China’s Rule-By-Law Society
China is not a true rule-of-law society, and its laws, specifically those relating to residents in the country’s rural areas, are arbitrary and unjust. The country is on the lower end of the Rule of Law Index with a score of 0.48, with 0 being the worst and 1 being the best. While the “essence of the rule of law is fairness and impartiality,” China’s legal system has an inquisitorial tradition where the judge acts “almost as a prosecutor.” [1] On the contrary, China’s leaders follow the concept of a rule-by-law, “in which the legal system is a tool used to assure Communist Party dominance.” In this model of the legal system, “’the state can do just about anything it wants, and then find some helpful language in the “laws” to justify it.’” [2] One distinct example of China’s historically ambiguous law enforcement surrounds residential laws for citizens of urban and rural areas. This is exemplified by the Great Leap Forward campaign of the 20th century, as well as the modern-day Hukou System, which both provide arbitrary regulations in terms of where one lives, granting advantages to urban residents.
China’s history reveals the extent to which its traditions have laid the foundation for a rule-by-law society. The country’s legal culture underscores the judge’s mission to “unveil the truth and catch the perpetrator.” While the blindfolded Goddess of Justice is a symbol of the traditional rule-of-law legal system that “judges should be blind to the parties’ characteristics and only weigh facts,” the legendary judge in the Chinese culture does the opposite. Named Bao Qingtian, this judge has a third eye so that he can “read peoples’ minds.” [3] Due to the country’s deep-rooted belief that “authorities carry the mandate of heavens and should be obeyed,” Judge Bao Qingtian is believed to never rule incorrectly. Moreover, China’s historical beliefs have contributed to the creation of partial and corrupt courts, making “judges who independently follow the laws in both word and spirit” in China “virtually unheard of.” It is evident that there’s no accountability of fairness or justness in the legal system, and the government can interpret laws according to its own agenda, revealing China’s rule-by-law society.
China’s Great Leap Forward exemplifies its rule-by-law society, having set the stage for the country’s arbitrary law enforcement, historically disadvantaging residents of rural areas. The Great Leap Forward was a campaign that took place in China between 1958 and 1960. During this time, Mao Zedong was president. Yet in 1952, there was a significant investment made in heavy industries in cities; this was called the Five-Year Plan. This investment was made because four-fifths of the Chinese population lived in rural areas at the time, so there were not enough people living in cities and working in industries. [4] The Chinese government followed the Soviet Union’s model of economic development, aiming for a high economic growth rate in the cities’ industries, and “shifting the economic focus away from agriculture and move toward technology.” [5] Yet as the population in Chinese cities increased, the rate of agricultural food production wasn’t high enough to keep all of the people fed. As a result, the Great Leap Forward was devised, otherwise known as the second Five-Year Plan. It required laborers in the countryside to work to feed industrial workers and expand production in cities. Thus, peasants were forced to live in communes in rural areas, and all of the farmers in each commune were responsible for the collective performance of the land they were assigned to. Arbitrary laws were created to purge those who criticized Mao’s policy. Additionally, the majority of the food produced was sent to cities, so the farmers in rural areas starved. This was justified in the Chinese legal system. [6] Overall, this period revealed significant instances of arbitrary law enforcement for peasants and farmers in rural areas. For one, forcing peasants in rural areas to collectively work on farms and live in communes was enacted without regard for personal rights. Furthermore, villagers in rural areas starved because all of their crop production was sent to people in cities, leading many to die of malnutrition and some to resort to cannibalism. In fact, deaths related to famine are estimated to have been in the range of twenty-three to fifty-five million people. [7] Once more, Mao’s enforcement of laws, specifically these laws that led most farmers to starve, is unjust and reflects China’s rule-by-law society.
While the Great Leap Forward was abandoned in 1961, China continued to pass arbitrary laws disadvantaging residents of rural areas. The Hukou system, which was introduced in 1958, is a “means of population registration” for Chinese citizens. [8] It is similar to a U.S. passport in that without a Hukou, people can’t get health insurance, don’t have access to education, and don’t have the ability to vote. The system tells residents where in China they must reside, which lacks any legal foundation. During the One-Child policy from 1979 to 2015, if a mother were to have a second child, the second child wasn’t permitted a Hukou, so they couldn’t attend school, go to the hospital, or even take a train. An individual’s Hukou can be categorized as either rural or urban, and the type of Hukou one has determines “where they have access to social services like hospitals and schools.” [9] Chinese citizens with rural Hukous are considered inferior to those with urban Hukous. Urban Hukous generally provides more public service and welfare than rural Hukous, and there is a barrier to getting an urban Hukou unless one is endowed with an urban Hukou by birth. In turn, the Hukou system underscores China’s lack of a just legal system by employing “social inequalities in China by dividing the population into two classes, rural and urban, to determine where citizens can receive public services.” [10]
Considering the perception of countries worldwide, it is reasonable to assume China’s historically ambiguous law enforcement has served as the ideal opposing model to countries such as the United States. In fact, much of the “growing competition between the United States and China” can be attributed to their polarizing differences in legal systems, which lay the foundation for how a society functions. For instance, the Peng Shuai scandal. Which involved the disappearance of a Chinese tennis star named Peng Shuai, after she exposed the government’s inherent inequities and abuses of power to an extent few other incidents in recent times have, serves as a model for China’s corrupt government. This incident was an embarrassment to Beijing, proving to other countries that maintaining a rule-of-law society prevents unlawful incidents such as this and causing “international criticism” of China’s ambiguous law enforcement. [11] Furthermore, China’s Great Leap Forward and Hukou System have impacted the country’s international relations. When companies look to hire Chinese workers, their ability to hire the optimal workers is limited because of the restrictiveness of the movement of skilled laborers to different regions. So, in addition to serving as the optimal example of the society which not to become, China’s law enforcement limits its relations with countries worldwide.
While the Great Leap Forward and the Hukou system reveal China’s consistent unjust treatment of rural residents, the future of law enforcement is undetermined. Although it is likely future laws will mimic the arbitrary nature of those enforced in China today, modern reforms indicate a shift from arbitrary ruling to an enforcement of more just laws, turning away from a traditionally praised judge with three eyes to an impartial blind judge recognized by societies following a rule-of-law legal system. One example of this shift in China is the current reform of the Hukou system. In 2022, cities and provincial governments announced reforms to their local Hukou systems. More specifically, in February, China’s island province of Hainan “announced it would reform household registrations into a unified system for all residents, urban and rural.” [12] Placing urban and rural residents in the same category signifies a transition from ambiguous law enforcement to a just and fair legal system.
Edited by Rylee Pachman
Endnotes
[1] Li, Shaomin, ed. 2022. “China’s Legal System Is Not about the Rule of Law: The Advantages and Limits of the Relation-Based System.” Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2022. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/rise-of-china-inc/chinas-legal-system-is-not-about-the-rule-of-law/DD3B3ED73BF4ACEF0CD17237005290BB.
[2] Schuman, Michael. 2021. “China Wants to Rule the World by Controlling the Rules.” The Atlantic. December 9, 2021. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/12/china-wants-rule-world-controlling-rules/620890/.
[3] Li, “China’s Legal System is Not About the Rule of Law.”
[4] Simple History. 2020. “The Great Leap Forward (1958-62).” YouTube Video. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWRhPf9Qzmw.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Brown, Clayton. 2012. “China’s Great Leap Forward.” Association for Asian Studies. 2012. https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/chinas-great-leap-forward/.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Boquen, Antoine. 2022. “What Is the Hukou System in China? – Definition, Pros & Cons.” Joinhorizons.com. August 10, 2022. https://joinhorizons.com/the-chinese-hukou-system-explained/.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Schuman, Michael. 2021a. “What the Peng Shuai Scandal Is Really About.” The Atlantic. November 30, 2021. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/11/what-peng-shuai-scandal-reveals-about-chinese-power/620834/.
[12] Jaramillo, Eduardo. 2022. “China’s Hukou Reform in 2022: Do They Mean It This Time?” Www.csis.org. April 20, 2022. https://www.csis.org/blogs/new-perspectives-asia/chinas-hukou-reform-2022-do-they-mean-it-time-0.