The 18th
Party Congress has wrapped up and we now know the number and composition of the next Politburo Standing Committee which make up China's new leadership core. It consists of seven men – Xi Jinping, Li Keqiang, Zhang Dejiang, Yu Zhengsheng, Liu
Yunshan, Wang Qishan and Zhang Gaoli in order of their rank on the Committee. According to most observers, this leadership
group is stacked with conservatives and supporters of the past president, Jiang
Zemin. In China’s political spectrum, the difference between reformers and
conservatives is not as wide as it used to be (think Deng Xiaoping vs. Hua
Guofeng, or Hu Yaobang vs. Chen Yun), so I’m not sure how meaningful it is to
say that the new leadership is on the conservative side. To me, they represent different shades of
grey. Ultimately, their core interest
regardless of their liberal or conservative leaning is to strengthen the Communist
party and its governance of China. Here
I use the term “governance” to denote a process of government working through
horizontal partnerships with other stakeholders in society. “Rule”, in contrast, implies a process of
strengthening the vertical, bureaucratic lines of authority.
As I explain
below, the old and new leadership now recognize that the Communist Party will
only survive into the 21st century if it “governs.” For the party-state, this line of thinking
means reaching out not only to the business elite (a process that started with
Jiang Zeming’s Three Represents in the 1990s) but also to NGOs and other social actors. We saw this outreach in the 16th
Party Congress in 2003 when Hu Jintao recognized the need to strengthen the
party’s horizontal linkages with society, and create institutional channels for
the orderly participation of society in resolving China’s social contradictions.
This recognition
is reflected in party jargon such as “social management”, “social management
innovation” and “social construction”.
These terms received more attention in the 17th Party
Congress in 2007 in which Hu’s speech actually mentioned a role for “social
organizations,” the official Chinese term for NGOs or nonprofits. Over the last few years, top leaders have
spoken on numerous occasions about “social management innovation” and “social
construction”, spawning a cottage industry of “innovation” at the national and
local levels (See the article by China Development Brief editor, Liu Haiying, “How the Official
Discourse of ‘Social Management Innovation’ Has Expanded the Space for NGOs”.). In the 12th Five Year Plan
(2011-2015), an entire section (Party IX) was set aside for the first time ever
to discuss social management innovations such as promoting social organizations
and community governance, and expanding the space for public participation to
improve public services and policies.
There has also been a big push for government contracting to NGOs. Last year, the central government announced
it would set aside a 200 million RMB fund to purchase social services from
NGOs. At the local level, a number of
localities have been designated to carry out pilots in different aspects of
social management innovation.
This news about
social management innovation or social reform may come as a surprise to those
who have been watching the 18th Party Congress proceedings. Much has been written about political and
economic reform, or the lack thereof, in the run-up to the leadership turnover. But as Qian Gang noted in an insightful article
(“Society Lost”) posted to the China Media Project’s website, social reform got
lost in the mix, getting subsumed under the broad rubric of political reform. Significant political reforms may not be in
the offing any time soon, especially with this Standing Committee, but the “social
management innovation” initiatives discussed above show that social reform is
on the agenda and in the pipeline and will not be easily dislodged. That is because there appears to be a pretty
broad consensus among the leadership that the party-state needs to strengthen
its governance capacity, and one way to do that is by carrying out social
reforms. That is good news for those of
us who work in and study the NGO or nonprofit sector.
The bad news is
that social reforms will be carried out gradually and on the party-state’s
terms. The slogan used to preface the
discussion of social management innovation in the 12th Five Year
Plan is “the party leads, government takes the responsibility, society
coordinates, and the public participates” (党委领导、政府负责、社会协同、公众参与). Under
this principle, GONGOs with close ties to the government will play a primary
role with grassroots NGOs bringing up the rear, social service organizations
will be encouraged over advocacy organizations, and there will be yet another
effort to establish party groups within NGOs.
Still, even
within these constraints, the various social reform initiatives that will be
carried out over the next five years should provide space for civil society
proponents to push for more liberalization. There now exists a debate over how
to promote social management innovation. Conservatives emphasize strengthening
the state’s vertical management functions, partnering with GONGOs and
strengthening the party’s grassroots organization. Liberals want to play up the state’s horizontal
coordination functions and strengthen the role of NGOs and public
participation. NGOs and their supporters
will need to work diligently to push this debate in a more liberal direction.
There remains a
great deal to be done to improve the legal, regulatory and ideological
environment for NGO and public participation. NGO and other civil society
activists will need to forge strategic alliances with other stakeholders in the
government, business sector, media and academia. They will need to call
attention to the various ways in which the current system discriminates against
grassroots NGOs and activists and privileges GONGOs and others inside the
system. And they will need to advocate
for further changes in the legal and regulatory system to make it easier for grassroots
NGOs to register, fundraise, gain tax exemptions, and monitor and influence
policy.
China’s civil
society has come a long way under Hu Jintao’s administration, though due more
to their own efforts than to any reforms Hu and Wen put through. Now they face a similar situation with this
new leadership core. Rather than wait for China’s leaders to move in a liberal
direction, they will again have to take the initiative to preserve and build on
their hard-earned gains.