No justice

Cabbies Can't Find China's Road to Justice by Philip P. Pan

The Dazhou cabbies were trying to overturn a city decision they considered unjust, using channels the party itself had endorsed. Their long, futile struggle illustrates the difficulties ordinary Chinese face when they attempt to influence even minor public policy decisions in the world's largest authoritarian system. It also shows how the myriad demands of a society enjoying growing economic and personal freedoms are testing the Communist Party's rigid political structure.

Under the leadership of President Hu Jintao, the party has said it needs to be more responsive to the public if it is to preserve its monopoly on power. At the same time, it has ruled out democratic reform and instead sought to improve governance by encouraging citizens to assert their rights via party-run courts, media and, most recently, public hearings.

But these institutions remain weak -- the cab drivers tried and failed with all three. As a result, Chinese who have grievances against local officials often take a course that is an age-old tradition in China: They shangfang, or travel to the capital for an audience with higher authorities. In ancient China, they petitioned the emperor. Today, they petition the Communist leadership.

The party uses a bureaucracy of what it calls "Letters and Visits" offices to handle these appeals, but these offices do little more than transfer complaints to local governments, collect statistics and pressure petitioners to go home. A recent study by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences found that only 0.2 percent of all petitioners actually succeed in getting their complaints addressed.

No surprise. China Digital News reports that

WSJ article (November 10, 2004) reports that, in an attempt to deal with the increasing numbers of Chinese who are swarming government offices to demand their rights, Chinese legislators are considering banning public gatherings outside state buildings. This short-sighted response fails to address the root cause of the protests, which have been increasing in both scale and violence.

Beijing's plan to solve this problem through law is ironic, given that the increase in the number of petitioners is directly linked to the malfunctions of China's legal system. After failing to get justice on a local level, petitioners flock to Beijing hoping to receive higher-level attention to their grievances. The new law, which was reported by Kyodo, would not address the larger problem of a judicial system in which courts are subject to the authority of the Communist Party. The rights guaranteed in the Chinese constitution are subject to Party "interpretation," and local judges can be influenced by the local governments who pay their wages.

The link leads to Safety Valve for Absorbing Discontent in Danger of Exploding by Antoaneta Bezlova:

As China considers doing away with one of its unique communist vestiges, the 'shangfang' - or the system of petitioning the government - there are fears that scrapping the only channel available to people to air their grievances might lead to a serious escalation of social unrest in the country.

For more than fifty years of communist rule, 'shangfang' has provided the disgruntled with an opportunity to gain redress from the highest levels of government.

Communist China's founding fathers from the late chairman Mao Zedong to paramount leader Deng Xiaoping have used the petitioning system to present a benevolent face to people who had been wronged by local officials and deprived of the chance to a fair trial.

Now, however, social researchers and legal experts argue this rather imperial way of meting out justice is undermining China's efforts to establish a modern society based on the rule of law....

Beijing fears that if the entrenched system of petitioning is revoked, pent-up social anger could find more dangerous outlets.

Yet top leaders have no choice but to reform the obsolete mechanism of 'shangfang', according to Yu Jianrong, the rural researcher. "What we ultimately want is a rule by the law and not the cult of honest officials and resolutions scribbled on our petitions by superiors."

More here, which leads to ESWN. Shouldn't Philip P. Pan be reading that?