Wukan Village Elections: Advent of Democracy?

Wukan Village Elections: Advent of Democracy?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 6, 2012

Summary: How will the popularly elected Wukan Village Committee perform? Will the "Wukan Experience" enable the implementation of village and street-level election reform elsewhere on the Mainland? We should not expect larger scale democratic reforms for the time being. Is Beijing is willing to permit a single village to implement democracy first? If it is, then it has already begun in Wukan Village.

Full Text below:

Wukan Village, a seaside fishing village in Lufeng City, Guangdong Province, has just held a village by-election. Only 8373 voters registered for the election. Only 6899 ballots were issued. Nevertheless everyone has attached great importance to this election. Beijing sent officials to monitor the proceedings. Officials from the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou showed up, accompanied by translators. Mainland politicians and academics, reporters from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao, reporters from AFP and other European and American media companies all followed the election closely. Everyone is waiting to see whether this local election will be the catalyst that introduces democratic reforms to the Chinese Mainland.

The election originated with the Wukan Incident in September last year. Prior to last September, not a single election had been held in Wukan Village for 60 years. The Village Committee was selling off the village commons at below market value. On the books, each villager was credited 6000 RMB. But Lin Zhuluan, the leader of the protest said "We never saw a single cent of the money." The villagers said the government's operations were opaque. They suspected those in charge of corruption. They surrounded the government offices and police station, and staged angry protests. One Village Committe Member died while in police custody. The protest became a domestic and international media event. The situation spiraled out of control. The result was the Village Committee By-election.

The Wukan Village By-election involved several phases. It began on February 1st. Villagers elected 11 members to the Wukan Village Election Committee. They were charged with setting up the election. On February 12th villagers elected 109 Village Representatives and seven Village Group Leaders. On March 3rd they elected one Village Committee Chief and one Deputy Chief. On March 4th they held a second round of elections, They elected one Deputy Chief and four Village Committee Members. These elections were all direct elections. The candidates were not determined in advance. Villagers were all free to register as candidates. The most noteworthy fact was that Lin Zulian, Yang Semao, Hong Ruichao, the leaders of the Wukan Incident, were elected and became part of the system. They became the new leaders of Wukan Village.

In the past, Lin Zulian would have wound up in prison. He would never have been permitted to stand for election and be elected Village Committee Chief. Natural leaders generated by public opinion became government leaders. This is the basis for democratic elections. The Wukan Village Elections have attracted world wide attention, This is the reason why.

Wukan villagers cast their ballots for the first time in six decades, Was this merely a stop-gap measure for Beijing. Was it merely a response to the Wukan Incident? Or will this become a model for local self-government and political reform for the Mainland as a whole? Commentators have noted the Chinese Communist Party's inertia while governing the Mainland. They think it is naive to think that Wukan equals the beginning of political reform. Mainland China is vast. Its situation is complicated. This village is a special case. How can it serve as a template for the entire nation? That said, the public wants to combat corruption, restore the rule of law, and enjoy self-governance. The Wukan Election is an experiment that could serve as a template.

First, consider combatting corruption. The biggest defect in the Mainland political system is its lack of self-correcting mechanisms. The Wukan Village Committee failed to hold elections for six decades. Former Village Committee Chief Xue Chang clung to office for 41 years. Eventually opaque land sales led to suspicion and rebellion. The system lacked self-correcting mechanisms. Clashes between officials and the public were inevitable. The election system will facilitate error correction and increase accountability.

Next, Mainland law requires periodic village and street level elections and meetings. But these have never been honored. This has enabled the party and government bureaucracy to rule according by its whim, while citing efficiency as a pretext, This has weakened public enthusiasm for the political process. The bureaucracy failed to respond to public grievances. Discontent accumulated, then exploded. The result was a major media event. Cleaning up in the aftermath will be costly. Wukan Village has restored the rule of law. It has held direct elections. When village officials conduct land sales in the future, higher level agencies will help address any problems that may arise. This should reduce friction between the government and the public.

Third, local self-government enhances civil rights within the legal system. It enables individuals to fulfill their potential. Wukan villagers were interviewed after voting. One said "I never voted before in my life. This time I did. I voted for someone I liked. It was good." A couplet posted at the entrance to the Wukan Temple read: "We wear smiles. Tiny towns and villages enjoy autonomy. Spring has returned to Wukan. One man, one vote has determined our future." This sentiments in this couplet sum up the huge debt the Chinese Communist regime owes the public.

The Wukan Election was merely a "bird in a cage" election. The balloting system, including the provision for secret ballots, still need improvement. But it upheld civil rights, promoted reform, and fought corruption. It stabilized society. It was a welcome showcase and experiment. Deng Xiaoping said: "Allow some people to get rich first." Are the Beijing authorities bold enough to "Allow some regions to implement democracy first?"

How will the popularly elected Wukan Village Committee perform? Will the "Wukan Experience" enable the implementation of village and street-level election reform elsewhere on the Mainland? We should not expect larger scale democratic reforms for the time being. Is Beijing is willing to permit a single village to implement democracy first? If it is, then it has already begun in Wukan Village.

烏坎選村官 讓一個村先民主起來？
【聯合報╱社論】 2012.03.06

廣東省陸豐市靠海的烏坎漁村改選村官，這場登記選民八三六三人，發出選票六八九九張的村級選舉，卻受到各方高度重視；北京派員巡視，廣州美國領事館人員帶著翻譯出現在村頭，大陸政學界、台灣記者、港澳傳媒、法新社等歐美媒體，都密切觀察，各方似皆在等著看，這場小小選舉能對中國大陸的民主改革產生多少催化作用。

這場選舉，源自去年九月發生的烏坎事件。烏坎村的村委會六十年來皆非民選產生，去年九月，當時的村委會賤賣村民共有土地，帳上分配村民每人六千元人民幣，但帶頭抗爭的林祖鑾說：「一分錢也沒拿到。」村民因為行政不透明，懷疑主事者貪瀆，遂集結包圍政府、派出所，進行強烈抗爭，致一名村民代表遭關押猝死，鬧成了震動內外的大新聞；事件幾至不可收拾後，催生出這場投票重組村委會的選舉。

此次烏坎改選村官分成幾波。從二月一日登場，先由村民選出烏坎村十一名選舉委員會成員，負責操辦選務；二月十二日選出一○九名村民代表及七名村民小組組長；三月三日選出村委會主任一人、副主任一人；三月四日，舉行第二輪投票，再選出副主任一人，村委四人。這一連串選舉，都由村民直選，且未設定候選人，村民皆可自由登記參選；最值得注意的是，烏坎事件中帶領群體運動的林祖鑾、楊色茂、洪銳潮等，皆當選而進入體制，成為烏坎村的新領導班子。

若在過去，林祖鑾的下場應在監獄，而無可能參選並當選村委主任。民意產生的自然領袖能成為國家體制上的首長或代議者，這即是民主選舉的基本法則；烏坎村選舉之所以引起各方關注，原因亦正在此。

烏坎村民六十年來的第一次投票，究竟是北京懷柔烏坎事件的權宜措施，或是就此成為帶動大陸地方自治的政改模式？不少評論者從中共治理大陸的慣性作為來觀察，認為抱持政改可由烏坎出發的想法者太天真；大陸幅員遼闊，狀況複雜，一村之特例，豈足為訓。但是，從反貪腐、回歸法制和滿足人民的自治願望三方面分析，烏坎選舉仍應有其實驗性及示範性的效應。

先談反貪腐。大陸體制的最大盲點在不能保證「自我糾錯」機制。烏坎村委會六十年未有開放性選舉，原任村委會主任薛昌一幹就是四十一年，終因賣地操作不透明遭到質疑和反撲。此皆因體制既失糾錯功能，官民衝突的爆發即不可免；民選制度則可使糾錯功能與問責機制獲得改善。

其次，大陸地方政府本有村和街道須定期選舉及召開村民會議的規定，只因一向沒有認真辦理，縱容黨政官僚藉效率之名便宜行事，弱化了公民參政熱情；於是，官僚體系平時未消弭的民怨，累積能量至爆發之時，幾乎都釀成震動視聽的重大事件，得耗費很大的成本來收拾善後。烏坎村這次回歸法制，舉辦直選，未來民選村官處理賣地案，相關上層單位扮演協助解決問題的角色，應可減少官民摩擦。

第三，地方自治不但是國家法制上的民權提升，亦是個人生命上的自我實現。烏坎村民投完票受訪時說：「我一輩子沒投過票，這次投了，投我喜歡的人，很好嘛。」烏坎廟口門楣上貼的對聯是：「喜上眉梢，小鎮小村行自治；春歸烏坎，一人一票選明天。」這一幅對聯在平淺中所透露的祝願，其實正是中共政權對人民的最大虧欠。

烏坎選舉只是一場鳥籠式選舉，在選制、秘密投票等面向還有極大的進步空間；但就伸張民權、改革貪腐、穩定社會等角度看，其示範性及實驗性仍是一個值得歡迎的進展。鄧小平說：「讓一部分人先富起來。」現在，北京當局能否發下宏願壯志說「讓一部分地區先民主起來」？

接下來可持續觀察的是：烏坎村的民選村委會未來的表現如何？再者，「烏坎經驗」能否帶動其他村級與街道級選舉的改革？至於其他更高遠的民主興革，暫時無須奢望。唯可試問：北京能不能讓一個村先民主起來？就從烏坎村做起。