Lianjiang Li – författare

The authoritarian regime in China is a prime target of the US-led war on autocracy; however, the regime claims a majority of the Chinese people trust the government, with national surveys since the 1990s supporting this assertion. How much do Chinese citizens actually trust the one-party regime? Instead of dismissing survey results, Li examines the contexts in which Chinese citizens are predisposed to say they trust the government. He argues that political trust in China is a power-accommodating and nonbinding hope rather than a rights-based and binding expectation as Chinese citizens do not have the right to grant and retract trust through free and fair elections.

The authoritarian regime in China is a prime target of the US-led war on autocracy; however, the regime claims a majority of the Chinese people trust the government, with national surveys since the 1990s supporting this assertion. How much do Chinese citizens actually trust the one-party regime? Instead of dismissing survey results, Li examines the contexts in which Chinese citizens are predisposed to say they trust the government. He argues that political trust in China is a power-accommodating and nonbinding hope rather than a rights-based and binding expectation as Chinese citizens do not have the right to grant and retract trust through free and fair elections.

How can the poor and weak 'work' a political system to their advantage? Drawing mainly on interviews and surveys in rural China, Kevin O'Brien and Lianjiang Li show that popular action often hinges on locating and exploiting divisions within the state. Otherwise powerless people use the rhetoric and commitments of the central government to try to fight misconduct by local officials, open up clogged channels of participation, and push back the frontiers of the permissible. This 'rightful resistance' has far-reaching implications for our understanding of contentious politics. As O'Brien and Li explore the origins, dynamics, and consequences of rightful resistance, they highlight similarities between collective action in places as varied as China, the former East Germany, and the United States, while suggesting how Chinese experiences speak to issues such as opportunities to protest, claims radicalization, tactical innovation, and the outcomes of contention.