What transformational challenges does rural governance face?

In the process of urbanization, the previous situation in which urban and rural areas were mutually isolated and each governed itself in a closed manner has been broken, and rural governance faces new challenges from urbanization development.

⟦NL> Our rural governance faces four basic transformations: First, the transformation from a closed society to an open society. Second, the transformation from the urban-rural dual structure to urban-rural integration. Third, the transformation from the traditional rural collective economy with unclear property rights to a new type of collective economy with clear modern property rights. Fourth, the transformation from traditional rural control-oriented governance to modern rural governance-oriented governance.

This year's No. 1 Central Document proposed innovating and improving rural governance mechanisms. This is indeed a major practical issue. In the process of urbanization, the previous situation in which urban and rural areas were mutually isolated and each governed itself in a closed manner has been broken, and rural governance faces new challenges from urbanization development.

First, it is necessary to distinguish between self-governance at the rural level and state-level governance of rural areas. These two meanings of rural governance are different, and governance at the rural level alone can hardly achieve the goal. This is because any of our villages exists within the basic institutional structure of the state. Although we have implemented village self-governance for twenty or thirty years, the actual effect has not been very ideal, and in many places there has emerged the phenomenon of “village self-governance failure”——villagers cannot solve their own problems through self-governance. This is because governance at the village level is constrained by governance from higher-level governments, including township, county, provincial and national governance, and at the same time, the current village self-governance also finds it difficult to give full play to the principal role of villagers; village self-governance is also powerless in safeguarding villagers' interests and the collective interests of the village, and may even move in the opposite direction. Therefore, it is impossible to simply promote self-governance at the rural level while ignoring the state's governance of rural areas; otherwise, if the lower level moves but the upper level does not, it will be very difficult for the actual effect to be demonstrated.

Second, it is necessary to analyze the two basic types of rural governance. In the process of urbanization, there are two most basic types of rural areas, and their requirements for rural governance are different. One is rural areas in population-exporting regions. These are areas from which population flows out in the process of urbanization, such as rural areas in the central and western regions, where large numbers of young and middle-aged laborers have gone to coastal areas and to large cities; the people left behind in such villages are all left-behind elderly people, left-behind women and left-behind children. How should such left-behind villages, or even “hollow villages,” be governed? This is the challenge that urbanization under the urban-rural dual structure poses to us. The other type is rural areas in population-inflow regions in the process of urbanization. In areas where large numbers of people from elsewhere flow in during the process of urbanization, rural governance mainly faces the challenge of the problem of “population inversion” resulting from the entry of migrant populations. These two types of rural governance require concrete analysis and differentiated treatment.

Third, it is necessary to understand what goal rural governance should achieve. There are certainly many such goals. In the past, people may have focused more on maintaining stability, maintaining social stability, maintaining social order and so on. I believe that in improving and innovating rural governance, the most core and most basic goal now is to safeguard rights, to safeguard the basic rights of villagers or residents and social fairness and justice. Only by realizing rights protection can stability maintenance truly be achieved. If rural areas are made such that villagers' basic rights are not protected and social justice is lacking, then this is not the rule-of-law-based and modernized rural governance.

Finally, it is necessary to grasp the transformational challenges facing rural governance. Over more than thirty years of reform, our rural governance has faced four basic transformations: First, the transformation from a closed society to an open society. Previously, our rural governance system was built on the basis of a closed society. In the process of urbanization and marketization, the closed society moved toward openness, which posed a great challenge to traditional rural governance. Second, the transformation from the urban-rural dual structure to urban-rural integration. Previously, our rural governance established and improved policy systems within the basic structural framework of the urban-rural dual system. Now we need to break down the urban-rural dual structure and promote urban-rural integration, so our rural governance must adapt to the major transformation from the urban-rural dual structure to urban-rural integration. Third, the transformation from the traditional rural collective economy with unclear property rights to a new type of collective economy with clear modern property rights. The modernization of rural governance must be built on the basis of clear property rights. Fourth, the transformation from traditional rural control-oriented governance to modern rural governance-oriented governance. For a long time we have been accustomed to controlling people and managing people, continuously strengthening management rather than strengthening service. But modern society requires pluralistic coexistence, pluralistic governance and a flat governance model. Moving from management to governance poses a major challenge to all of us, not only to farmers, but more importantly to our cadres.

Because understanding is inadequate, work style is inadequate, reform is inadequate, institutions are inadequate and accountability is inadequate, rural governance has shown many chaotic phenomena. In the process of urbanization, two very prominent problems are severely challenging our governance capacity. The first is the protection of property rights. In the process of urbanization, disputes and conflicts over property rights caused by forced land requisition and demolition in some places have become a prominent focus of social contradictions. The second is that farmers' right to petition has been greatly infringed upon. In the process of urbanization, farmers whose property rights have been infringed upon originally hoped to safeguard their lawful rights and interests through petition channels. But cadres in some places and departments do not sincerely solve the real problems reported by farmers, and instead are keen on things like re-education through labor, intercepting petitioners, and violent suppression; in some places, a normal petitioner has even been locked up in a psychiatric hospital. This is a very serious social problem we face in governance. If this problem is not solved, then whether it is state governance or rural governance, it will be hard for us to say that we have achieved rule-of-law-based and modernized governance.

In the process of urbanization, the most prominent problem facing rural governance is safeguarding and developing the basic rights of rural residents. At present, the most urgent task is to build governance systems and mechanisms conducive to protecting the three most basic rights of rural residents. First, property rights. If the property rights of rural residents cannot be well protected, then this rural governance is unsuccessful. Especially in the process of urbanization, people's property rights issues are becoming increasingly prominent, and inadequate protection of property rights has become an important factor affecting social harmony and stability. Second, the right to social security. This belongs to the area of basic public services and is a major issue faced in urbanization. For the more than 200 million migrant workers across the country, their basic public services are still very lacking. Solving basic public services for migrant workers is a requirement of new urbanization and also a requirement of the modernization of rural governance. Third, the right to public participation. In modern society and a modern state, public affairs concern the vital interests of every person, and everyone should have an equal right to participate and an equal right to express themselves. If the participation rights and expression rights of any group of people are deprived, then this rural governance is not modernized rural governance.

To advance rural governance in urbanization, on the one hand, in self-governance at the rural level, we should focus on building self-governing villages, handle well the relationship between self-governance and governance by others, return power to the people, cultivate and protect the self-governance capacity of rural society, and safeguard and realize villagers' democratic self-governance. On the other hand, in state-level rural governance, we should focus on building a rule-of-law China, handle well the relationship between government and society, establish a nationally unified, open system of fairness and justice, and ensure that villagers generally enjoy the basic civil rights and freedoms and dignity guaranteed by a modern rule-of-law state.