This seems a rather superficial analysis of the problems in making village democracy work. Others argue that the party supports village democracy specifically because it reinforces the party’s grip on power. Both views can’t be right.

Here’s an alternative analysis. Democracy is not a pair of magic underpants that you can put on one morning to solve all your problems in one fell swoop. It is an instrument that is fragile, blunt and complex.

When village democracy was first introduced large numbers of people, amounting to significant majorities in specific rural constituencies, would have been functionally illiterate. When you are functionally illiterate you cannot read either documents explaining processes or candidates’ manifestos. You are therefore entirely dependent on having things explained to you by word of mouth, a process which is both inefficient and subject to whatever interpretation the ‘explainer’ chooses to put on it. Want an example? Here’s one: “It’s easy. Just mark a cross here.”

Even today, very large numbers of rural people (for example many of those over 40), although no longer illiterate by WHO or UN standards, will have received only a rudimentary education. You can implement democracy all you like but it won’t serve its purpose until the electorate is sufficiently well-educated to take advantage of it, and even more important, to protect itself from possible abuse.

I will be writing a series of articles on the subject of Chrter 08 in the coming weeks on China.org. You are all welcome to append your comments. The first one is here:
http://www.china.org.cn/international/2009-01/14/content_17106331.htm

Thanks for the comment and the links. I just had a quick look at your blog and it looks really good, looking forward to reading you from now on. I am increasingly interested in Chinese politics and I find there is a lack of English speaking blogs centered on this as opposed the the massive number on buisiness, internet and anecdotes.

@Charlotte: thanks for your contribuions. I’ve been a bit scared recently since you suggested in a comment that I give my life for the revolution.

I think that this article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06EED71438F93BA35757C0A9629C8B63) can also contribute to Charlotte’s comments on the CCP’s refusal to let the Chinese people self-govern.

Frankly, I find apologists for the CCP baffling if admirable in their intellectual undertaking. Do they delight in defending the worst behavior on earth? At least genocides sometimes occur between warring peoples; these folks are too weak to take on, kill and oppress anyone except their own.

Please do not give me the sob story of what a difficult job the CCP has always had and would others have done better. As a surge of Chinese people would tell you on the message boards in China, a) China would not be such a mess now if the CCP has not f*ck’d it up so badly and b) if it’s too hot get out of the kitchen and let others have a go at it! c) the Chinese people are tired of being told that they are the most intelligent race on earth, beating out even the Germans and the Jews (Yes, the leadership is racist to bat, but no surprises there!), and the most hard-working, and the most moral, etc. Except that they are not fit to rule themselves. Just a tiny caveat, that.

Of course, some may argue that the Party overreacted, and that even if the democracy advocates had been given free rein and allowed to publish and organize as they please, the majority of the Chinese people would not have bothered to listen. If that hypothesis holds water, then the CCP has been ruling through nothing but miscalculation and overreaction every step of its rule: from the GLF, to the Cultural Revolution, to Tiananmen, to the crackdown on 08 Charter today. Why anyone should defend a political party that unjustifiably treats its own population as 1 billion domestic enemies is beyond me. Can you make an argument that such mistakes lend any government legitimacy? And we have not even touched on the right of self-governance as a universal principle yet!

Leo, I assume you mean KMT refusal proves that China did not provide the historical conditions for democracy. Please see my response from above. By that sort of tautological reasoning, as long as the government is not prepared to loosen its control over the population, the population is unprepared for democracy. If indeed as you seem to be hinting, democracy is such a difficult and perilous enterprise requiring many preconditions, then surely the sooner baby steps are taken the better. That way, the people have the chance to learn the responsibilities of citizenship and to exercise their rights effectively. Village elections over the last twenty years have shown that the party has nothing but contempt for such exercise, and stomp down attempts at civic society organizing at every turn.

@Leo – I’m not sure I get your point. Do you seriously believe that Mao wanted Democracy and Human Rights, and there was a sort of conspiration by KMT and USA to deny these to the Chinese people? Yes, right.