming of a new property management company to replace the one designated by the property developer. However, this demand can hardly be met because of the property management company’s vested interests. The conflict between the two therefore risks escalating into incidents of violence or bloodshed.
　　Conflicts arising from property owners’ efforts to safeguard their rights have become inflamed social issues in recent years. These outbreaks mark property owners’ awakening to their legitimate rights, something that is welcome in a sense. With society developing and channels and opportunities for airing opinions increasing, it is only natural to see more clashes between conflicting interests. The key to solution lies in striking a balance between them. However, they are just beginning to learn how to reconcile with each other at present.
　　In the last couple of years, after achieving direct community committee elections, some cities are now looking for ways to deepen the democratic reform. For example, in Beijing and Shanghai, some communities have developed a mechanism comparable to the parliamentary democracy. The idea is to free the community committee from the heavy daily workload to concentrate more time and effort on promoting democratic self-governance. How do you regard this system?
　　Judging from its performance, it can only be said that the system has both advantages and disadvantages. What’s good about it is that highly qualified people, such as college professors and primary school principals, can be elected members of the community committee. As far as I know, although they do not work full time, they are able to introduce new concepts and democratic awareness to the communities with their strong sense of social responsibility. Traditionally, however, the community committees are composed of retired senior citizens who do not have a good educational background. For them, working in the community committee is only a way to make some contributions to society during the rest of their lives.
　　The problem is that in some cities community committees, which are supposedly equal to the parliament, only play a limited role or are completely deprived of their due authority for various reasons. Take Haishu District of Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, for example. When the district first adopted this system three years ago, the “parliamentary election” was extremely competitive. However, almost nobody showed interest in the coming election. This is precisely because the “parliament” has not been able to function effectively. In the future, more attention should be focused on revising the current system so that the “parliament” can play a more active part.
　　In fact, Shenzhen is trying a third approach. In March 2005, “government work stations” were set up in some districts in the city. As local government arms, whose staff members are appointed by the government, these stations perform all the government duties, thus freeing community committees from any official obligations. Community committees are only responsible for dealing with the affairs of the residents.
　　Before the reform was launched, the municipal government held a series of scrupulous deliberations. As the system has just been put into practice, its effectiveness has yet to be seen. I don’t want to talk too much about it for the time being.
　　As a novelty in China, is the “community congress” system relevant to the development of urban grassroots democracy?
　　It is highly relevant. The development of democracy relies on the interaction between the government and civil society. In places where this system is adopted, especially areas with a flourishing private economy, the concept of “small government, big society” is likely to be accepted by all members of society, government officials and individual citizens alike.
　　Chinese urban dwellers used to be affiliated to their employers or “work units,” most of which were state owned. Their work units provided them with all the political and economic resources they needed. As community life was merely a minor part for them, it was impossible for the residents to show enthusiasm about participating in the affairs of their communities. However, with the rise of the market economy, many state-owned work units have gone bankrupt, while new non-governmental employers have mushroomed. As a result, a large number of people have to bid farewell to their caring work units to embrace society and its problems. They have begun to demonstrate a keen interest in community affairs, as residents in the true sense. The parliamentary system has been mostly adopted in communities where such people constitute the majority to cater to their aspirations to manage the communities democratically.
　　In the traditional society over the past thousands of years, common Chinese people generally fit into two categories: the obedient and the rebellious. Today, under “parliamentary democracy,” the Chinese are nurturing a brand-new mentality. They are learning to manage their own affairs by themselves and to put forward constructive suggestions to the government.
　　Compared to the grassroots democracy building in rural areas, its progress in urban areas is relatively slow. Does that mean the program has met with any hindrance in urban areas?
　　Grassroots urban residents are a major driving force in the campaign. They are playing an important role in supervising the government, fighting corruption and reforming the legal system, a move that is in the correct direction.
　　The government’s resolve also contributes to the development of grassroots democracy. Under the current political system, grassroots democracy cannot materialize in China without the support of the government. However, when it is realized, the government is expected to gradually fade out so as not to hinder its progress.
　　The Chinese Government is surely trying to adjust its role, as can be seen in the daring endeavor to introduce “community congress” in urban communities. However, it should be noted that in some regions the government is still playing an excessive role, exerting great pressure on the neighborhood committees’ seeking self-governance.
　　The absence of relevant laws is a pressing problem. Without legal guarantee, democracy will struggle to achieve sustainable development.
　　In the context of profound changes that have taken place in China’s economy and society, it is believed the trend toward democracy is not to be held back. Where do you think a breakthrough is likely to be made?
　　In light of the limited influence of community committees, I think a new democratic process should be jump-started to beef up the beleaguered reform. That is, the election of deputies to the district-level [only next to the municipal level] people’s congresses. More representatives should come from the grassroots so that every committee can be effectively represented in the congress.
　　At present, most of the deputies are leaders of “work units.” Although they live in communities, they don’t have enough time to learn about the opinions of ordinary citizens. If progress can be made in this regard, it could bring about a breakthrough, as the deputies have a say in the government’s policy-making. In other words, it would be difficult if we rest the hope of promoting urban grassroots democracy totally on community committees.
　　
　　Li Fan: a Window on China
　　
　　EYE ON DEMOCRACY: Li Fan, Director of the World and China Institute, says he believes democracy will become
　　prevalent in China
　　Li Fan was born into a civil servant’s family in 1949, the year the People’s Republic of China was founded. He was a soldier and then a worker before being admitted to Beijing Normal University in 1978 as a postgraduate student. After graduation, he started his lifelong career in political science research at the Institute of Political Science at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
　　In 1984, Li was sent to study in the United States, where he worked for a master’s degree at Ohio State University. He visited almost all prestigious U.S. think tanks, including the RAND Corp., Hoover Institute and Brookings Institution, during holidays the next summer. From these visits, he concluded that think tanks must be detached from the government in order to develop.
　　With a rosy dream of building a Chinese non-governmental think tank, Li returned to China in 1989. The strenuous efforts made by him and several of his friends culminated in the inception of the World and China Institute in 1994. Apart from conducting research on international relations, the institute is largely devoted to observing China’s political development.
　　The institute was thrust into the spotlight at home and abroad in 1998 for the crucial role it played in the township chief direct election in Buyun in southwest China’s Sichuan Province, the first of its kind on China’s mainland. The following year, Time magazine named Buyun one of the “50 places that define modern China.” Li has been dedicated to promoting China’s political reform ever since in the capacity of a non-governmental organization (NGO) leader, finding himself involved in all the country’s remarkable political reforms.
　　However, few could imagine the low-profile presence of the World and China Institute. It is based in an inconspicuous residential community in the eastern suburbs of Beijing with only four full-time staff members and another 50 or so working for it in one way or another. Li explains that an NGO cannot afford to employ too many people. Most of those engaged in the institute have an overseas education, which enables them to better grasp the relationship between China and the world.
　　Li said, “One third of me is a scholar who publishes articles and books, one third is a businessman who earns money to run the institute and one third is a social activist who takes part in the building of grassroots democracy.”
　　He is often invited to give lectures on China’s political democracy at international institutions such as Harvard University and the International Republican Institute. His institute also frequently hosts overseas visitors.
　　Regarding himself as a “show window” of the Chinese Government, Li says he is better known abroad than in China. Through the window, the world will learn more about China’s growing political freedom, democracy and openness, he added.

相關(guān)熱詞搜索：Democracy Making Ｄｅｍｏｃｒａｃｙ　ｉｎ�。簦瑁濉。停幔耄椋睿� in+the+making in the making