Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T10:13:32.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Institutional Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2015

Melanie Manion
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Get access

Summary

Congresses in the People's Republic of China were first elected in 1953 and then dissolved in 1966 with the onset of the Cultural Revolution. They reemerged only in the late 1970s as part of a broad post-Mao exercise in building institutions to constrain powerful dictators. Post-Mao congresses differ somewhat in design from the version worked out in the 1950s, soon after the communists won power. The design also changed over time, so it is different now not only from its earliest antecedent but also from the version inaugurated in the late 1970s. Rulers in Beijing made these design choices. The configuration of features that further (and also frustrate) a correspondence between “what citizens want and what policy makers do” (Powell 2004, 273) defines a distinct model of Chinese congressional representation. This chapter describes these features to begin to illuminate the underlying model, the actual workings of which I investigate in Chapters 2 through 5.

The most obvious features of Chinese congressional design are striking reflections of autocracy. A single Communist Party monopolizes organized political power in China, enforcing a ban on political organizations outside the party and on political factions within it. Party-led election committees vet nominees and decide which names appear as candidates on ballots. Local authorities routinely harass independent candidates and ensure their names rarely appear on ballots. The law places serious limits on electoral campaigning; in practice, most local authorities routinely impose even more serious restrictions. Only township and county congresses emerge from popular elections; others are elected, tier by tier, by congresses one level down in the territorial hierarchy. In large part as a result of these features, communists by far numerically dominate all congresses, from the National People's Congress (NPC) down to the township congresses (Interview 17-0503). In the aggregate, by congress level, recent figures on Communist Party majorities range from 68 to 74 percent (Shi, Guo, and Liu 2009, 290), depending on congress level, with the proportion of communists lowest in township congresses. Finally and not least of all, the congresses are mostly large amateur assemblies that meet infrequently and briefly. They typically ratify policies already worked out by a much smaller governing elite.

The underlying model of congressional representation that emerges from the description in this chapter is more nuanced than is suggested by the enumeration of these features, however.

Type
Chapter
Information
Information for Autocrats
Representation in Chinese Local Congresses
, pp. 25 - 48
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Institutional Design
  • Melanie Manion, Duke University, North Carolina
  • Book: Information for Autocrats
  • Online publication: 05 December 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107273696.002
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Institutional Design
  • Melanie Manion, Duke University, North Carolina
  • Book: Information for Autocrats
  • Online publication: 05 December 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107273696.002
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Institutional Design
  • Melanie Manion, Duke University, North Carolina
  • Book: Information for Autocrats
  • Online publication: 05 December 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107273696.002
Available formats
×