Freedom of Association in China: Rights and Culture

Shaoming Zhu

University College Cork

In China, freedom of association is primarily viewed as a political right embedded within the Constitution, with a focus on prioritizing broader public values of social stability and communal welfare. This communitarian approach often contrasts with Western interpretations that emphasize individualism, leading to significant misunderstandings in how this right is perceived and practiced in the Chinese context. This post briefly discusses how freedom of association in China is constructed as a political right and is deeply influenced by the state ideology of socialism and the values of collectivism. Through this lens, I hope to provide a clearer understanding of its development and operation in contemporary China.

Human Rights vs Political Rights

Jingwen Zhu, a distinguished Chinese legal scholar, argues that the right to freedom of association is recognized as a fundamental human right and can be viewed in three senses. First, it can be viewed as the freedom to make personal choices, which primarily includes the freedom to marry, establish a family, and form intimate groups. Second, it can be viewed as a political freedom, falling under the broader umbrella of freedom of expression. In this sense, it refers to the freedom of people who share the same views and beliefs to come together. Third, it serves as an economic, social, and cultural right, specifically protecting the rights of workers to organize trade unions and engage in collective bargaining. 

Zhu believes that the first right of association refers primarily to the freedom that comes naturally with the formation of a person’s primary life groups, while the second and third rights of association concern the political community and the State. He also contends that, although people associate for different purposes, whether personal, political, or economic, they have in common that human beings have to engage in social activities, and, therefore, freedom of association is a fundamental human right.

In China, however, when people talk about the right of association, they mainly refer to freedom of association in the latter two senses and how it is laid out in the Constitution of China, together with the freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession, and demonstration. Chinese social organizations are considered a vital component of contemporary Chinese political life. In the context of Chinese society, a social organization typically refers to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community groups, associations, foundations, and other non-state entities that operate within civil society. These organizations are often involved in various sectors such as social welfare, environmental protection, education, health, and cultural activities. Usually, they are formally registered with the government. They actively participate in national and local political activities, coordinate public affairs, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the masses, and play a significant role. In China, social organizations often supplement governmental functions by helping to articulate the needs of certain groups, implementing public policies, and mobilizing resources to provide services that are not fully covered by the state. They play a crucial role in fostering a more engaged citizenry while also providing social cohesion and stability. Therefore, the right to freedom of association serves more as a political rather than a human right in China.

Liberalism vs Totalitarianism

According to Professor Jingwen Zhu, two tendencies are visible in the everyday practice of associational rights across the world: the first, totalitarian, and the second, liberal.

Liberalism emphasizes the maximization of individual freedoms and rights, including freedom of speech, assembly, and association. In a liberal system, freedom of association is generally protected by the Constitution and the law. Citizens have the right to freely create or join a variety of organizations, including political groups, NGOs, and interest groups. Governments usually provide a relatively liberal policy environment that promotes the diversity and independence of social organizations.

Liberal societies across the globe portray the freedom of association as absolute and unlimited. Yet in reality, this picture is far from the truth, since this freedom is not absolute – primarily because no society permits associations for what it sees as anti-social purposes.  Therefore, despite extensive legal safeguards, regulations, and restrictions on certain groups, such as ethnic minorities or emerging political movements, may exist in liberal countries.

In contrast, totalitarian societies deny freedom of association by imposing restrictions on it. In a totalitarian system, almost all social organizations are created or strictly controlled by the government. Spontaneously formed independent organizations are usually illegal. The government monitors and represses any form of collective organization through the secret police, surveillance systems, and other covert means. Freedom of association is extremely limited in totalitarian states, with the space for civic participation and political diversity being severely curtailed. Additionally, the space for social innovation and individual expression is highly restricted.

However, neither model describes the practice in China. As of June 2023, there were approximately 900,000 registered social organizations in China, employing around 12 million people. This represents a significant, growing market of social organizations. These include Associations, Private Non-enterprise Units, and Foundations. They are considered functional organizations as they carry out specific economic, academic, cultural, humanitarian, environmental, or other functions. These organizations include labour unions, trade associations, chambers of commerce, religious organizations, charity organizations, and other NGOs. In addition to these officially registered organizations, two kinds of associations are often overlooked. One is community-based associations, such as residents’ committees and villagers’ committees. They are the primary-level people’s organizations for self-governance that are stipulated in Article 111 of the Chinese Constitution. The other are unregistered groups and interest-based informal associations, such as square dancers and senior groups for certain hobbies.

The practice of association within Chinese society is often used as a tool to achieve economic and social development goals, rather than upheld as a fundamental human right. Because of this, freedom of association may be restricted, particularly when organizational activities are deemed to potentially threaten national security or social stability. Article 4 of the 2016 Regulation on Registration and Administration of Social Organizations outlines specific restrictions on the purpose. Social organizations require government licensing and supervision (as laid out in Article  6 of the 2016 Regulation on Registration and Administration of Social Organizations), and the government may restrict or ban organizations that are deemed to conflict with official policies. We could say the practice of association in China is socialism or statism-oriented, which, although allowing freedom of association, is usually premised on State control and collective goals.

Collectivism vs Individualism

The varying extent of freedom of association in each political system reflects a society’s core values and governance structure and is determined by the prevailing social conditions, historical and cultural traditions, as well as the socio-political environment of the time. Western society often thrives on the concept of individual personality and the idea of individuality. The freedom to associate is often seen as an extension of personal liberty, with voluntary and egalitarian principles governing cooperative orders. The implication is that in Western societies, organizations and associations form based on individual choices, contracts, and a high degree of institutional trust.

However, Chinese society is heavily influenced by Confucianism and traditional collectivist culture. Individuals are supposed to prioritize and serve the societal, ethical norms that encourage the subordination of personal or small-group interests (such as those of a family or village) to the collective welfare of the larger community. The legal dynamics and restrictions in China partially reflect these cultural values. Economic and social engagements within society are rooted in a tradition of communal living and self-improvement, chiefly upheld by enduring collectivist values and familial bonds.  Additionally, as a result, at the rural and grassroots levels of Chinese society, there is generally lower institutional trust and organizational structure. Although extensive cooperation among members persists, it is driven more by sentiment and traditional ties than formalized, voluntary agreements as in the Western societies.

In such a context, freedom of association is practiced differently. The emphasis on wholeness and commonality implies that associations are more likely to be based on pre-existing social structures, such as family ties, communal living traditions, and group values, rather than on individual initiative or contractual agreements. This means that the formation and function of associations in China are influenced more by societal expectations and collective norms than personal agency.  Chinese law generally requires associations to register with the government, and the regulations often require social organizations to be aligned with state goals, prioritizing societal harmony over individual interests and addressing the fact that collective action should contribute to the larger community and social order. This requirement is not just about state control, but also to ensure that associations align with the collective good. In the meantime, it may be characterized by more informal, sentiment-driven collaborations within the community, which align with traditional values and collective interests. These are essentially the cultural sources of the primary-level people’s organizations for self-governance and the informal interest-based associations in China.

Shaoming Zhu is a Lecturer at University College Cork School of Law

Suggested Citation: Shaoming Zhu, ‘Freedom of Association in China: Rights and Culture’ IACL-AIDC Blog (12 September 2024) Freedom of Association in China: Rights and Culture — IACL-IADC Blog (blog-iacl-aidc.org)