Social Conflicts and Modes of Action in China

Abstract

(ProQuest-CSA LLC: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.) Chinese society today is characterized by the coexistence of numerous social conflicts and social stability. This coexistence reveals the resilience of the Chinese political system.1 A resilient political system allows its citizens to use conflict-resolution mechanisms while preventing what Frederick Barghoorn has called "flabby flexibility" or "lack of principles".2 By this he means that citizens resort to non-institutionalized or illegal modes of action to pursue their interests. Undisciplined actions are likely to threaten political stability. In China, citizens have access to a number of channels of political participation,3 but state power prevents regime-threatening actions and allows the Party-state to maintain the social order amid a legion of social conflicts.4 However, the Party-state faces serious pressures because of the magnitude of conflicts and the recurrence of noninstitutionalized or illegal modes of action.5 These illegal modes of action reveal the limitations of the regular or permitted channels. Hence, an analysis of the factors that affect citizens' choice of the modes of action illuminates the degree of institutionalization of conflict resolution in China. The permitted channels of conflict resolution in China include both the use of the law and non-legal modes, such as petitions or mediation. These non-legal modes are, however, still "in the shadow of the law" in the sense that existing laws or government regulations are referred to when these modes are used to address social disputes.6 Research on Chinese citizens' use of permitted modes, especially the law, suggests a mixed picture. On the one hand, as Diamond et al. argue, "in today's China law matters more than it ever has" because it plays an unprecedented role in helping address social conflicts and citizens' grievances.7 Chinese citizens increasingly make use of the law in pressing their interests despite the widely known flaws of legal institutions.8 On the other hand, these flaws make successful action difficult. Effective lawsuits often require the use of tactics or political resources such as political connections. These tactics or resources require citizens to obtain support from the media or from sympathetic state agents, or to gain access to important institutions.9 Failure, especially when suing state agencies, is not rare.10 Such difficulties are also faced by those citizens who use non-legal modes of action. For example, research on the use of petitions has shown that petitioners often encounter serious or insurmountable hurdles in making state authorities pay serious attention to their grievances.11 The limited effectiveness of permitted channels has not driven the disgruntled to silence. In recent years, there have been numerous incidents of disruptive or illegal modes of action, including protests, demonstrations, violent confrontations, and even attacks on state agencies.12 It is these non-institutionalized modes of action that have led the central Party-state to set "the building of a harmonious society" as a top priority.13 If the use of the law and those non-legal modes of action that are "in the shadow of the law" can be an indicator of the degree of conflict resolution's institutionalization in a society, the recurrence of social protests in China suggests that this institutionalization is rather limited. The relationship between citizens' use of permitted modes and illegal modes of action has not been adequately addressed. The many existing studies on the permitted modes of action commonly point out their limitations, but they stop short of demonstrating the implications of these limitations. There is no systematic research on the likelihood of citizens' legal action escalating into illegal modes. Analysis of this likelihood illuminates the degree of pressure faced by the Party-state in maintaining social order. Previous research has not generated the data necessary to undertake such an analysis. …