农民维权活动的理法抗争及其理论解释——两起征地案例的启示

基于对广西两个征地案例的研究，本文发现，农民维权抗争的实践逻辑，不能用现有的“日常反抗”、“法权抗争”和“规则模式”框架来解释。当地农民维权活动的一般性特征可称之为“理法抗争”，其行为理据、策略选择和目标制定都在合“理”合“法”的框架内。具体表现为：对被征土地的“待价而沽”、积极运用“拖”的抗争策略、在集体行动中并用“理”与“法”的行动策略，不使事态失控，不与地方政府交恶。农民的“理法”抗争，既根植于乡土社会，也因中国政府政治合法性的转变而导致的国家对稳定的刚性需求、地方追求经济绩效和维稳工作实践之间始终存在某种张力，正是这种张力促使农民在与地方政府争取拥有平等对话主体资质的抗争过程中形成某种“默契”。

Fighting with Rationality and Legality in Peasants’ Right Protection Activities and a Theoretical Interpretation: Insights from Two Cases of Land Expropriation

In the academia, the right protection activities by Chinese peasants have been categorized as “resistance on a daily basis”, “fighting with legal rights”, and “going by regulations”. The present study was based on two land expropriation cases in northeast Guangxi. The study revealed that the general features of the right protection activities by the peasants involved could be summarized as “fighting with rationality and legality”, the expression of which was some kind in between “resistance on a daily basis” and “fighting with legal rights” within the scope of being “rational” and “legal” when determining the rationales for behavior, selecting strategies, and setting goals. To be more specific, the peasants actively used the strategy of delaying the handover of the land to be expropriated for a better price, adopted the behavioral strategy based on both rationality and legality in collective actions, ensured control over the situation, and tried to avoid collisions with the local governments. This kind of resistance had its root in the rural culture and the tension due to the legitimacy of the Chinese government’s strong need for social stability and the local government’s desire for economic achievements and its efforts to maintain stability, all of which had led to a kind of “unspoken agreement” to let the peasants in the right protection activities have an equal voice in the dialogue with the local government. When the government comprised a bit, the peasants made advances; when the government became firm, the peasants compromised a bit. Both sides utilized their respective political and social resources to fight for a resolution that would be in the best interest to itself. The pragmatism in the peasants’ right protection activities was the survival strategy and action logic of these peasants who were living in the peripheral region of the structural network woven by power and interests.
Keywords：