Fang Ye and Zhang Liang: Research on the Path Toward Rule of Law in the Governance of Grassroots Religious Affairs
Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the Central Committee has explicitly proposed the promotion of the comprehensive law-based governance of the country, advancing the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity within a legal framework. As an essential component of the national governance system, the governance of religious affairs also requires the legalization of governance structures, procedures, and methods. At the 2021 National Conference on Religious Work, General Secretary Xi Jinping listed "improving the level of rule of law in religious work" as one of the "nine musts" [1] of the Party's theories, principles, and policies on religious work in the New Era. The Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee emphasized "systematically promoting the Sinicization of religion in our country and strengthening the legalization of religious affairs governance." Furthermore, the proposals for the "15th Five-Year Plan" adopted by the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee reaffirmed the need to "persist in the direction of the Sinicization of religion in our country and strengthen the legalization of religious affairs governance." It is evident that the legalization of religious affairs governance has become a key element in driving the Sinicization of religion to go deep and manifest results, as well as an important requirement for achieving the modernization of religious affairs governance.
Based on concerns regarding and responses to the theory and practice of the "legalization of religious affairs governance," the academic community has conducted extensive research. Overall, scholars generally agree that China's approach to religious work has undergone a path transition and directional transformation from "policy-based management" to "legalistic-based management" and finally to "rule-of-law governance." This shift is consistent with the development of our national governance concepts and strategies. At the level of practical paths for the legalization of religious affairs governance, various localities have carried out a series of explorations based on concrete practices, with the political, academic, and religious circles expressing their views from different perspectives. Legalization is a key dimension for the modernization of the religious affairs governance system and governance capacity in the New Era. On the whole, the current academic community has paid insufficient attention to the legalization of religious affairs governance occurring at the grassroots level. This is mismatched with the current reality that most religious activities occur at the grassroots and most religious affairs originate there. In reality, religion is developing rapidly in grassroots society, facing a series of governance challenges—such as rampant illegal religious activities, the excessive commercialization of Buddhism and Taoism, illegal Christian proselytizing, and conflicts over religious real estate and land use. These have exerted a profound impact on grassroots economic development, civilized rural customs [2], social governance, and the stability of grassroots political power. How to incorporate grassroots religious affairs governance into the national governance system and continuously improve its effectiveness within the legal track has become an urgent topic in the field of religious work. Based on this, this article will first elucidate the significant value of legalizing grassroots religious affairs governance, then explore the main challenges based on grassroots practice and propose policy recommendations. The goal is to explore ways to further improve the level of legalization and achieve a transition in grassroots religion from "keeping it under control" to "governing it well."
I. The Value Implications of the Legalization of Grassroots Religious Affairs Governance
Under the new circumstances, improving the level of legalization in grassroots religious affairs governance possesses significant value. This includes the macro-value of promoting the Sinicization of religion and actively guiding religion to adapt to socialist society; the meso-value of promoting the construction of the rule of law in the grassroots religious sphere; and the micro-value of improving the practical efficiency of grassroots religious affairs governance.
(1) Macro level: A key component for advancing the Sinicization of religion in our country to go deep and manifest results
Adhering to the Sinicization of religion in our country is a major theoretical innovation made by General Secretary Xi Jinping based on the actual conditions of religious work in China; it is the core content of the Party's theories, principles, and policies on religious work in the New Era. From a theoretical dimension, legalization is a key element and a lasting guarantee for promoting the Sinicization of religion. From a historical dimension, religion can continuously develop to adapt to the economic, political, and legal conditions of the society in which it exists; this adaptability is an important reason why it has become one of the longest-lasting social phenomena coexisting with humanity. Therefore, the essence of the Sinicization of religion lies in prompting religion to undergo transformations that align with the reality of Chinese social development within the institutional framework of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
(2) Meso level: An inevitable requirement for promoting the construction of the rule of law in the field of grassroots religious governance
Comprehensively governing the country by law holds an important position in the process of advancing the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity. China's socialist rule of law is the "most fundamental, stable, and reliable guarantee for the 'governance of systems' [3]." To achieve comprehensive law-based governance, it is necessary to promote the construction of the rule of law in all aspects, levels, and fields, including law-based governance in the religious sphere. Both history and reality show that "religious issues never exist in isolation; they are closely linked to economy, politics, and culture. Historical and contemporary issues are intertwined, adversarial and non-adversarial contradictions are interwoven, positive and negative aspects interact, and domestic and international factors influence each other." It can be said that the process of legalization in the field of religious governance directly affects the overall effectiveness of law-based governance. In this regard, the Implementation Outline for the Construction of a Law-Based Society (2020-2025) explicitly states: "Social problems involving ethnic and religious factors should be properly handled according to the law to promote harmony in ethnic and religious relations." In recent years, facing the reality that most religious activities and affairs occur at the grassroots, grassroots religious affairs governance still faces a series of problems, such as an incomplete regulatory system, low law enforcement efficiency, and a lack of awareness of the rule of law. Therefore, strengthening the legalization of grassroots religious affairs governance has become an important component of the strategy to promote comprehensive law-based governance and an inevitable requirement for strengthening the construction of the rule of law in the grassroots religious sphere.
(3) Micro level: An important measure to enhance the effectiveness of grassroots religious affairs governance
Currently, China is in a critical period of social transformation, facing profound changes in both international and domestic situations. The grassroots social structure and its original value systems have undergone a transformation toward fragmentation and diversification. Grassroots masses face dilemmas regarding spiritual faith, values, and ethics. Under a selection mechanism between the "institutional rejection" of secular systems and the "belongingness attraction" of religious faith, many people in the transitional period choose to seek care and solace in religion. In recent years, religion has shown an accelerated expansion in grassroots society, with a continuous increase in the number of believers and religious activities. This has also given rise to many new problems. For example, the intertwining of legal religious activities, illegal religious activities, and folk belief activities [4] makes it difficult to effectively distinguish and handle them separately. The problem of excessive commercialization of Buddhism—represented by the large-scale construction and demolition of temples, high-priced "first incense" offerings [5], and the peddling of tourist products—is another example. Challenges also include the difficulty of governing "Internet religion" and illegal Christian proselytizing. These have exerted certain negative influences on the mainstream and dominant status of the grassroots socialist core value system, the membership base and social authority of grassroots Party organizations, rural and family customs, and grassroots social stability. The new changes in religion within grassroots society, the complexity of grassroots society, and the specific and sensitive nature of religious work are interwoven, leading to immense challenges for grassroots religious affairs governance. Consequently, to properly handle the multidimensional relationships between grassroots Party committees, governments, and religions—as well as between different religions, between religion and grassroots society, and between believers and non-believers—it is necessary to transform traditional management thinking. We must break through the "government-counterpart" binary structure and construct a grassroots religious affairs governance pattern of "leadership by the Party committee, management by the government, social coordination, and religious self-discipline." The construction of this governance structure requires the use of law to clearly define the allocation of rights and responsibilities, methods of cooperation, and governance mechanisms for multiple subjects. Thus, legalization has become an inherent requirement and an important measure for achieving effective governance of grassroots religious affairs under the new circumstances.
II. Main Challenges to the Legalization of Grassroots Religious Affairs Governance
Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, authorities from the central to local levels have conducted many explorations and attempts centered on the legalization of religious affairs governance, achieving some results and accumulating experience. Research finds that at the micro level, the problems encountered by different localities in the practice of legalizing grassroots religious affairs governance are not entirely the same. However, at the macro level, they face many common issues, primarily manifested in organizational leadership, the legal system, law enforcement efficiency, judicial guarantees, and ideological awareness.
(1) Organizational leadership needs to be strengthened
In recent years, the CPC Central Committee has repeatedly emphasized that the focus and difficulty of religious work lie at the grassroots. It has called for the full implementation of the three-level network [6] and the two-level responsibility system for religious work to effectively resolve the "three-nos" dilemma—"unwilling to manage, not knowing how to manage, and not daring to manage"—in grassroots religious affairs governance. However, research indicates that in some areas, the two-level responsibility system at the township (sub-district) and village (community) levels is still difficult to establish effectively and play its intended role. The organizational leadership and communication/collaboration mechanisms for religious affairs governance still need improvement.
At the township (sub-district) level, after the institutional reforms, religious work is centrally managed by the United Front Work Department of the Party committee. At the township level, the Deputy Secretary of the Party committee or the Organization Committee member usually concurrently serves as the United Front Committee member. To a certain extent, this has strengthened the Party's direct leadership over religious work. However, because these township officials have numerous concurrent responsibilities across many "lines" (sectors), and because of the inertial thinking of "focusing on economic construction" that has persisted for many years, grassroots religious work finds it difficult to receive the attention it deserves. For instance, research reveals that townships generally lack full-time personnel for religious work; religious affairs are mostly handled by staff from the organization department as a side task. Furthermore, due to constraints in grassroots staffing and funding, these part-time religious workers also bear a large amount of administrative work, leaving them with little time or energy to study religious laws, regulations, and systems. At the village level, the "three-nos" dilemma in religious affairs governance is even more prominent. Research shows that the level of grassroots Party organization building is uneven across different regions. In some areas, village Party branches face prominent problems such as ambiguous definitions of duties, poor transmission of responsibility, and insufficient mastery of basic religious information in the village. For example, some townships do not provide specific regulations on the responsibilities of village Party branches in religious management, nor do they often conduct training or guidance for village officials on religious laws, regulations, and policies. This leads to a situation where village Party branches have responsibilities but no power (translated as you ze wu quan), and village officials "do not dare to manage and do not know how to manage" religious affairs. This "top-hot, bottom-cold" [7] transmission of the religious work responsibility system at the village-level terminal seriously weakens the leadership of Party organizations over the legalization of grassroots religious affairs governance.
In addition, effective grassroots religious affairs governance requires strengthening multi-subject cooperation to form an ideal governance form of "Party committee leadership—government guidance—religious organizations as the main force—society and citizens assisting." In grassroots practice, religious issues often involve the jurisdictions of multiple functional departments, such as public security, civil affairs, construction, health and medical care, and news and publishing. However, Article 6 of the Regulations on Religious Affairs and related laws and regulations do not clearly define the specific rights and responsibilities of these departments in religious affairs governance. This easily leads to problems such as unclear departmental responsibilities, difficulty in centralized management, poor departmental communication, and insufficient coordination and linkage when handling grassroots religious affairs. There is an urgent need for Party committees and governments to strengthen organizational leadership and overall coordination, improve the work system, strengthen resource integration, and form a synergy of work.
(2) The system of religious laws and regulations needs to be improved
Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, China has accelerated the promotion of religious legislation. A system of laws and regulations for religious affairs governance has basically been formed, centered on the Constitution, with the Regulations on Religious Affairs as the main body, covering multiple levels of legal norms including relevant intra-Party regulations, administrative regulations, departmental rules, local regulations, and local government rules. However, for grassroots religious affairs governance, there is still room for development in the legislative system and quality.
First, the degree of systematization of religious laws, regulations, and policies needs to be strengthened. Overall, the current governance of religious affairs mainly relies on the "2+13" religious regulatory system [8] centered on the Constitution. The remaining part of the legal norms is scattered across intra-Party regulations and laws such as the National Security Law, the Counter-Terrorism Law, the Civil Code, the Law on Regional Ethnic Autonomy, and the Law on the Management of Domestic Activities of Overseas Non-Governmental Organizations. To a certain extent, this results in insufficient connection between religious affairs governance laws and regulations and a low degree of systematization. For example, regarding the definition of ownership of religious property, Article 18 of the Measures for the Management of Venues for Religious Activities clearly states that the subject for religious property registration is the venue for religious activity. However, in other religious regulations, rules, and policy documents, various expressions appear, such as "temple-owned," "socially public-owned," "state-owned," "owned by the Chinese church," "collectively owned by believers," and "owned by religious groups." This easily causes difficulties in the determination of rights and the management of religious property.
Furthermore, the degree of alignment between the increasing number of local laws and regulations (and their supporting systems) and the religious regulatory system centered on the Constitution, as well as superior government policies and regulations, still requires improvement. For example, Article 50 of the newly revised Regulations of Sichuan Province on Religious Affairs contains stipulations regarding prohibited content in internet religious information services that differ somewhat from the Measures for the Administration of Internet Religious Information Services. The former constitutes a local regulation, while the latter is a departmental rule. However, the Legislation Law does not iterate a clear hierarchy of legal authority between local regulations and departmental rules. This leads to issues of legal application for Sichuan Province during the law enforcement process regarding primary-level religious affairs.
Secondly, the operationality and normativity of policies and regulations involved in primary-level religious affairs governance need to be strengthened. For example, Article 6 of the newly revised Regulations on Religious Affairs adds management functions for religious affairs to township and village-level organizations, and Article 35, Paragraph 2, clarifies that township-level people's governments bear supervisory responsibility for religious activities at temporary activity venues. Viewed specifically, however, these provisions remain principles-based and declaratory clauses; they lack detailed regulations on the boundaries of power and responsibility or rights remedies for township and village-level organizations in the management of religious affairs, which affects the efficacy of actual implementation.
Thirdly, there remains the problem of "legislative gaps" in primary-level religious affairs governance. With the continuous emergence of new things and technologies, many new problems and phenomena have appeared in the primary-level religious sphere. However, the relative lag of legislation prevents existing religious legal norms from comprehensively covering these emerging fields and nascent issues, rendering primary-level religious law enforcement full of unpredictability. For instance, current Chinese law provides no clear definition or determination criteria for "illegal religious activities," having only released 26 indicative forms. Yet in recent years, illegal religious activities occurring at the primary level have become more complex and diverse, and under the aegis of technology, activity methods have become more concealed; under existing legal provisions, it is difficult to clearly define and handle them according to the law. Additionally, supported by the internet and modern communication tools, the influence of foreign emerging religions such as Mormonism and the Bahá'í Faith, as well as cults and quasi-cults, has increased at the primary level, for which there is also a lack of corresponding laws, regulations, and policies to provide standardized management.
(3) Efficacy of primary-level religious law enforcement needs to be improved
Good laws are the foundation of good governance, but to truly realize the value of the law and the intent of the legislator, the more critical factor is the effective implementation of the law. At the current stage, the rule of law in primary-level religious affairs governance primarily faces problems in two aspects regarding legal implementation: "personnel" and "mechanisms."
First, primary-level religious law enforcement forces are insufficient. Religious law enforcement work is highly political, policy-oriented, and professional; it requires a professional enforcement team that possesses a rule-of-law mindset, is proficient in the Marxist view of religion, is familiar with religious laws and policies, and is skilled at conducting mass line work. However, after institutional reforms, religious affairs departments at all levels were merged into United Front Work Departments [9], and original enforcement functions such as administrative punishment and administrative inspection powers were reassigned to other functional departments such as market regulation, public security, and culture and tourism. Research has found that religious enforcement is only a small part of the tasks of primary-level enforcement personnel. Facing heavy primary-level workloads, a large proportion of religious enforcement personnel have not received systematic training in religious work theory, religious policy, or the psychology of believers. This further leads to issues of non-standardized, lax, and non-transparent enforcement in religious-related illegal cases, as well as the simultaneous existence of the "Three Dare-Nots" phenomenon among enforcement personnel regarding religious cases: "daring not to manage, being unwilling to manage, and not knowing how to manage." Additionally, primary-level religious work departments have low administrative levels, few authorized staff positions, and relatively poor salary, benefits, and promotion channels, leading to teams that often have few full-time and many part-time members with high turnover. Some positions even experience the "post without personnel" [10] phenomenon, seriously affecting the efficacy of primary-level religious law enforcement.
Second, primary-level religious law enforcement lacks effective collaborative mechanisms. On one hand, the holistic, complex, and sensitive nature of religious work dictates that religious enforcement cannot rely solely on a single United Front or religious affairs department; it requires strengthened horizontal inter-departmental collaboration to form a joint enforcement force. Joint enforcement mechanisms for religious work have played a positive role at the primary level, but as governance becomes increasingly complex, these mechanisms have also seen problems such as unclear divisions of power and responsibility, difficulties in departmental coordination, and low enforcement efficiency. Moreover, current primary-level joint religious enforcement is often a form of "campaign-style enforcement" [11]—that is, it is only carried out during religious festivals, major events, or superior-level inspections, and has not yet formed a regularized comprehensive enforcement mechanism. Once the patterns of this campaign-style enforcement are identified, organizers of primary-level illegal religious activities can easily evade inspection. On the other hand, illegal religious activities occurring at the primary level in recent years have shown clear trans-regional mobility, placing higher demands on cross-administrative joint enforcement. In practice, however, the principle of "hierarchical responsibility and territorial management" for religious affairs and the absence of cross-administrative joint enforcement mechanisms lead to "replacing management with expulsion" [12] in primary-level religious enforcement, affecting overall efficacy.
(4) The role of judicial safeguards needs to be strengthened
Impartial justice is the last line of defense for maintaining social fairness and justice and is an important guarantee for the comprehensive rule of law. The rule of law in primary-level religious affairs governance cannot succeed without fair and just judicial safeguards; the legitimate rights and interests of both religious and non-religious citizens equally require standardized judicial procedures for protection and remedy. However, in the adjudication of primary-level religious-related judicial cases, the credibility and protective role of the judiciary urgently need enhancement.
First, judicial remedy channels for religious-related cases are singular, and overall judicial capacity needs improvement. Compared to the increasing number of religious-related disputes, the number of cases that can be resolved at the judicial level remains small. Judicial channels are time-consuming and costly; combined with common problems in religious litigation such as difficulties in filing cases, providing evidence, and winning lawsuits, primary-level believers tend to prefer private remedies such as independent negotiation, village committee mediation, or mediation by religious figures. For example, research in a Hui Muslim [13] neighborhood found that over the past decade, more than 80% of religious-related disputes were resolved by inviting an Ahong [14] to mediate, with litigation rarely used. Starting from Islamic doctrine and local customs, the Ahong uses his religious influence to settle disputes, producing a certain governance effect. However, this long-standing habit has also led local believers to form the erroneous concepts that "religious precepts are superior to the law" and "mediation by an Ahong is superior to judicial remedy."
Second, there is insufficient supervision of relevant judicial behaviors in religious cases. Primary-level religious cases often involve many people, have significant social impact, and a wide radius of influence; combined with the limited educational level and legal knowledge of primary-level believers, improper handling can easily trigger mass incidents. Therefore, it is extremely important to construct a "sunshine justice" [15] mechanism for such cases. In practice, however, there is a gap between the transparency of primary-level religious trials and the expected goals, manifested as inconsistencies, lack of standardization, and high levels of randomness in the content and form of information disclosure, selective uploading of judicial documents to the internet, limited public channels with narrow audience coverage, and poor communication with public opinion, making it difficult to respond to concerns timely and effectively.
Finally, the problem of illegal religion interfering with the judiciary persists. Some illegal religions exploit the characteristics of primary-level believers—such as lower educational levels, lack of steady employment making them easily enticed, and poor judgment—to instigate followers to destroy original evidence or use methods such as remaining silent, sit-ins, hunger strikes, or self-harm to resist judicial handling. They may even gather at courts to obstruct trials, seriously interfering with and destroying normal judicial activities.
(5) The rule-of-law awareness of stakeholders in primary-level religious affairs governance needs to be strengthened
General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized at the Central Conference on Work Related to Overall Law-based Governance: "We must strengthen governance according to the law and cultivate an environment where the whole of society handles affairs according to the law, seeks the law when encountering problems, uses the law to solve problems, and relies on the law to resolve conflicts." Advancing the rule of law in primary-level religious affairs governance similarly requires actively guiding stakeholders to firmly establish rule-of-law awareness, promote the spirit of the rule of law, and form a favorable atmosphere of observing and using the law. However, research has found certain problems at the level of rule-of-law awareness among various stakeholders.
First, the rule-of-law awareness of religious figures and believers is generally weak. In primary-level practice, there are widespread issues where heads of religious groups, clerical personnel, and believers have low educational levels, weak legal concepts, and little understanding of religious laws and policies. This lack of awareness leads to a series of derivative problems: arbitrariness in managing the personnel, finances, and property of religious groups and activities, a lack of effective supervision, excessive commercialization of religious venues, and complex identities and chaotic management of clerical personnel. For example, in the Shi Yongxin incident [16], Shi Yongxin, as the abbot of Shaolin Temple, exhibited weak rule-of-law awareness and placed personal authority above the legal system, rendering internal supervision a mere formality, which became a key reason for the systemic loss of control in that event. Furthermore, interviews found that a considerable number of believers have a biased understanding of the Party's policy of freedom of religious belief, believing that holding religious gatherings under the guise of family gatherings or reposting preaching content on online platforms like Weibo and WeChat are purely personal acts that do not violate laws or regulations.
Second, the rule-of-law awareness of some primary-level religious cadres also needs improvement. Due to the complexity, sensitivity, and collective nature of primary-level religious issues, some cadres are prone to two erroneous behavioral tendencies: one is extreme tension, leading to "one-size-fits-all" [17] approaches and excessive interference in the internal affairs of religious groups, which damages the legitimate rights of religious figures and believers; the other is "daring not to manage and taking a detour" driven by a "sense of competence crisis" [18]. Fundamentally, these are related to weak rule-of-law awareness and a biased understanding of the rule of law in religious affairs governance.
Furthermore, although the Party has always attached importance to conducting publicity and education on religious policies and Marxist atheism among the primary-level masses, practice still faces problems such as blurred responsibilities for legal dissemination, inadequate interpretation of religious laws and policies, singular forms of publicity, and a lack of targeted Marxist atheism promotion. This leads to a misalignment in the understanding of religious laws among some of the masses, making it difficult for Marxist atheism to be widely internalized as their worldview, outlook on life, and values.
III. Practical Paths for Advancing the Rule of Law in Primary-Level Religious Affairs Governance in the New Era
In the historical context of the modernization of national governance and the comprehensive rule of law, elevating the rule of law in primary-level religious affairs governance requires adhering to a systems perspective and problem-oriented approach. It is necessary to actively construct a "Five-Sphere" path for improvement—encompassing "organizational leadership, the system of laws and regulations, enforcement efficacy, judicial safeguard systems and mechanisms, and publicity and education on religious policies/Marxist atheism"—to form a rule-of-law, standardized, systematic, and modern ecosystem for primary-level religious affairs governance.
(1) Optimize top-level design and consolidate the organizational foundation for the rule of law in primary-level religious affairs governance
The rule of law in primary-level religious affairs governance must adhere to the leadership of the Party and establish strong, systematic mechanisms for organizational leadership, communication, and collaboration. This is decided not only by the reality that religion will exist in socialist China for a long time, but also by the currently intricate situation of primary-level religious affairs governance.
First, strengthen and improve the leadership of the Party. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that the leadership of the Party must be implemented in all aspects and links of the cause of the Party and the state.
"Whichever field, aspect, or link is missing or weakened will diminish the Party's strength and harm the cause of the Party and the state." To advance the level of rule of law in grassroots religious affairs governance, one must persist in the leadership of the Party and leverage its advantages in political leadership. In this regard, on the one hand, the systems and mechanisms for Party leadership over religious work must be perfected. The task of legalization in grassroots religious affairs governance should be incorporated into the important agendas of grassroots Party committees and governments, the priorities of inspections and disciplinary tours [19], the responsibility system for ideological work, the evaluation and assessment systems for Party and government cadres, and the substance of reports on grassroots Party building. A responsibility list for United Front [20] work should be formulated and implemented for Party secretaries at the municipal, county, and township levels, alongside a list of major tasks for member units of leading groups, with the legalization of grassroots religious affairs governance as a core component. We must explore the establishment of an index system for the legalization of grassroots religious affairs governance that conforms to local realities, covering specific contents such as law enforcement effectiveness, legal dissemination, and the construction of local regulatory and policy frameworks. Through such system designs—including the reverse propulsion of work goals, the refinement of task indicators, and inspections and assessments—we can increase the degree of priority and the intensity of coordinated promotion given by Party organizations at all levels, especially at the grassroots, to the legalization of religious affairs governance. On the other hand, the Organization Department and the United Front Work Department of the Party committee should jointly take the lead in organizing a series of training programs for grassroots Party members and cadres. These should focus on the Marxist view of religion, Marxist atheism, the Party’s theories, principles, and policies on religious work in the New Era, and religion-related laws and regulations. This will deepen grassroots cadres' understanding of the legalization of religious affairs governance, ensuring these concepts are implemented in the daily work of grassroots Party organizations and strengthening the Party’s leadership over the grassroots practice of legalizing religious affairs governance.
Second, the grid management mechanism must be improved. With the United Front Work Department and the Social Work Department of the Party committee jointly leading, and based on the three-level (county, township, village) work network and the two-level (township, village) work responsibility system, we should utilize the integrated comprehensive command platform that interconnects these three levels. Matters such as the dissemination of policies and regulations in the grassroots religious sphere, the screening for hidden risks, and the resolution of contradictions and disputes should be incorporated into the grassroots social governance system of "shared construction and governance" and the scope of grassroots community grid-based service management. This will form a closed work loop based on the grid manager responsibility system, following the path of "superior deployment—information collection—problem listing—implementation—rectification and supervision." For example, Yulin in Shaanxi Province constructed a three-level service and management grid for religious affairs and a "five-level chiefs" responsibility system, forming a religious affairs governance network that is "vertical to the bottom, horizontal to the edge, and provides comprehensive coverage."
Third, the workforce for the legalization of grassroots religious affairs governance must be supplemented. Addressing the shortage of personnel, we can learn from and promote existing experiences based on local conditions. For instance, we can draw on the practice in Zhejiang Province, where grassroots ethnic and religious affairs bureaus are established in townships and sub-districts with frequent religious activities. In townships where there is a serious imbalance between the supply and demand of governance power, we can set up religious affairs stations or guidance stations for the legalization of religious affairs governance. These can integrate the resources of multiple departments, such as the township Office for Security and Rule of Law and the Office for Party Building and Mass Organizations, to increase the supply of personnel. In townships (sub-districts) and villages (communities) where conditions permit, and under the guidance of superior United Front Work Departments, we can explore the use of government-procured services within the framework of laws and policies to strengthen the grassroots religious work force. Additionally, we must fully utilize the powerful "productive forces" of information technology and big data. We should explore the establishment of big data platforms for the legalization of religious affairs governance to empower religious law enforcement, the supervision of religious activity venues, and the assessment of risks in the religious sphere through digital technology, thereby making up for the shortfall in human resources.
(II) Improving the system of legal norms to weave a dense institutional network for the legalization of grassroots religious affairs governance
The comprehensive rule of law requires accelerating the construction of a system of socialist laws with Chinese characteristics, "strengthening legislation in key, emerging, and foreign-related fields," and promoting the development of the rule of law at all levels and in all fields. Therefore, the primary task in advancing the legalization of grassroots religious affairs governance is scientific legislation—accelerating the construction of a comprehensive system of religion-related laws and regulations. This can be approached from three aspects: "integration," "refinement," and "filling the gaps."
"Integration" mainly addresses the insufficient systematic nature of grassroots religion-related laws and policies. On the one hand, the People’s Congress and United Front departments can take the lead, joining with the Political and Legal Affairs Commission, the Bureau of Justice, and other departments to conduct a comprehensive review of existing national laws, intra-Party regulations, administrative regulations, local regulations, departmental rules, policy documents, and the internal regulations of religious organizations. They should coordinately promote the "formulation, revision, abolition, interpretation, and codification" of religion-related laws and policies to form a compilation that meets realistic needs. In this process, special attention must be paid to reviewing local regulations and supporting systems to ensure they fit the special requirements of grassroots religious governance while remaining consistent with superior laws and central-level policies, thereby maintaining the unity of the rule of law. For example, in recent years, Zhejiang has formulated and issued more than 20 local policies and regulations based on central laws and Zhejiang's specific conditions, gradually building the "four beams and eight pillars" [21] of its religion-related regulatory system. On the other hand, new technologies such as artificial intelligence, big data, and cloud computing can be used to build a comprehensive database of grassroots religious laws and policies, providing convenient and reliable legal support for enforcement and public legal education.
"Refinement" solves the problem of poor operability in grassroots religious policies and regulations. To this end, central decisions on religious work must be transformed into specific operational norms and clear implementation standards in light of local realities. For issues such as the standards for establishing religious activity venues, clear definitions can be provided through "Implementation Rules" and other supporting systems. Simultaneously, for parts of the superior law that are relatively vague, local regulations and supporting rules should be formulated promptly based on thorough investigation and demonstration. For instance, Article 42 of the Regulations on Religious Affairs does not provide a clear quantitative standard for "large-scale religious activities." Localities can formulate their own regulations to clarify this based on their circumstances, avoiding the infringement of legitimate religious rights caused by excessive administrative discretion.
"Filling the gaps" addresses the legislative "vacuum" in grassroots religious affairs. On the one hand, legislative bodies should conduct deep field research at the grassroots level, extensively soliciting opinions from religious figures, grassroots believers, religious work staff, and experts to understand governance dynamics and legislative needs. This will help in formulating targeted and adaptable local regulations. For example, in 2016, the Shaanxi Provincial Religious Affairs Bureau specifically compiled statistics on religious websites and social media platforms to demonstrate the feasibility of formulating policies for managing internet-based religious affairs. On the other hand, for legislative "blanks" in emerging fields and key issues, a research mechanism for grassroots religious governance can be established. This involves mobilizing universities, research institutes, and government departments, as well as religious representatives and scholars, to participate in legislative research. In particular, we must strengthen long-term judgment on fundamental major issues, promoting legislation in areas such as "Internet" religious affairs governance, the prevention of illegal religious activities, the protection of legitimate religious rights, and the effective management of religious property.
(III) Strengthening the law enforcement workforce to enhance the efficiency of the legalization of grassroots religious affairs governance
The vitality of the law lies in its execution. The level of rule of law in grassroots religious affairs governance depends largely on whether religion-related laws are strictly enforced. To resolve the passive situation where grassroots religious affairs are "unmanaged, unwillingly managed, incompetently managed, or fearfully managed," we must start with the administrative enforcement workforce and its systems to enhance the implementation efficiency of the law.
On the one hand, we solve the "human" problem by strengthening the grassroots enforcement workforce. Finance, human resources, and organization departments should collaborate to ensure sufficient staffing for grassroots religious enforcement, working together to solve problems regarding salaries, benefits, personal development, and working environments to stabilize the workforce. For example, Zhejiang Province requires that in key areas for religious work, such as Wenzhou and Zhoushan, enforcement personnel should be equipped at a ratio of at least 2 full-time and 2 part-time (2+2) or 4 full-time and 2 part-time (4+2), with full-time staff responsible for handling and reviewing religious cases. Furthermore, through specialized training sessions, policy briefings, and methods such as "the old leading the new" (mentorship), we should strengthen theoretical education, practical business training, and regular assessments for enforcement personnel. This will improve their political standing, policy proficiency, religious knowledge, legal literacy, and professional ability, cultivating a grassroots enforcement team that understands the law, religion, and mass work. Moreover, to crack down on irregular enforcement, redundant enforcement, or dereliction of duty, the organization and United Front departments can establish performance evaluation and accountability systems, refining the powers and responsibilities of grassroots religious management and strictly enforcing discipline. We can also use tip-hotlines, internet platforms, and self-media [22] channels to form strong media and social supervision over grassroots enforcement.
On the other hand, we solve the problem of insufficient coordination by constructing a regularized joint enforcement mechanism. Given the increasingly prominent cross-boundary nature of grassroots religious activities (including across departments, regions, and the boundary between the virtual and the real), a management mechanism for regular joint enforcement should be established between departments with enforcement powers, such as civil affairs, public security, industry and commerce, and urban construction. Documents such as the "List of Powers and Responsibilities for Collaborative Governance of Grassroots Religious Affairs" and the "Work Plan for Joint Inspections of Grassroots Religious Affairs" should be formulated to carry out comprehensive, efficient, and regular actions. For example, Zhejiang Province has deepened the "Large-Scale Integrated" administrative enforcement reform in its religious work system, refining 26 frequently occurring administrative penalty items in accordance with the Regulations on Religious Affairs and incorporating them into a unified provincial catalog of comprehensive enforcement. Additionally, to address the trans-regional mobility of illegal religious activities, cross-regional collaborative enforcement mechanisms can be established between neighboring provinces, cities, or urban and rural areas. For example, Jiangshan City in Quzhou established a cooperation mechanism for religious affairs governance among four counties in Zhejiang, Fujian, and Jiangxi provinces, creating an integrated cross-regional governance pattern.
(IV) Improving the system and mechanism for judicial justice to protect the legitimate rights and interests of all groups
Judicial justice can effectively enhance the people's "sense of benefit" regarding the legalization of grassroots religious affairs governance. To this end, in addition to the principle that "every case must be filed and every litigation must be processed," we must build a refined judicial protection mechanism and a transparent judicial disclosure mechanism to safeguard the legitimate rights of the religious community, believers, and non-believers through standardized judicial procedures.
First, we must establish a diversified judicial relief pattern for grassroots religious cases to improve overall judicial efficiency. We should improve mechanisms for resolving grassroots religious disputes, perfect the connection between litigation and mediation, and provide diversified judicial services through arbitration, mediation, and litigation. For cases with significant impact that have entered litigation, simplified and expedited procedures can be used to reduce steps, optimize the process, and lower costs. Additionally, ethnic and religious affairs departments and judicial departments can take the lead in integrating resources from civil affairs, the Women's Federation, the United Front, law firms, and charitable organizations. This creates a "Judicial Relief +" model, providing policy dissemination, legal consultation, and dispute mediation, building an efficient judicial assistance channel for victims and people in difficulty in religion-related cases. For example, the Hangzhou Ethnic and Religious Affairs Bureau and the Bureau of Justice jointly established the "Law Nourishing Ethnic and Religious Affairs" lawyer volunteer service team to optimize the supply of legal services to the masses.
Secondly, it is necessary to establish and improve a mechanism for "sunshine justice" [23]. Regarding primary-level religious cases, judicial organs should uphold the principles of openness and transparency, disclose case trial information in accordance with regulations, elucidate the basis for judgments, and accept social supervision. An effective judicial response system should be established and perfected to strengthen the work of legal interpretation and reasoning. This involves integrating typical case analysis, post-judgment Q&A, and legal consultation into every stage of the trial, sentencing, and enforcement. By actively and timely responding to the concerns and expectations of primary-level masses regarding these cases, the goal is to make fair justice "perceptible, knowable, and credible." To promote judicial participation, people’s assessors could be selected from among religious figures, religious believers, and religious researchers. This would expand the scope of participation for people’s assessors, allowing them to better understand the handling of religious cases and relevant legal provisions.
Thirdly, reforms to the primary-level judicial system must be promoted. To implement the requirements for the "alignment of administrative and criminal law" [24], judicial organs should further clarify common criminal charges related to illegal religious activities at the primary level. They should formulate evidence collection standards by category to resolve difficulties in collecting, reviewing, and identifying evidence in primary-level religious cases. Furthermore, judicial interpretations for such cases at the primary level should be standardized and perfected. By summarizing the patterns of occurrence and investigative experience from these cases and releasing guiding cases, a reference can be provided for judicial practice. Coordination should be maintained among public security officers, community cadres, and medical aid services to formulate trial contingency plans, prevent emergencies such as trial disruptions, and ensure that judicial justice in primary-level religious cases remains undisturbed.
(V) Strengthening Publicity and Education on Religious Policies, Regulations, and Marxist Atheism to Enhance Rule of Law Awareness and Scientific Literacy
The realization of the legalization of primary-level religious affairs governance requires not only that all subjects involved in governance form a rule-of-law mindset, but also that the primary-level masses establish a correct worldview, outlook on life, and values, using science and rationality to dispel the ideological mists brought by religion. Therefore, strengthening publicity and education on religious laws, regulations, and policies alongside Marxist atheism—while enhancing the legal awareness of religious figures and believers and improving the scientific and cultural literacy of the primary-level masses—is the fundamental means to achieve the legalization of primary-level religious affairs governance.
To this end, we must first strengthen publicity and education on the rule of law. For religious figures and believers, we must pay attention to their ideological trends and psychological characteristics. We should carry out targeted publicity and education on religious policies and regulations and conduct "popularization of law" (普法, pǔfǎ) [25] actions. This includes providing a comprehensive and balanced interpretation of religious-related laws and policies to guide them in cooperating with the Party and government’s primary-level religious affairs governance, thereby enhancing their awareness and ability to use the law to protect their legitimate rights and interests. On one hand, the "responsibility system for the popularization of law" must be implemented. Building on the existing system where "those who enforce the law are responsible for popularizing it," we can explore a "responsibility list" where "those who govern are responsible for popularizing the law" based on the realities of primary-level religious affairs governance, forming a "Greater Law Popularization" pattern that integrates governance and popularization. On the other hand, considering the specificity of the target audience for law popularization at the primary level, we should actively innovate forms and enrich carriers for this work beyond traditional methods like training classes on religious regulations and theoretical briefing sessions. For example, we can innovatively develop popular and accessible publicity methods such as traditional opera and cross-talk (相声) performances [26], enhancing the educational effectiveness of the Party’s religious policies and relevant laws.
Secondly, religious circles should be supported in strengthening their own rule-of-law construction. We should guide religious groups to formulate and improve internal rules and regulations, and to manage clerical personnel and conduct religious activities in accordance with laws and regulations. The cultivation and legal education of various types of religious talent should be strengthened to enhance their legal literacy and spiritual outlook, encouraging them to consciously abide by the law and use it to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. Additionally, we must give full play to the active role of religious groups and religious academies in assisting the Party committees and governments with tasks such as publicizing religious policies, screening for illegal religious activities, mediating contradictions and disputes in the religious field, and providing legal education to believers, thereby creating a favorable rule-of-law atmosphere within religious circles.
Thirdly, publicity and education on Marxist atheism must be strengthened in a targeted manner. Conducting such education among the broad primary-level masses is a key measure to effectively improve their scientific and cultural literacy and dissolve the negative influence of religion. However, given primary-level realities, education on Marxist atheism needs to be more "targeted" in terms of content, channels, and targets. Regarding content, considering that superstitions regarding ghosts and gods still exert a significant influence on the primary-level masses, atheistic thoughts contained within excellent traditional culture can be transformed into part of the publicity material. Simultaneously, we should make full use of tangible and perceptible examples occurring around the masses—such as typical cases of rural revitalization and the "battle against poverty" [27], or the exemplary stories of the "Touching China" figures—to help the masses find a spiritual harbor in social reality rather than in illusory religion. Regarding channels, we can leverage emerging internet platforms such as WeChat, Weibo, and "self-media" (自媒体) [28] to expand the coverage and effectiveness of Marxist atheism publicity. Regarding the target audience, we must particularly strengthen Marxist atheism education among primary-level youth. This requires primary-level elementary and middle schools to offer courses related to Marxist atheism, strengthen education in advanced socialist culture, and guide the youth to correctly understand the essence of religion and the laws of its development and eventual withering away, thereby resisting the negative influences of theism.
Source: Science and Atheism (《科学与无神论》), Issue 1, 2026. Editor: Huihui.