Grassroots governance and social development: theoretical and comparative legal aspects

Participatory democracy asserts that citizens' political participation is one of the most vital components of the political system, with numerous avenues for participation at national, state, and local levels. Its main characteristics include inclusive political dialogue with accessible arguments, legally binding outcomes of dialogues between authorities and citizens, and continuity of engagement. Democracy requires ongoing effort from all actors and relies on deliberate actions by civil society to foster a culture of participation. Scholarship has long debated representative versus participatory governance, generally finding that citizens desire more opportunities to participate. Dissatisfaction with representative institutions often correlates with support for direct democratic mechanisms and grassroots democracy (GD), though evidence is mixed across contexts. Some citizens committed to democratic values but distrustful of representative institutions prefer referendums, while other studies show those who trust institutions may support direct democracy more strongly. Populist parties' supporters have shown growing interest in direct democracy, though this is not universal, and in some countries dissatisfaction with policies is unrelated to support for grassroots methods. The paper notes the difficulty of building systemic dialogue between government and people and points to growing interest in methods that enhance openness of power strategies and implement political governance based on public policy principles—termed grassroots governance (GG). "Grassroots" refers to local, often politically unaffiliated citizen groups whose support contrasts with elite or party backing. Theoretical work is inconclusive on whether GD improves local self-governance; decentralized GD can empower citizens and increase accountability but may also enhance local elites' influence. While GD is well-studied across disciplines, GG lacks fundamental theoretical and legal development, with most studies political in nature and only occasionally intersecting with jurisprudence and public administration. This paper seeks to fill that gap by providing a legal perspective while engaging relevant political science insights. Despite contributions to GD, a theoretical gap persists regarding GG—its practices, distinctions from direct democracy, and interrelationships. The study argues GD can broaden participation tools, creating benefits for social development, and evaluates GG mechanisms within the larger picture of GD. It examines experiences in Switzerland, the Philippines, and China to assess opportunities and prospects for decentralization and adaptation of self-governance mechanisms in community social development.

Theoretical context and review of sources focuses on: (1) governance mechanisms and basic practices of grassroots social governance and its institutionalisation in China, the USA, Great Britain, Japan, and Singapore; (2) citizen preferences in political decision-making processes; (3) experiences of grassroots governance in the Philippines; (4) municipal consolidation and elimination of municipal governance at the grassroots level; (5) the role of primary elections within grassroots governance; and (6) the origins of grassroots democracy. GD and GG are increasingly used in interdisciplinary research. GD is a form of self-organisation and a subtype of democratic regime; GG is a way to exercise democratic rights. Grassroots groups can generate solutions and represent vulnerable populations in both rich and resource-poor settings. In post-Soviet scholarship, GD is often linked mainly to party activity and autonomy at party grassroots levels. In China, GD and GG have moved from research into policy discourse, treating GG (based on GD) as an institution and level of power, with local communities as schools of civic activism. Early PRC studies addressed village committee elections and the role of foreign NGOs; subsequent work broadened to GG mechanisms. Nonetheless, there remains a theoretical gap on GG, its practices, and its relation to direct democracy and GD. Most modern works are political science or public administration oriented, with limited legal conceptualisation of GG/GD and few comparative legal studies. Prior topics like women’s participation in GG and good governance at the grassroots are now underrepresented. The literature thus underscores the need for legal analysis of GG and clearer differentiation between GD, direct democracy, and GG.

The study employs a qualitative political and legal analysis to examine the origins, legal regulation, and administrative-managerial approaches to grassroots management from a social development perspective. It analyses political initiatives and authorities’ actions within specific legal relationships and social challenges. Through comparative analysis, it presents experiences from Switzerland, the Philippines, and China—each illustrating distinct understandings of "grassroots governance" and varying interactions between grassroots organisations and local authorities. The political-legal component considers measures related to implementing GG conceptually and legally toward social development goals. Legislative regulation is studied alongside state political priorities and international practices. Content analysis is used to review theoretical approaches to GD and GG. Synthesising theory and political-legal regulation, the study aims to determine GG’s institutional status within legal systems and assess its role in the jurisdictions considered. Documentary basis includes: Switzerland’s Federal Act on Political Rights and Federal Constitution; the Philippines’ Local Government Code of 1991 and Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992; and China’s Opinion of the CPC Central Committee and State Council on Strengthening Grassroots Modernisation of Administration and Management Capacity (April 28, 2021). Countries were selected for long-standing direct participation mechanisms (Switzerland), and contrasting grassroots self-organisation models (Philippines, China).

• Concepts and distinctions: GG is conceptually intertwined with GD but remains under-theorised legally. GG lacks a clear legal definition and institutionalisation compared to established notions like local self-government (e.g., European Charter of Local Self-Government). Western contexts often align GD with direct democracy; Chinese practice aligns GG with enhanced local governance under state leadership rather than political pluralism.
• Switzerland (direct democracy as GG in practice): Over 150+ years, Switzerland has held 600+ votes and referendums. Citizens possess tools of popular initiative and (mandatory/optional) referendums grounded in the Federal Act on Political Rights and the Federal Constitution. If citizens contest a federal law within 100 days, it can be put to a vote; signature-gathering periods for referendums are limited to about three months. The Federal Council comprises seven members from four major parties; each may serve as president for one year. Reported effects include high citizen involvement, proportional responsibility, reduced bureaucratic hierarchy, and use of e-governance.
• Philippines (barangay system): The barangay is the smallest administrative unit and lowest government level, with 42,000+ barangays, typically 500–5,000 residents. Leaders are elected every 3 years; national transfers support services. Barangays deliver health, nutrition, welfare, solid waste management, local road/water maintenance, recreation, and information services; staff often 20–100, many receiving allowances rather than salaries. Reforms via the 1991 Local Government Code and 1992 Urban Development and Housing Act aimed to decentralise, empower communities, and weaken traditional elites. Benefits include local democracy, faster service delivery, and participation. Shortcomings include susceptibility to elite capture and manipulation, limited capacity and resources, infrastructure and environmental challenges, insufficient skills development and job creation initiatives, and constrained collaboration with non-governmental actors.
• China (state-led GG within a mixed legal system): GG is framed as the cornerstone of national governance (CPC/State Council Opinion, 28 April 2021), emphasising township/street and urban–rural community governance modernisation. While embracing elements of participation (e.g., "public nomination and direct elections"), GG operates under CCP leadership, does not aim for Western-style political pluralism, and reflects a multi-level management approach where the state involves social and market entities yet retains strategic control. Grassroots bodies played a critical role during early COVID-19 containment (e.g., quarantine enforcement and service delivery), drawing mixed but generally positive assessments.
• Cross-case synthesis: GG manifests differently across contexts: as robust direct democracy in Switzerland; as decentralised service-oriented local governance (with risks of elite influence) in the Philippines; and as state-guided community governance in China. Across cases, GG offers potential social development benefits (participation, accountability, service access, crisis response) but faces legal ambiguity, capacity constraints, and political control dynamics.

The study’s comparative legal-political analysis addresses whether and how grassroots governance can advance social development. It shows that GG’s effectiveness depends on institutional design, legal grounding, and political context. Switzerland demonstrates how entrenched direct democratic instruments can operationalise grassroots influence at municipal and national levels, fostering civic engagement, distributing responsibility, and streamlining governance. The Philippines illustrates how legally recognised, decentralised structures (barangays) can improve service delivery and participation for vulnerable communities, though risks of elite capture, limited capacity, and resource constraints can blunt developmental impacts. China reflects a model where GG is instrumentalised within a party-led framework to modernise local governance, engage communities, and mobilise in crises (e.g., COVID-19), while limiting political pluralism. These findings resolve the research problem by distinguishing GD from GG and clarifying that GG is not a one-size-fits-all model. Instead, GG contributes to social development by broadening participation, enhancing accountability, and improving responsiveness when supported by clear legal frameworks, resources, and safeguards against elite domination. Where legal definitions are vague and institutionalisation is weak, GG’s impact is uneven and contingent on broader political structures. The comparative insights emphasise the importance of context-sensitive legal conceptualisation and institutional design for realising GG’s potential benefits.

There is currently no clear legal or exhaustive scientific definition of grassroots governance (GG). GG exists as a complex symbiosis of local self-government, civic activism, and elements of direct democracy, but lacks regulatory institutionalisation in the examined jurisdictions. In China, GG aligns with expanded local governance powers oriented toward community interests within a multi-level, state-steered system that enables social and market participation while preserving strategic intervention. In Switzerland, GG manifests through mature direct democratic instruments (referendum and popular initiative) enabling citizens to reject representatives’ measures and initiate laws. In the Philippines, barangays offer an applicable model for developing countries to amplify marginalised voices, improve access to services, and support social development, albeit with capacity and governance challenges. Overall, GG is not a single transferable solution; its arrangements depend on historical-political context. While practical approaches differ, GG holds significant potential social development benefits for participants and society. Future research should clarify the legal conceptualisation of GG, differentiate it more precisely from direct democracy and GD, and evaluate institutional designs that maximise participation benefits while mitigating elite capture and capacity constraints.

• Conceptual and legal ambiguity: GG lacks a clear, unified legal definition and institutionalisation, complicating comparative legal analysis and generalisability.
• Scope and comparability: The study focuses on three countries (Switzerland, the Philippines, China) with distinct political systems and histories, limiting broader generalisation and causal inference.
• Qualitative approach: Reliance on political-legal and content analysis without systematic quantitative evaluation constrains objective assessment of GG effectiveness.
• Evolving practices: Policies and governance arrangements (e.g., China’s GG modernisation, barangay reforms) are dynamic; findings may change as reforms and practices evolve.
• Data constraints: The analysis is based on publicly available legal/policy documents and secondary literature; no primary empirical fieldwork or participant data were collected.