Under the party's grip, Chinese legal reforms won't get far
Chang Ping says Beijing's legal reforms fail to address the key concern
In the summer of 2009, I exchanged views with a group of mainland judges and prosecutors at the University of Hong Kong. From them, I learned that the Hong Kong government has for many years sponsored such study trips for mainland legal professionals, many of them from Shenzhen.
Even though the legal systems on the two sides of the border are vastly different, those I spoke to felt that they benefited from the visit. They noted that, among mainland cities, Shenzhen was widely seen to have the best qualified legal workers, and its courts often led the others in pushing judicial reform.
Nevertheless, this did not prevent the Shenzhen judiciary from being among the most corrupt in China. In one case, five senior judges of the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court - including a vice-president - were arrested for taking bribes.
Whether or not judges have spent time at a Hong Kong university also made no difference to the courts' treatment of dissidents. Like other mainland courts, Shenzhen courts take instructions from the Central Political-Legal Committee and act as a tool to muffle dissent. Xue Mingkai and Wang Dengchao - just to cite two cases - were jailed by Shenzhen courts for no other reason than that they called for the protection of human rights and pushed for democracy.
At the conclusion of the Communist Party's fourth plenum, leaders pledged to "comprehensively advance the rule of law to govern the country".
Official media hailed the decision for marking a new chapter in the development of China's rule of law. Regrettably, however, the long and detailed document on the decision was silent on the two biggest problems in the Chinese legal system - judicial corruption and political interference.
Like the courts in Shenzhen, these problems will remain impervious to change, despite the promise of sweeping legal reform.
To be fair, the decision does contain some new thinking. For example, it was surprising to find Chinese leaders putting the constitution at the front and centre of Chinese governance. After all, just last year, official media had attacked constitutional rule in article after article. Yet today, leaders have pledged to "perfect a socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics based on the constitution" and to "strengthen the implementation of the constitution".
The decision also called on administrative officers to fulfil their duties ("do what they must") while not abusing their power ("must not do what they are not authorised to do") - an important principle to prevent abuse of power. At the same time, in a point protecting the rights of citizens, the decision said people should be free to "do what has not been prohibited by law".
Further, the decision also proposed technical changes to the legal system, which if implemented, will no doubt be an improvement.
However, the heart of the constitution concerns setting limits on state power. On this front, the decision has not only failed to make any progress but in fact appeared to be doing the opposite. It stressed the central role of the Communist Party in leading China; this is nothing new. But, for the first time, the decision said the party's Political-Legal Committee must "persevere for the long run".
The existence of the propaganda department signals we have no media freedom. Similarly, as long as the Political-Legal Committee "perseveres", we can have no judicial independence.
For more than 20 years, Chinese people have lived through many slogans on the government of their country: "rule by morality", the "three represents", a "harmonious society" and the "Chinese Dream". Many of these ideas are controversial, and some have become the butt of jokes.
Through it all, only two ideas are sincerely supported by the people: "market economy" and "ruling the country according to law". Sadly, even today, the Chinese economy is hardly the embodiment of a free market, but is controlled by monopolies and the wealthy, while the rule of law has been bleached of its meaning by the rampant abuse of power.
