Discrimination between "Community" and "Administrative Village" in Rural China

First, realistic chaos: cognitive strange circle

With the upsurge of rural community construction accompanied by large-scale "public service to the countryside", three construction models have been adopted according to the scale and spatial distribution of the village, namely, "one village, one community", "several villages, one community" and "one village, one community". The model of "one village (administrative village, same below) one community" has been adopted in most parts of the country, especially in the south.

In the annual field research on community construction, we always encounter a puzzling problem: in an interview with "one village, one community", the head of the village will make it clear that the rural community and the administrative village are not the same thing. "the money earned from outside is managed by the community." the money in the village is managed by the village itself. We wonder, here the village is not the community, the community is the village, how to force the difference between a "community" and a "village"? Abstractly speaking, what is the relationship between the rural community and the administrative village? Are there two different categories? Or is it the same thing? Or do they cross each other?

At present, there are mainly three views on the relationship between the rural community and the original administrative village.

First, taking the rural grass-roots level, especially the village-level cadres and masses as representatives, they think that rural "community" and rural "administrative village" are two different categories and point to two different fields. The rural community governs the basic rural public service affairs, which is "managed" by the government; the administrative village governs the villagers' autonomous affairs, which is "managed" by the village itself. The above-mentioned remarks of village cadres reflect this point.

The second kind, represented by the government, thinks that they are the same thing. In the place where the community is established with the administrative village as the unit, the rural community is the administrative village, and the administrative village is a rural community. Whether it is called a rural community or an administrative village, its functions are a combination of rural public service and villager autonomy. The report of the 17th CPC National Congress pointed out: "it is necessary to improve the dynamic mechanism of grass-roots mass autonomy under the leadership of grass-roots party organizations, expand the scope of grass-roots mass autonomy, and improve the democratic management system. We will build urban and rural communities into a community of orderly management, perfect services, and civilized and peaceful social life. Obviously, the rural community and administrative village are discussed as a whole.

Third, represented by the academic circles, there is no consensus on the coexistence of the theory of "different categories" and the theory of "unity of the two". According to the theory of "different categories", from the perspective of the management system and operation mechanism of rural communities and administrative villages, there are differences between them in terms of responsibility subject, basic operating unit, work content and so on. The theory of "unity of the two" holds that the basic functions of the rural community and the administrative village are construction, management, and service. It is suggested that the two should be formed as an organic whole, and the "× village committee" should be changed into a "× × community villagers committee." never separate the rural community from the administrative village, otherwise, the whole community will be messed up [2].

Second, the crux of the problem: the nature of the autonomous body

In my opinion, the main reason for the cognitive chaos between "community" and "administrative village" in rural areas is the nature of "mass autonomy" in rural areas with administrative villages as units.

Shen Yansheng pointed out that so far there are only three main theories of autonomy: social autonomy, local autonomy and mass autonomy [3]. The villagers' autonomy in the administrative village is a kind of mass autonomy, which is the grass-roots mass autonomy of villagers' self-management, self-education and self-service. The villagers' self-government organization, the villagers' committee, is not a state power or administrative organization, but an autonomous organization outside the state administrative system; the mass self-government organizations mainly govern the self-government's own affairs, that is, "village affairs". It is difficult for the state power to enter or get involved in almost all the affairs involved in self-determination. The body of self-government does not directly manage government affairs other than self-government affairs, that is, "government affairs". If state affairs are to enter the body of self-government, or if they want mass self-government organizations to help the government undertake "government affairs" into villages and households, they must obtain the consent of the self-government bodies. grass-roots mass self-government organizations have only the obligation of "assistance". The person in charge of the autonomous organization is not a civil servant, does not break away from production, does not get paid, and shall be given appropriate subsidies by the autonomous organization.

Local autonomy is the form of autonomy adopted by most modern countries today. It means that within the scope of national sovereignty and based on the wishes of regional residents, the organs of self-government of regional public organizations, which are legal persons and are relatively independent of the country, handle certain local affairs independently. In Europe, as early as the 12th and 13th centuries, the residents of some cities obtained the charter for the establishment of autonomous cities from kings or aristocrats, enjoying varying degrees of autonomy. The characteristics of local autonomy before the 19th century are: group autonomy has begun to take shape, but autonomous bodies such as autonomous cities and dioceses have not yet obtained the qualification of public legal persons, and are outside the national administrative divisions and administrative organizations, according to British customary law, it is only regarded as a private group [3]. After the industrial revolution, there have been two important changes in the system of local autonomy. On the one hand, the local self-government has become a local public body authorized by public law (public legal person), and has been incorporated into the national administrative system, becoming the first-level local government of the country. the local self-government and the national administrative organization are merged into one. Britain, the "mother of local self-government", is typical. On the other hand, the spirit of local autonomy has been continuously expanded and popularized in the nation-state political system and social life, the scope of autonomy is more extensive, the content is more substantial, and the village councils of counties and towns are generally set up in accordance with the law. the village chiefs and members of counties and towns are directly elected, and the social basis of autonomy is more extensive. Different from mass autonomy, first, in terms of organizational nature, local self-government organizations are not only autonomous organizations, but also first-level political institutions, or local autonomous legal bodies, which have the status of independent subjects in the organizational system of state power. Second, in terms of governance affairs, corresponding to this, local self-government institutions must be responsible for two large pieces of affairs, one is the "entrusted affairs" issued by the higher authorities or stipulated by the national law, that is, the "government affairs" entrusted to the local self-government bodies by the national laws, that is, the higher-level "government affairs" plus their own "autonomous affairs". Third, in terms of personnel status, the leaders and staff of local self-government institutions are state staff, civil servants or managers employed by the state, who receive state wages.

The "village" in the Japanese local self-government is equivalent to the "administrative village" of our country. In terms of legal status, Japan's "village", like cities and towns, belongs to "basic local public organizations". In fact, "village" is the most grass-roots organizational unit of political power in rural Japan. Each village is a local government, its responsible persons and staff are civil servants, and the village head is elected. The "village" should undertake the "entrusted affairs" of the self-government at the next higher level, and the higher authorities should set the principle of "entrusted matters" in accordance with the law, but they account for a considerable proportion. "take Sakagi-cho, Nagano Prefecture as an example, this kind of work accounts for about 70% and 80% of the total work of the whole town" [5].

In comparison, the "entanglement" of "community" and "administrative village" in our country comes from this: because the villager autonomy and its organization of administrative village in our country is only the nature of grass-roots mass self-government organization, but not the nature of grass-roots political power organization. Therefore, the duty of the administrative village is to manage the autonomous affairs of the village, to manage the public resources and collective assets of the autonomous body by the way of villagers' autonomy, and to govern all kinds of government affairs should be the responsibility of the government. Rural community construction is a social service system based on government public service system, which is built by the government and funded by the government. it is a typical "government affairs" and does not belong to the autonomous affairs of the village. the main body of responsibility and operation of rural community construction is the government. As a result, it is concluded that rural "community" and "administrative village" are two different categories, which point to two different areas of governance, have two different governance subjects and undertake two different governance responsibilities; rural communities govern rural government public services, while administrative villages govern villagers' autonomous affairs. Similar to the disorderly relationship between the rural "community" and the "administrative village" in our country, it does not exist in the implementation of local autonomy countries, the reason is very simple, its grass-roots self-government groups not only play the role of the government, but also play the role of autonomous organizations. As far as the implementation of government public services in autonomous areas is concerned, although it is a local autonomous group, but as a first-level grass-roots government, it is undoubtedly the main body of organization and implementation.

Third, theoretical discrimination: the unity of the two.

So, does the nature of mass autonomy in administrative villages inevitably lead to the separation of rural "communities" and "administrative villages"? Not exactly, or even quite the opposite.

First, the different nature of governance matters does not constitute a reason for the separation of the two.

Undeniably, considering the categories of specific matters of governance and the subject of responsibility, the current community and administrative villages do have some emphasis. From the perspective of historical development, since rural community construction is a major strategic measure for China's economic and social development to enter the historical stage of urban and rural development integration, it does put forward some important new contents that the original village governance does not have. Mainly under the guidance of the concept of "equalization of basic public services", the government public service project of "going to the countryside" on a large scale. However, the argument that rural community and administrative village are two different things is not sufficient.

First, from the perspective of the main body of governance, these two different nature of governance matters fall to the scope of the administrative village, are specifically undertaken and implemented by village-level organizations. It is true that rural community construction is a process in which government public resources and public services cover the rural grass-roots level, but it is obviously biased to draw a conclusion that it does not belong to the category of village-level governance. Because from a realistic point of view, as mentioned earlier, the process that the government public resources and public services of the vast majority of rural communities cover the rural grass-roots level depends on the organizational system of the original administrative village. in other words, it is replaced by village-level organizations, and the community does not build its own unique organizational system and operational framework. Therefore, the two kinds of affairs are integrated in the village category and unified in the village-level organization. Why is that? Because village-level organizations have a dual mission. This dual mission of village-level organizations is not new today, but from the moment the villagers' autonomy is legal, the system design has given it: on the one hand, it is a grass-roots mass autonomous organization, which implements self-management, self-service and self-education. independently handle the village's public affairs and public welfare undertakings, mediate civil disputes, etc.; on the other hand, it has the obligation to "assist" the government to carry out its work. This is the so-called "township politics and village governance" pattern, under which the villagers' autonomous organizations "village affairs" (autonomous affairs) and "government affairs" (government affairs) can be divided into two parts, but the main body of governance is always one. Here, we should distinguish between the two concepts of "autonomous transaction" and "governance transaction". Village-level "autonomous affairs" is "village affairs", while village-level "governance affairs" includes not only "village affairs", but also "government affairs". It can be seen that bringing government affairs into the scope of the work of administrative villages, such as assisting in the supply of government basic public services "going to the countryside" at the current stage, is an integral part of the theme of villagers' autonomy. From this point of view, the grass-roots mass autonomy in China's rural areas, from the moment it fell to the ground, was not pure "mass" autonomy, but with an obvious mark of local autonomy. The author calls it "the grass-roots mass autonomy system of 'class' local autonomy with Chinese characteristics" [6].

Second, from the perspective of discriminating logic, it is bound to fall into a fallacy to distinguish "community" from "administrative village" according to the different supply subjects of public goods. The sources or supply subjects of public goods in a region are often varied, such as government public goods, cooperative public goods, social subsidized public goods, and even private public goods in the village. These public goods from different aspects converge and settle in the same region and people, that is, the same social grass-roots life community-village. As the saying goes, "there are a thousand lines above and a needle below". In the administrative village, they are integrated into a village basic public service system, which is an organic combination of government services, villagers' self-services, social participation services and market-oriented services. If we take the difference of the main body of supply as the standard of division, there will be more than "community" and "administrative village". The key is that the government's basic public service "going to the countryside" refers to the problem of public goods, and the community refers to the problems of region and crowd, which are fundamentally two categories of problems and two concepts of completely different nature (the following). It is obviously a great logical mistake to confuse and equate the problem of public goods (supply) with regional social problems.