Still early days at the grassroots

India and China are in two different stages of political development. With over 50 years' parliamentary democracy and regular elections behind it, India can be considered a mature democracy of sorts. But, China, with over 25 years' rapid, record-making growth behind it, remains entrenched in a system of one-party rule. But the gap between the two in practising grassroots democracy is much narrower. In that sphere both effectively got going, incredible as it may sound, in the same year, 1993. That was the great watershed when modern panchayati raj came to India through the 73rd amendment to the Constitution. That was also the year when the notification of the Communist Party of China struck down the village offices set up by the "township governments" (the next layer above) that were undermining the villagers' committees. The latter, ushering in grassroots democracy, had come into being through the adoption of the Organic Law of the Villagers' Committees in 1987. Panchayati raj had also begun in India earlier, notably in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, but it is the constitutional amendment that made it national and mandatory.

How real, effective and autonomous is this third layer in the two countries? In this book the one by D Bandyopadhyay and others is quite scathing on the achievements of the Indian system. "Only in Kerala has there been a genuine attempt to develop the institutions of self-government for local governance ... Although the amendments hold the promise of replacing the system of bureaucratic local governance by autonomous and representative institutions of local government, the promise has not been fulfilled as the state governments refuse to share power and resources with the panchayats." The Constitution has given panchayats "de jure" autonomy, but "de facto" they remain "nothing more than an agency of the state governments". They detect "a systematic subversion of the panchayats both overtly and covertly by the bureaucracy and the MPs and MLAs who feel threatened by the emerging leadership of the three-tier panchayat system".

Not that the system has nothing going for it. With one-third of elected positions reserved for women, "this has been the most effective formal step for political empowerment of women" in India. The panchayats have also "released a new liberalising force for Dalits, STs, women" and overall the disadvantaged. The hope is that the panchayats are a "new phenomenon" which is likely to challenge the current dominance of "the land-owning propertied classes/castes in the countryside."

And China? The great gain is that for the first time people at the grassroots have been given the right to vote in elections contested by multiple candidates. But, as Xiaohong Zhou points out, "the village party branch together with the township party committee and the government still dominate the process of nominating candidates for village elections in many areas." The key issue that remains unresolved is "the relationship between the village committee and the party branch." His view, shared by most, is that unless this is done, "villagers' self-governance and democratic supervision cannot be truly accomplished, and the elected village committee head is not truly in charge". If there has been some progress then how does the present reality square up with the Maoist ear when Mao, through the Cultural Revolution, tried to enlist the support of the grassroots to fight entrenched party interests and his personal opponents? Xiaohong ends with a pithy sentence: "In the Maoist period, villagers who could not even decide their own fate were able to influence the fate of the state, but in the post-Mao period, villagers have gained control over their own fate." Well, partially at least.

Can China's rapid economic development lead to greater democracy? Received wisdom holds that the relationship between the two is strong, but what is the reality in rural China? Zweig and Chung Siu Fung discuss the findings of their survey in 120 villages in two provinces. There has been some strengthening of democracy in rural China in the late nineties. But there is no correlation between wealthy villages and villagers and democracy. Party cadres in the wealthiest villages are the least democratic. Democratisation makes it more difficult to create public goods out of public resources. It is not clear if elections are curbing cadre misbehaviour. Critically, there is little change in the nature of the rural elite. On the positive side, village director and party secretary are now separate people. But with cooption still widespread through village director becoming vice party secretary, democracy poses only a limited challenge to party authority. Hence, it is not surprising that there is no sign of a coherent opposition to the Communist party emerging. But there is evidence that those in the upper middle income bracket may be the most democratic in rural China.

Overall, in two of the most populous countries of the world accounting for a third of humanity, grassroots democracy is at a somewhat nascent stage, with India only slightly ahead of China. The hope of a better future rests on the triumph of faith over current reality.

Grassroots democracy in India and China The Right to Participate
Manoranjan Mohanty et al.
Sage
Price: Rs 850; Pages: 498