Taishi and Village Impeachment

A "Bobby Fletcher" alerted me to this great report in the Asiapundit comment fields. (for background of Taishi incidents see ESWN)

The reported is hosted in a site maintained by pro-democracy leaders in the late 1980s (who fled from China after 1989), including Hu Ping, Han Dongfang, and student leaders in 1989 Feng Congde and Zhou Fengsuo.

I have been under the impression that Taishi was the first case of village chief impeachment/recall. Then I learned that Lu Banglie himself had done it before (he was elected after impeaching the previous corrupted mayor of Baoyueshi Village in Apr 2004), I suspect there must have been many other cases around China. This report solved the puzzle for us.

It documented a total of 52 cases, between March 1999 and Dec 2003, of which 30 led to successful recall, the rest mostly lost their cases, or remained unresolved. So the success rate was close to 60%, higher if one rejects the unresolved cases in the data. These are cases that had reached the impeachment voting stage (after gathering 20% voter signatures). The number of all cases (including those like Taishi) has to be higher.

• Some were recall/impeachement of the village mayor (Zhu-ren主任), some target the whole village leadership "cabinet"
• Update (Oct 17): According Bainiandouzhi Weekly, I miscounted. Total numner of village:53; 27 success, 3 partial success, 7 failed, 3 request for impeachment rejected, 13 results unknown (1999年3月6日～2003年12月17日；地域跨 度为：黑龙江、浙江、河北、江西、福建、甘肃、山东、海南、江 苏、上海、河南、四川、山西、安徽、贵州、北京、陕西、内蒙古、 宁夏、云南、广东等21个省级行政单位的53个村；其中27个村罢免成 功，3个村罢免局部成功，7个村罢免失败，3个村罢免性质非法，13 个村罢免效果未知)

This is, however, an incomplete list, as it does not include cases in 2004 and beyond, nor that of Lu Banglie's Baoyueshi Village (Hubei is not studied in this report). Only 21 provinces/municipality/AR were studied, out of a total of 31 in the mainland. The report was completed on Dec 22, 2003.

Bobby was also kind to comment on the frequency of "only" 52 cases, reminding us that "one must remember impeachment proceedings by definition are exceptional course. Please remember even we in the West don't have it that often (and they rarely pass)." One can debate whether the number of cases being 52 is a low or reasonable frequency for China's total of 66000 villages. But it is a very encouraging number in any measure to me. It is also statistically significant to be used as a basis to try for further reforms.

Perhaps this has been reported before, so forgive my ignorance. I think it is worthwhile to understand this report and the list of case studies. Given these other cases, I am hopeful and optimistic about Wen's plan to push election to the township level, despite the recent set back in Taishi/Panyu.

• The Taishi/Yutowuo/Panyu case very likely involves local corruption. Sooner or later the central government is going to take care of them, given the national and international exposure. (Remember the case of Beijing Mayor Chen Xitong?)
• Taishi is only one case out of more than 52 cases in total (perhaps over 100 by now). Many other villages (e.g. Baoyueshi) were able to get rid of the bad guys, though most had gone through a rough road. "Democracy" was run "better" elsewhere in China.
• Unfortunately, it is really up to the local government to ensure a fair election (and impeachement). The problem of Yutowuo today is that Yutowuo Township and Panyu City mayors cannot be impeached. That is the real pity. But over time, a rather long period of time, this would be changed.
• Success rate had been around 60% and there were significant cases with no serious problem or 'chaos', CCP is getting comfortable with what has been going on. What they are afraid of is 'chaos' (Luan 乱). That perhaps could explain why the central government chose to turn a blind eye on the Taishi corruption (because the villagers had staged demonstration out of despair and that was a sign of 'chaos'). They are worried about chaos so much that they would rather tolerate corruption for a while (under their muddled logic).

There may be divided views within the Hu-Wen leadership about how to interpret the Taishi case, but one out of 100 is not a representative sample of 'chaos'. Had the village mayor not been able to collude with his superior, or the township head been popularly elected and hence responsible to the people, the villagers could have been able to impeach the mayor like many other villages successfully did, via a peaceful and orderly procedure. There won't be demonstration and protest. There won't be the case of mob attack and international embarassment.

I hope this is what the central government learns. Before election is extended to townships, the best way to prevent 'chaos' is to assign social workers or lawyers to assist the villagers who need help. Social workers/lawyers for 680,000 villages may be costly to keep, but there are volunteers out there, and one lawyer/volunteer can take care of multiple villages. Once election is extended to townships, the economics improves, as there are only 4000 townships in China. A properly elected Township mayor could take care of the villages under his township. In a few more years, they only have to worry about the 666 cities. As Wen jiabao said, "This system [of direct voting] will be realized step by step." And it really CAN be, without causing 'chaos'.

P.S.

1. Update on Lu Banglie's physical condition here (via ESWN). I can now say that BJW's first report about Lu's condition was not very accurate.
2. This old report from USIP (via daveinchina), though lengthy, is also worth reading. It sheds some light on the different case studies (some successes like Lu's village, some failures like Taishi) across China.
3. (update Oct 31: also this some questions for us to ponder.
4. Some stories of Lu Banglie here, eg, eg, in Chinese. The path for himself suffered the same beating and setback quite similar to that of Taishi. Update: ESWN has translated one of them. Courtesy to Bobby. Bobby, you should get your own blog.

Update (Oct 13):

• According to Bobby, Ian Mayes of the Guardian said it will issue a "Correction" of the first reporting of BJW, and there will be "an op-ed/column on Monday 17th regarding the issue". I do not know what they will say in the op-ed. I personally believe BJW (and Guardian) has learned his lesson and should be given a second chance. If the Guardian is courageous enough to admit its mistake its reputation and brand will only be enhanced, and it should not be viewed as an admission of failure. But I am not sure how 'courageous' they are, as corporations tend cover their own a$$. I hope the Guardian can set an example for the Guangzhou gevernment that sometimes doing the right thing might be more rewarding than continue moving downhill.)

Update (Oct 17): The Guardian op-ed is out. I hope this settles the controversy and we can all move back to the Taishi cause, I posted a comment on Anti's emotionless/commentless straight translation of the Guardian, he agreed 'totally'. Here is a translation of my comment over his post

• "I am now feeling sympathetic of poor Benjamin ... please see Simon and Asiapundit's comments. I feel Asiapundit's title is better than yours. Anyhow, let's put a full stop at this paragraph. Taishi and other villages are where our attention should focus on. Western media still believe that there is only one Taishi. I hope you folks can report on the other hundreds of impeachment/recall cases."
• 我现在反而同情可怜的本了...请看http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/126513.php, http://www.asiapundit.com/2005/10/guardian_pleads.html. 我认为ASIAPUNDIT的标题比你的好.无论如何,这件事就让他告一段落吧.太石和其他村落才是值得我们注意的地方.四方媒体现在还以为只有一个太石.希望你们能多报道其他上百个成功罢免的案例.

Update (oct16):

• For those who can read Chinese, please check out this site: chinaelection.org (via Forest)> There are many (including on-going) case studies in China's democracy lessons. Taishi is only one of them, the success or failure of Taishi (or any single case) is important, but it is also only one among the hundreds or thousands, of cases.
• Also, many Taishi reporting and discussions in China were not banned, including Netease's special coverage
• As bingfeng pointed out, "it's dangerous to generalize in china, not only dangerous to generalize from an isolated case like taishi, but also dangerous to generalize from the 52 cases cited by sun bin" We need more stories from other villages.
• Update (oct17): Here are more stories, courtesy of Bobby again. Each of them may worth at least a 1000, if not 3500 word story.
  
• A 13 month ordeal in Shuixin Village, Wenzhou, Zhejiang (Jun/2000-Jul/2001): very similar to Taishi, issue is corruption, local bureaucrats inititally create various excuses (like Panyu). 4 village officials were fired with around 80% votes for each.
  
• A quick case in Zhonglin village (Jun 2005), Huangtong Town, Lingao County, Hainan (Jun/2005): also corruption involving land rights
  

• Qinggou village, Xi'an, Shan(3)xi (Feb/2004): small hiccup but quickly resolved in about 2 months (photo on right shows village mayor waiting at a distance watching the voting station)
• Jiangtun Village, Beijing (Feb/2002): whole cabinet fired, 2 months before the next formal election
  
• There is also an example of failed impeachment case: Zhaolanzhuang, Jinzhou, Hebei (2001-2002). Cause: corruptions and missing accounting books (This one may worth a follow up study. There should be no gaangster at the entrace)

---

original text of the report below:

杨银波1999～2003：中国民间村级罢免报告

2003 年9月8日正式启动，直至2003年12月22日彻底完成之时，总共历时 105天。该报告全长26,704字，系1999年～2003年中国村级罢免状况之民间个案版本，是一份专门研究中国农村基层政权问题的严肃档案。其记录 的历史跨度为：1999年3月6日～2003年12月17日；地域跨度为：黑龙江、浙江、河北、江西、福建、甘肃、山东、海南、江苏、上海、河南、四川、 山西、安徽、贵州、北京、陕西、内蒙古、宁夏、云南、广东等21个省级行政单位的53个村；其中27个村罢免成功，3个村罢免局部成功，7个村罢免失败， 3个村罢免性质非法，13 个村罢免效果未知。交由《民主论坛》首发的本文，是近两年以来我 一点一滴地记录於笔记本中的个案要点，亦是《1999～2003：中国民间村级罢免报告》大部分内容的纲要指南。 《1999～2003：中国民间村级罢免报告》大纲按：1988年，中共保守派彭真组织立法--《中华人民共和国村民委员会组织法》，遭到强烈反对。其 后，该法在人大常委会中以《中华人民共和国村民委员会组织法（试行）》确立。遭到反对并以「试行」的名义来确立的原因有三：（一）认为农民素质低；（二） 认为是搞资产阶级自由化；（三）认为该法律不完善。1998年11月4日，第9届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第5次会议通过《中华人民共和国村民委员会组 织法》，取消了「试行」2字。该法第16条规定：「本村5分之1以上有选举权的村民联名，可以要求罢免村民委员会成员。罢免要求应当提出罢免理由。被提出 罢免的村民委员会成员有权提出申辩意见。村民委员会应当及时召开村民会议，投票表决罢免要求。 罢免村民委员会成员须经有选举权的村民过半数通过。」须特别注明的是：村民会议不能以村民代表会议、村党员会议、村组干部会议、 村民委员会会议或者村党支委会议来取代；村民会议是中国村级会议 当中最为权威、最为庄严的会议，因此又被称作「村民大会」；罢免村委会干部的村民会议被称作「村民罢免会议」。

1999年
3月6日。黑龙江省哈尔滨市松北镇集乐村。罢免对象：村委主任董寿永。罢免效果：成功

4月9日。浙江省瑞安市潘岱乡白莲村。罢免对象：村委主任何光寿。罢免效果：成功。　
5月24日。浙江省温州市瓯海区梧蜒镇寮东村。罢免对象：村委主任。罢免效果：成功。 　
8月24日。河北省城市岗上镇小丰村。罢免对象：全体村委会干部。罢免效果：失败。

11月27日。浙江省温州市鹿城区黎明乡巨一村。罢免对象：村委主任陈暖康、村委副主任郑加秀等6名村委会干部。罢免效果：成功。2000年
3月8日。江西省临川市荣山镇新街村。罢免对象：村委副主任吴桂明、村委会干部黎金山、吴福庆。罢免性质：非法。 　
5月17日。福建省武夷山市兴田镇南岭村。罢免对象：村委主任、村委委员、村经合社主任。罢免效果：成功。　
8月9日。甘肃省兰州市城关区青白石乡杨家湾村。罢免对象：村委主任杨海元。罢免效果：成功。

8月15日。山东省桓台县索镇永和村。罢免对象：村委主任。罢免效果：成功。　
8月23日。海南省琼海市大种镇云满村。罢免对象：村委主任吴毓州。罢免效果：失败。 　
9月29日。江苏省灌南县六塘乡二圩村。罢免对象：村委主任潘 永祥。罢免效果：成功。　
10月10日。上海市青浦工业园区（农委）胜利村。罢免对象：村委主任、村委副主任。罢免效果：成功。 　
10月22日。河南省新郑市和庄镇小岗王村。罢免对象：村委主任王某。罢免效果：成功。　
10月27日。海南省海口市新华区滨海街道玉沙村。罢免对象：村委主任符某。罢免效果：成功。 　
11月10日。四川省双流县万安乡高饭店村。罢免对象：村会计兼现金出纳员漆贵发。罢免效果：未知。　
12月16日。河北省承德市宽城县?罗台乡椴木峪村。罢免对象：村委代理主任朱凤海。罢免效果：失败。

2001年 　
1月8日。四川省成都市琉璃乡琉璃村。罢免对象：徐德友、罗德友等5名村民组长。罢免效果：局部成功。　
1月16日。浙江省龙游县小南海镇马坪张村。罢免对象：村委主任徐志林。罢免效果：成功。 　
3月19日。山西省太谷县胡村镇孟高村。罢免对象：村委主任贺如森。罢免效果：失败。　
4月30日。山西省运城市临猗县角杯乡西张村。罢免对象：村委主任张宗仰。罢免性质：非法。 　
5月27日。安徽省蚌埠市郊区长耷乡许庄村。罢免对象：村委主任。罢免效果：失败。　
10月17日。安徽省繁昌县赤沙乡张塘村。罢免对象：村委主任江守智、村妇女主任艾晓翠、村文书张小林、村委会干部郭胜莲等全体村委会干部（4名）。罢免效果：局部成功。 　
11月2日。福建省宁德市蕉城区城南镇岐头村。罢免对象：村委主任韩盛新。罢免效果：成功。 　
12月1日。安徽省马鞍山市慈湖乡恒兴村。罢免对象：村委主任刘锋。罢免效果：失败。　
12月25日。贵州省沿河县和平镇黄板村。罢免对象：村委主任。罢免效果：成功。

2002年
1月22日。北京市通州区永顺镇西马庄村。罢免对象：全体村委会干部（5名）。罢免效果：未知。 　
1月26日。山东省栖霞市桃村镇桃村。罢免对象：村委主任孙祥云。罢免效果：未知。　
12月11日。黑龙江省哈尔滨市南岗区跃进乡永久村。罢免对象：村委主任连成友。罢免效果：未知。

2003年 　
1月1日。陕西省西安市长安区郭杜镇岔道口村。罢免对象：以村委主任王某为首的3名村委会干部。罢免效果：未知。　
1月6日。内蒙古赤峰市松山区木头沟乡焦家营村。罢免对象：全体村委会干部。罢免效果：未知。 　1月8日。山东省淄博市周村区青年路街道办事处桃园村。罢免对象：村委主任郭思忠。罢免效果：失败。　
3月20日。宁夏平罗县崇岗镇崇富村。罢免对象：村委主任、村会计、村妇女主任。罢免效果：成功。 　3月27日。陕西省长安县祥峪乡东石村。罢免对象：村委主任周团结。罢免效果：未知。　
3月31日。甘肃省兰州市西固区河口乡大滩村。罢免对象：全体村委会干部。罢免效果：未知。 　
5月16日。内蒙古某市某区某乡包尔图村。罢免对象：村委主任。罢免效果：成功。　
6月4日。山西省长治县苏店镇郝店村。罢免对象：村委主任张根长。罢免效果：成功。　
6月10日。黑龙江省哈尔滨市动力区朝阳镇新立村。罢免对象：村委会出纳干部王胜春。罢免效果：成功。　
6月19日。陕西省西安市碑林区祭台村。罢免对象：村委主任王正民。罢免效果：成功。 　
7月6日。山东省惠民县惠民镇大袁庄村。罢免对象：村委主任袁某。罢免效果：成功。　
7月22日。浙江省温州市鹿城区城郊乡水心村。罢免对象：4名村委会干部。罢免效果：成功。　
9月9日。云南省元阳县小新街乡大拉卡村。罢免对象：村委主任李忠学。罢免效果：成功。 　
9月13日。江苏省无锡市广益镇毛岸村。罢免对象：全体村委会干部。罢免效果：未知?
9月17日。浙江省温岭市横峰街道前洋村。罢免对象：村委副主任兼村委代理主任蔡加顺。罢免效果：成功。　
9 月24日。黑龙江省哈尔滨市道里区群力乡城西村。罢免对象：村委主任张雪荣。罢免效果：未知。 　10月20日。浙江省台州市路桥区路桥街道新路村。罢免对象：村委主任郑云达。罢免效果：成功。　10月20日。海南省澄迈县金江镇万昌村。罢免对象： 村委主任陈德仁。罢免效果：未知。 　
11月1日。安徽省六安市裕安区苏埠镇横排头村。罢免对象：村委主任吴宜祥。罢免效果：成功。　
11月10日。广东省潮州市潮安县凤塘镇凤岗村。罢免对象：村委主任林潮锐。罢免效果：成功 　
11月13日。山西省柳林县柳林镇贺昌村。罢免对象：村委主任景真明。罢免效果：未知。　
11月25日。山东省兴平市店张街道办事处尚志村。罢免对象：村委主任张文建。罢免性质：非法。 　11月28日。广东省斗门县斗门区乾务镇虎山村。罢免对象：村党支部书记兼村委主任黄同志。罢免效果：局部成功。　
12月5日。河南省济源市轵城镇王虎村。罢免对象：部分村委会干部。罢免效果：未知。
12月17日。山东省济南市长清区文昌办事处荆庄村。罢免对象：村委主任王某。罢免效果：成功。