Does the Law Matter in China?

Nicholas Bequelin, 05/13/12

HONG KONG -- Does the law matter in China? A cursory look at the two crises that have hit the Chinese government in recent weeks -- one at the very top, with the purge of Bo Xilai, and one at the grassroots, with the escape from unlawful house arrest of the blind activist Chen Guangcheng -- suggests not.

The two cases have in common an overt and blatant disregard for legality, an unwillingness of the central government to correct manifest injustices, and the notion that only U.S. diplomatic compounds are safe-havens in China.

Bo, the maverick princeling, turned a brutal anti-mafia campaign in the southwestern metropolis of Chongqing into an instrument of personal power designed to garner popularity through swift “justice” and to eliminate political rivals. His suspension by the Party’s Central Committee came only after his police chief took refuge in the United States Consulate.

Chen, the dauntless rural activist from Shandong province, had attempted to use the existing legal system to expose wide-ranging abuses of power by local officials, only to be sentenced in 2006 to more than four years in prison on trumped-up charges by a local court. Upon his release in September 2010, local officials and hired thugs unlawfully kept him confined in his home. He too, after dramatically escaping his captors, sought refuge in a U.S. diplomatic enclave.

Both cases are widely seen as emblematic. Bo’s embodies the corruption of an unchecked political elite: Communist Party members are investigated by the party’s own disciplinary committee, and not by the courts. Chen’s case is rife with the predatory behavior of local officials whose conduct is more reminiscent of China’s feudal past than of the “new socialist countryside” Beijing leaders claim to be building.

Yet it would be a mistake to conclude that the law doesn't matter in China.

First, while Chen’s case entails the catalogue of unlawful measures that are used against government critics, it also embodies the rising assertiveness of a citizenry that is increasingly ready to defend its legal rights against official arbitrariness, corruption and injustice.

Land-rights activists, factory workers, forcibly evicted residents, arbitrarily censored netizens, ordinary consumers and environmental activists -- citizens in China are increasingly committed to defending their rights.

To overcome the control of local courts by local authorities, Chinese citizens are taking their grievances public, making full use of new media. They are increasingly ready to take their demands to the streets, as witnessed by the rapid growth in the number of social protests over environmental issues, labor disputes, land seizures, abuses of power and corruption. A recent Chinese study estimated that on any given day there are 500 protests across the country.

The common demand of this increasingly assertive citizenry is simple: that the state respect its own laws. Back when the state operated in almost complete secrecy, it could easily resist these demands. It is increasingly difficult to do so with 500 million people online.

As a result, the authorities back down more often than people may suspect. This was the case in late 2011 in the southern village of Wukan, where after a long battle, local citizens managed to oust leaders they suspected of illegal land transactions.

This was also the case after the Wenzhou train-crash in July 2011, where an attempted cover-up prompted a public outcry that compelled Beijing to order a formal investigation and to suspend several officials. It was also the case in Dalian in August 2011, when residents demonstrated to demand the closure of a petrochemical factory that violated environmental and safety regulations. And it is the case in countless labor disputes when workers sue for compensation or violation of labor laws. The list goes on.

Admittedly, such victories come hard. Rights activists and whistle-blowers like Chen have to endure various degrees of police harassment and suppression, and the government remains hostile to the precondition for any reasonably functional legal system: an independent judiciary.

But the fact is that the rule of law has become a central demand of the Chinese citizenry, and grievances are increasingly framed in the language of rights. The law matters.

Nicholas Bequelin is senior researcher on Asia at Human Rights Watch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/opinion/Does-the-law-matter-in-China.html?_r=1

不要以为俺是怕了你

既然你说我一贯瞎扯，咱就好好谈谈这个论题，瞧瞧谁喜欢瞎扯

沒有錯，社會秩序必須靠「力量」維持

如果没理解错误，你这力量应该和我说的暴力指的同一个东西，大家用词不同，是吧？再看看你这个所谓的力量维护的是神马东西，就以台湾这个拆迁条款来说吧，他符合你们所信仰的西方大力鼓吹的个人财产神圣不可侵犯信仰吗？对这样的东西，你拼命用文辞来美化，这似乎和你总把自己当成良心代言人的形象似乎有点距离，好意思再谈神马民主自由人权吗？请教一下，被拆迁人的人权体现在哪里？再请教一下，这里法律体现的不是暴力是神马？

不就问题的实质讨论，总谈神马必要性，这是不是在东拉西扯？

我的觀點都有「論點」或支持它們的「理由」，例如，「沒有法律的後果是無上限『暴力』的『叢林法則』。」以及「因為民主社會的法律需要有『正當性』，...；社會大眾也可以經過一定程序來修改或補救。」等等。

公共議題的討論或溝通，需要「理性」，也就是需要說出個「理由」。你不同意我的觀點，請批駁我的「論點」。例如，舉一個沒有法律的世外桃源的實例；或說出個沒有法律老百姓也能安居、社會也能和諧的「理論」。

如果你只能喃喃自語的重複自己的「認定」或「論斷」，拿不出一套說得通的、支持它們的理由，我就不奉陪了。你自己慢慢玩吧。

至於在古巴都要「走資」以後，還搬出馬克思來忽悠，那就不只是邏輯上的「謬誤」，更是個笑話了。順帶說一句，我讀過和(經常)引用馬克思，但我也批評和「揚棄/修正」他的某些說法。或許，你大概沒聽過 「學而不思則罔。」或「盡信書不如無書。」這兩句話。(以上這段話是「批駁」你「訴諸(馬克思)權威」的「論點」。)

顺便说下，这不是俺喜欢哗众取宠，马克思理论里面就这观点，不是俺创造的

沒有錯，社會秩序必須靠「力量」維持，但其原因是由於人們生存所需的資源不敷分配。在生存競爭的環境下，沒有人認為「守法」是「天性」或「德行」。但是，沒有法律的後果是無上限「暴力」的「叢林法則」。兩者相權，是大多數有大腦的人都願意接受法律約束的基礎。這個道理，中學生都懂。這是為什麼我說：

「如果把某個特定法律或所有的法律看成是『暴力』的羊頭或遮羞布，則不免偏執或無知。當然，這種人可能也另有企圖，... 」

其次，你所說的「暴力」，在民主社會稱為「公權力」。因為民主社會的法律需要有「正當性」，不是只靠或全靠武警或坦克的「暴力」就能維持；社會大眾也可以經過一定程序來修改或補救。在民主社會，這是現實而不是幻覺、幻想、或什麼「美化」。不懂得這個道理或無視於這個分別，一味的把法律和「暴力」畫上等號，再臉紅脖子粗的「氣壯」，只不過突顯自己的偏執、無知、或喜歡胡說八道。

一个简单的事实是，没有警察军队这些暴力机关，任何法律都=狗屎

无论你如何美化它，法律就是靠暴力维持的，这是事实

至于你听到法律和暴力联系起来就产生如何如何的负面反应，那是你的事