Discussion of social management mode conversion of Hangzhou Government.
Pan, Yihe
Distinguished professors and scholars, the issue I would like to
discuss with you today is the transformation role of local government in
contemporary China; this reform mainly refers to the change from an
authoritarian government to a learning and service-oriented government.
I will take the example of Hangzhou City, China's southeastern
coastal area, which is also the city I lived in. In recent years, I have
observed the new attempts and harvests the local government has made in
the social governance mode, and I have often considered the meaning of
this transformation on political reform.
First of all, let's look at the four cases of urban governance
I was experiencing.
The first case is about not charging for the parks along the West
Lake, which happened in Hangzhou in 2002. Eight years ago, the Hangzhou
government announced that the main attractions around West Lake in
Hangzhou would be free of charge, which was unprecedented among
China's tourist destinations. Experts and Hangzhou citizens around
me were talking about the public policy heatedly, and they mainly
thought the huge park ticket sales would be lost, which would affect the
public finances; they also worried that scenic spots might become
unattended, disorderly, and dirty. After that, the policy of being free
of charge was implemented. From the aspect of government's role and
behavior, this process is still the "Mao-style" democracy of
New China, or we may call it the operation of "democratic
centralism," which means democracy first, and then centralism.
Although public opinion was collected and listened to, the one who could
really make plans and decisions was only the government. Of course, when
we look back in ten years, we will find that the free of charge policy
effectively strengthened the concept of sharing the public cultural
facilities in the city, and it caused some major public places in
Hangzhou to form a "free of charge" practice later; for
example some libraries, museums, public houses, and community activities
centers were all free of charge. Moreover, it greatly attracted domestic
tourists, leading to an increase of local revenue, so we could call it a
successful reform. After that, a number of other cities soon followed
the trend. Now, the public feels quite positive about the reform.
The second case was the "Street and Lane reconstruction
project," which was started in 2005 in Hangzhou. In this project,
the local government implemented the central government's political
value--"people oriented". The local government decided to
allocate a large amount of money from local revenues to help low-income
people in dangerous and old houses. However, during this period, the
Hangzhou government first proposed the concept of governance--to promote
democracy and people's livelihood, so the government used a
"democratic" approach to implementing relevant procedures.
First of all, the government disseminated its ideas through media, and
sought suggestions extensively from relevant groups as well as urban
development experts and citizens: where to change, how to change and how
to supervise the complicated works. Eventually more than 90% of the
public felt satisfied with the policy. The reason why so many people
agreed was mainly because the whole process was meant to achieve the
pre-existing intention of "decision by the people": everything
from decision-making, scheme rebuilding, multiple consultations,
repeated negotiations and reserved lines called for the people to
supervise the process to completion. Hangzhou local government's
role was no longer the final master of "first democracy and then
centralism", but instead a General Director on a grand scale,
involving many participants in building activities. It is worth noting
that in this case, the government and the three major groups including
citizens who benefited, building contractors, media professionals and
intellectuals achieved the "Four in One" linkage.
The third case is the problem of "urban traffic
congestion," which has not yet been resolved. If any of you,
professors and scholars, have a chance to visit Hangzhou, the biggest
headache or unpleasant thing for you would be the phenomenon of traffic
jams during working hours. Everyday, in the morning peak and evening
peak, whether you are traveling by bus, taxi or private car, you may be
stuck in the wide newly-built street. There are many people who ride a
bicycle or an electric bicycle, but they do not abide by the rules,
which is also one of the reasons for road congestion. Concerning this
problem the Hangzhou government has repeatedly "polled people"
through launching discussions by network, telephone, and
telecommunications. In the process of these discussions, experts
collected many feasible schemes of value with a number of solutions.
Several TV stations and network media cooperated to organize centralized
or decentralized organizational discussions. On this basis, the Hangzhou
government has introduced numerous policies and regulations, such as
solving the difficult problem of parking in residential and public
places. Next, they implemented the system of the odd and even numbers on
weekends, controlled the annual volume of vehicle licenses, rationalized
the design of roads and traffic lights, sped up the subway construction
process, and strengthened the awareness of people to observe the law,
etc. It is a pity that the phenomenon of traffic jams has still not
really eased in Hangzhou. Like other provincial cities in China, the
problem is becoming even worse. But it must be praised that in this
ongoing process of "polling people", the Hangzhou government
realized equal interaction and consultation interaction between
"the officials" and "the people." Government
officials get to know, listen to and understand the mood and quality
changes of the public; moreover, the citizens have felt the complication
of the problem and the difficulties in solving the problem. I believe,
in regard to this problem, the process of consultation is going to
continue for a long time.
The fourth case is what we call "Social Composite
Subject," which was gradually established in Hangzhou since 2000.
To be exact, they are social organizations and cooperation platforms
with local characteristics. The Social Composite Subject mainly refers
to the free combination between equal entities, such as government,
academics, businessmen and media. According to the expertise of the
participants and the different community projects, they cooperate in a
flexible and orderly manner. The government, however, mainly plays the
role of service provider and coordinator in these activities and
projects, intervening when invited. The government tries its best to
give room to participants for sharing interests, while at the same time
keeping the role directed and regulated.
In short, in these four cases, the role of local government changes
significantly from dominator to host then to equal consultant. This
apparent change will have a significant social impact on the
government's role of self-perception, public understanding, and
experience towards democracy.
Next, I will simply elaborate on how I thought of the
transformation role of Chinese local governments and political social
effects.
First of all, I suppose all of you professors and experts will
notice that the three examples cited above are all about the specific
changes of social governance, not the fundamental reform of the
political system. What may generate concern is that if the political
system can not reflect the political values of the core concepts, such
as democracy, or more specifically "of the people, by the people,
for the people," the specific policies and the democratization of
governance improvement, is no more than making the political system more
stable and more efficient, which may not have the legitimacy.
We know clearly that western countries attach great importance to a
protective system of citizens' rights to vote and government's
decision-making transparency and fairness, as well as the separation of
powers and balance checking of government agency design. If the
political values, political systems and public policies are three
important levels when we consider politics from the inside out, from
concept to implementation, then considering the current status of China,
what the local government could do better in political reform is at the
level of public policy transparency and fairness.
Regarding the two aspects of democracy, the system level and policy
level, which are more important, I think there is definitely a
theoretical controversy. Nevertheless, the nature of the two should be
connected to realize the people's participation in both the
management and self-management. With political governance at the city
level, and public participation through public policy, the government
can feel the pressure of public opinion from the people, and citizens
can thus effectively urge the government to work for them. From the
angle of the interaction between government and citizens, the people of
Hangzhou become increasingly involved in the construction and
development of their own, which is what I am glad to see.
Even if the change at the management level is a political reform on
the surface, which is similar to the Hangzhou government public policy
making and implementing process, it still needs the qualified support of
the local public. In recent years, Hangzhou government invited some
non-local scholars and investigators to examine and give suggestions to
Hangzhou. After reading their reports, I found that, in their
comparison, observation and research, they believe that many of
Hangzhou's public policy making and implementing process could not
be duplicated by other provinces or cities. For example, recently the
Hangzhou government required that all public transport buses must let
the pedestrian go first at a zebra crossing. Under the guidance of
public transport vehicles, taxis and private cars now try not to cut in
while driving. What's more, most people would denounce the cut-in
cars altogether. However, the same provision in another southern city in
China had to be given up. Though the government is determined to do it,
sometimes it could not obtain its goal because of some objective
conditions. This shows that during the three decades of China's
reform and opening up, the regional differences have held the pace of
political reform at the national level with great care. In Hangzhou, the
role of local government transformation is intended to support the
development of local realities, to explore new features, and to adapt to
the current development stage of the governance model which is
"democracy promoting the people's livelihood," which is a
new mode of urban governance. This exploration from within China, one of
the first, is active and effective. This exploration has led many
visitors from other countries and other parts of China to feel that
Hangzhou has changed, becoming more open, comfortable and safe, even
with the quality of a modern urban civilization
The second issue is that, under the premise that there is no great
change in terms of the overall political system in China, when the
appointment, appraisal, promotion, transfer and organizational
management of the cadres have no great change, why should the Hangzhou
government look for pressure from the public? What is their initiative
and motivation to reform the working mode?
Both in the past and at present, China, faced with complex problems
arising from super-large-scale social governance, is a country whose
political and administrative powers are all concentrated. In theory, a
high concentration of administrative power should be coupled with a high
level of democracy; otherwise there will be what our new China suffered
during the first thirty years after its establishment, which is
arbitrary executive power, corrupting public decision, economic
development following no objective law of development, and people'
lives lacking basic security. What should a high level of democracy that
suits China be like: representative democracy, consultative democracy,
democratic elections, civil society or something else?
When intellectuals in China today discuss the similar issues, they
not only take reference from western experience, but also from the rich
experience of many non-westerners, as well as China's own
experience. What should be made clear is, currently, among the overseas
experience, it is the road of democracy in East Asian countries, not the
democratic process in western countries that is more attractive to
Chinese people's eyes. For instance, Singapore and Japan both have
a long-term ruling party, while Taiwan, China and Korea have a very
painful and confusing process in democracy. From the perspective of a
democracy model more in line with China's current practice, it is
not a competitive democracy but a consultative democracy. If the basis
of a competitive democratic system is to be divided into groups of
interest, China's current social and economic development are the
highlighted differences in people's interests and the widening gap
between rich and poor. If the interest of institutional and policy
competition is strengthened during this period, the awareness of rights
and a sense of division may also be strengthened. When people's
rights are not fully realized, group splits may lead to a strong sense
of social conflict
As in my observation and understanding, the control mode conversion
of the Hangzhou government has two reasons: one is that the central
government has become decentralized, so that the local governments can
have more initiative and enthusiasm in the local fiscal revenue and
social governance; the second is that the real work of local government
is directly related to people's livelihood. In order to do well,
the local governance is to better develop the local economy first, and
then win more support from local people. Besides, the politicians should
have the awareness to let the economic benefits serve local
people's livelihood. Only if the economic benefits are connected
with improving people's quality of life, would local people
continue to support the government's economic and social
governance. This relationship is not only that "democracy"
should have "economic premise", but also it is to promote
successful economic use of the "democratic" way. So this is a
"people's livelihood first, democracy later"
relationship, and also a "to promote people's livelihood
through democracy" one.
Thirdly, the characteristic of the current governance conversion
model of Hangzhou government is not a western-style through citizen
participation, strengthening democratic ideas and oversight mechanisms
for authorization, but a public participation in China's local
governments to get more rational and efficient development and
implementation of public policies. The focus of this pattern is not to
emphasize a mutual supervision system, but to strengthen a mutual
coordination mechanism. The government hopes the public can meet and
support their people-beneficial policies, so it invites the public to
discuss and supervise, making public satisfaction a criterion to measure
its political performance. Government in this process understands public
opinion and grievances and knows the necessity to posit the working
mode. While the public on one hand hopes the government ensures social
stability so that they can make sure their own interests can increase
stability, on the other hand, a lot of problems can only be solved by
the government, no other social organizations or social interest groups
can replace it. So they are pleased to see the government's
decision-making process as open, transparent, and reasonable, and
they're more willing to be involved in the public policy-making
process which directly affects their lives. During the process of
participation, they learned public awareness and social community value.
Based on this mutual understanding, compared to western styles with
public argumentation, margin election and fierce competition, this way
could be accepted by the central government, local government and common
people and thus eliminate the current discontent.
The third issue is whether the micro-political reform process in
Hangzhou is sustainable. How much influence could be sustained? Will the
similar reform in policy level and management level gradually form the
public need and opinion for system reform?
In my opinion, China's economic and political development have
both a world-connected side and a more and more self-contained side.
Within China, there is the "scattered political reform" under
the central and unified leadership, and there also exists
micro-political change and self-containment in different provinces and
municipal cities. The reform attempt of the Hangzhou local government is
exploratory and continuous. In addition to the change of government
model, there are also the continuous efforts for building a new social
organization and a multilateral cooperation platform; that is, the
Social Composite Subject, which was mentioned in Case four. I hope I
will get an opportunity to write and discuss issues in this field in
detail. These efforts are not only based on the Chinese tradition, but
also based on a "subculture" level of local cultural
traditions. This little tradition in fact has a long history and deep
roots.
As mentioned above, the current governance model conversion of
local government in Hangzhou is mainly focused on public policy, which
mainly deals with the contradictions and needs that affect people's
daily lives in the process of urban development. It should be said that
some of these contradictions and needs are non-fundamental interest
disputes and rights appeals, which are of great importance. The local
government has the power to solve them independently. But the
realization of more principled power and interests, indeed, needs to
wait for the institutional change of central government.
Through equal exchange and democratic consultation and through the
related interest and information, the local government not only reached
many social consensuses with people which led to a number of reasonable
public policies and activated the creativity of local culture, but it
also cultivated their common good awareness and community participation
in democratic capacity building.
From the view of development, I hope that this local democratic
culture can first promote some of the decision-making process to evolve
into the democratization of all public decision-making; then it can
influence the surrounding urban and sub-urban districts in the province
of their social governance. Moreover, it can affect the local quality of
deputies and government officials who exert an influence on the central
and national level meetings or decision-making. Ultimately, China's
democracy entering system and political value level can be achieved. In
other words, I think the significance of these micro-reforms should not
be exaggerated, but we need more courage and patience, hoping for more
participation of common people's and intellectuals'
involvement. This will ensure its sustainability and viability, to
supervise its creativity and adaptability in the new issues, thus to
expand and secure its existing meaning of social and political reform.
Note: Yihe Pan's main research interests are in Comparative
Political Culture, World Literature, and Comparative Culture Studies.
(This speech translated by Yan Liu, College of Media and
Intercultural communication, Zhejiang University.)
References
Dewey, J. (1991). The public and its problems. Athens: Ohio
University Press.
Pateman C. (2006). Participation and democratic theory. Shanghai:
Shanghai People's Press.
Pan, Y. (2010). Democracy in Jiving world: searching the new
political culture of contemporary China. Beijing: Social Science and
Literature Press.
Yihe Pan
Zhejiang University
Correspondence to:
Yihe Pan
College of Media and International Culture
Zhejiang University
34 Tianmushan Road
Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310028
P.R .China
Email: panyihe@zju.edu.cn
