Guiye is a small, poor village in Jinping County, in southwest China's Guizhou Province. It recently became famous across the country because of an unusual fiscal seal local villagers have adopted to help them share supervisory power.

Every year, Guiye receives 5,000 yuan for administrative expenses and is sometimes earmarked for poverty-reduction funds. However, as the years passed, local villagers felt increasingly doubtful about how the limited funds were used. Together with their suspicion grew their dissatisfaction.

In February 2006, after discussion among village officials and 10 villagers, it was decided that the village's fiscal seal would be divided into five pieces. The division of the seal, which is used to certify village officials' expenses for business purposes, was expected to make the money-spending process more transparent.

The five pieces of the seal are divided between a village official and four villager representatives. If there is any need of financial expense, there must be approval from three of them before the five pieces are put together. Only with a complete stamp can an expense be reimbursed.

Once discovered by the county government, the practice was encouraged throughout Jinping and soon attracted people's attention across the country.

Many believe that the five-piece seal reflects the democratic concept of "division and balance of power." Nowadays, it's not as easy for village officials to waste collective funds as it used to be. When power is separated, democracy is possible and participation in the decision-making process helps effectively curb corruption.

However, some others argue that what Guiye did does not belong to the concept of real democracy. They think it is simply an experiment in the village's financial management that has limited effect. Besides, they say, there is not strong legal support for this practice, so it's doubtful how long it can last.

Expression of political wisdom

Zhou Zurong (www.xhby.net): The five-piece seal seems an outdated practice, but it is a reflection of these local villagers' sense of democracy, although this sense is just taking shape.

In the past, the things that villagers were interested in were never or seldom open to them. So, even if problems were found in the village account balance and the dishonest officials were punished, the economic losses could never be retrieved.

The excellent role of the divided fiscal seal in Guiye's financial management is undoubtedly a successful exploration for transparent governance and democracy at the grassroots level. Now, as far as the public procurement is concerned, democratic supervision is realized throughout the whole process, not just over the result. This will help to prevent corruption at the beginning.

Democracy in the form of the five-piece seal is truly effective and substantial and this is undoubtedly what Chinese villages need.

Yang Tao (China Economic Times): People are wondering what in the five-piece seal is making Guiye's financial affairs clean and transparent. In my opinion, the success of this seal lies in the basis of the democratic idea of power sharing.

The unusual seal took shape as a result of the villagers' distrust of the officials' handling of local financial affairs. Against this backdrop, even if the village affairs were open to the public, it did not always work. As a result, the villagers came up with this democratic way of managing public funds. As it's impossible for all the villagers to get involved in the management process, by electing representatives and giving the five parts of the fiscal seal to the representatives, the financial accounts are jointly managed. This fully proves that democracy is the foundation for this five-piece seal.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Experience in daily life told the villagers not to rely on a single official too much, even if they had elected him to the leading post. Therefore, they decided to divide the seal into five parts and have five popularly elected representatives each keep one part, so that the five can supervise and check each other in financial affairs.

The division and balance of power based on democratic concepts is a stable and effective system, which will help to promote stable and sustainable social progress.

Yue Jianguo (hlj.rednet.cn): These local villagers may not know the concepts of "democracy, sharing of power, and checks and balances," which the divided fiscal seal fully covers. The strong dissatisfaction with officials' poor and messy management of local financial affairs forced the villagers to come up with new measures. Despite the failures in practice, they never stopped trying and at last the division of the official seal came to be a success.

This success also tells us the importance of the division and balance of power. This principle is not patented by a certain area or country, but it is an inevitable product of social development and also an inevitable result of people's yearning for social justice, equality and fairness.

The unusual seal also tells us that institutional innovation is not so mysterious and complicated as some think it to be, and it is not always so risky.

Wang Pan (www.cycnet.com): Behind the five-piece village seal, we find no complicated regulations or systems, nor are there any disguises or decorations for the "democracy" reflected by this divided seal. This is simple democratic logic-democracy is supposed to address all concerned. The seal also helps to realize the objective of democratic supervision: Since the unusual village seal was adopted, there are no more complaints about the use of public funds in Guiye.

It is the villagers' simple but correct understanding of democracy that makes the unusual seal so useful. It always happens that in government departments, where financial supervision and management systems are well-developed and where the system designers have much deeper understanding of democracy, the seemingly very stringent regulations and democratic management turn out to be quite ineffective.

Why is it that "democracy" plays such an effective role in Guiye, where obviously people's understanding of democracy is quite limited? The fundamental reason is that local villagers manage to keep the essence and core of democracy: power division, checks and balances, as well as extensive participation. Other so-called democratic systems fail because they only keep the bare outline of democracy but not the essence.

Superficial democracy

Li Qing (hlj.rednet.cn): On the surface, the divided fiscal seal in Guiye shares something in common with the concept of division and balance of power. However, it is undoubtedly an underdeveloped democracy that has no institutional guarantees.

Indeed, when five villager representatives jointly possess the seal, it's possible to deter the village head or a small fraction of village officials to waste the collective funds. However, who can ensure that the officials will not embezzle state financial allocations before they reach the village's account balance? And, who can ensure that the five holders of the seal will never conspire to do something?

In the 21st century, when the primitive democratic form of the five-piece seal is applauded and promoted, it actually reflects the strong force of self-sufficiency in grassroots political life. While the villagers do not trust the officials, the officials have no idea how to prove they are reliable in other ways.

Liu Changfeng (www.gmw.cn): The power-sharing system in Guiye's financial management seemingly conforms to the principle of "division and balance of power," but obviously, this is not the truth. When there is not mutual trust at the foundation, to divide the fiscal seal is more to contain different interest groups than to practice democracy.

Ostensibly, the seal will help to standardize and restrain the officials' power, but it actually does no substantial good to the promotion of democracy. On the contrary, this extreme practice can only help to widen the cleft between officials and villagers and deteriorate mutual distrust.

The promotion of democracy must be based on mutual trust, and this is the basic precondition.

Liao Dekai (The Beijing News): In accordance with state regulations, villages throughout the country must have their official seals inscribed in designated factories. Therefore, the validity of the five-piece seal is quite doubtful. In this sense, whether it is to use one of the five pieces or to use the whole five, the seal is disabled. It's also stipulated when an official seal is carved, there must be a record of it. If there is no record for it, this seal has no binding legal effects.

Can we expect a seal without legal effects to help promote democracy? Of course not. The seal can impose certain restrictions on the village officials, who actually have no idea in what kind of seals have legal effects, but democracy never exists alone: It depends on the support of a well-developed legal system.

Liu Xianshu (China Youth Daily): Technically, although the five-piece village seal makes it more difficult for "a small number" of village officials to use public funds as they please, in real terms, the seal is not based on the concept of division and balance of power. In practice, this system is not necessarily responsible for local villagers, and will not be able to protect the villagers' democratic rights and interests.

If local villagers are empowered by the law to participate in democratic elections, decision-making, and management and supervision of village affairs, there will be a great many ways to deter village officials from wasting public funds and a five-piece seal is absolutely unnecessary. State and local regulations stipulate that village affairs must be open to local villagers, and they are allowed to check the account balance. Once problems are found, they can report the case to courts. However, in most cases, these regulations are not properly implemented or are conducted in the wrong way. It is under this circumstance that the divided seal is invented.

The system of villagers' autonomy has been in practice for over 20 years, but many of its stipulations are still lax and therefore have failed to remarkably improve rural democracy. This should be the most valuable lesson taught by this unusual seal.