{"id":52539,"date":"2010-03-14T20:28:33","date_gmt":"2010-03-15T04:28:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/?p=52539"},"modified":"2010-03-17T13:50:41","modified_gmt":"2010-03-17T21:50:41","slug":"yu-jianrong-%e4%ba%8e%e5%bb%ba%e5%b5%98-maintaining-a-baseline-of-social-stability-part-8","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/2010\/03\/yu-jianrong-%e4%ba%8e%e5%bb%ba%e5%b5%98-maintaining-a-baseline-of-social-stability-part-8\/","title":{"rendered":"Yu Jianrong (\u4e8e\u5efa\u5d58): Maintaining a Baseline of Social Stability (Part 8)"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a>Dr. Yu Jianrong (\u4e8e\u5efa\u5d58), chairman of the Social Issues Research Center of the Rural Development Institute of the China Academy of Social Sciences, delivered a speech entitled “Maintaining a Baseline of Social Stability” before the Beijing Lawyers Association on December 26, 2009. This is part 8 of the CDT translation, here are part 1<\/a>, part 2<\/a>, part 3<\/a>, part 4<\/a>, part 5<\/a>, part 6<\/a>, and part 7<\/a>:<\/p>\n \nNot long ago something really interesting happened. In Guangxi, the director of an Office of Letters and Visits [in charge of handling petitions to higher levels of government] himself became a petitioner to a higher level of government. His home had been demolished. Who here with us today is willing to stand up and say that his or her rights have been completely protected? No one. That is because we don\u2019t have these clearly defined rights. That is because someone can think up some way to turn your legally protected rights into rights with no legal protection. <\/p>\n Actually there\u2019s nothing terrible about disputes. All modern societies have lots of disputes. However the [key] to whether a society is or is not harmonious is whether there is an authoritative judicial system. It doesn\u2019t matter if you are in the West or in Taiwan; what do they do if there is a dispute? They will tell you that they will go to court and bring a lawsuit. Do our people say this? They don\u2019t say this. If you were to tell them to go to court and bring a lawsuit, ordinary people would say every time, \u201cHow would the judge believe me? (Laughter) There\u2019s no way he would believe me!\u201d (Applause) If you were to ask, \u201cWould a lawyer believe you?\u201d they would said, \u201cLawyers also wouldn\u2019t believe me.\u201d (Laughter) That is because we haven\u2019t been able to make the law our baseline. We don\u2019t have this kind of a system! So ordinary people think, \u201cI don\u2019t care what your courts decide, I\u2019m petitioning the government!\u201d <\/p>\n When they petition higher levels of government, [does the government] believe them? Again, no. There is an American named Julie Harms*. She is a foreigner who came to Beijing to petition the government concerning her Chinese husband. She came by my house to visit me and ask for my advice. I asked her a question, \u201cWhat would you do in America?\u201d She said, I would definitely go to the court and bring a lawsuit.\u201d So I asked, \u201cThen why here in China are you petitioning the government?\u201d She said, \u201cBecause Chinese courts don\u2019t listen; they don\u2019t listen to what the central government has to say. So, I\u2019m going directly to the central government, hoping that the central government will make [the courts] listen.\u201d I asked, \u201cWas bringing a lawsuit effective?\u201d She said, \u201cNo. Before I brought the lawsuit they still hadn\u2019t taken him. Right when I brought the lawsuit they took him away. That\u2019s because once the lawsuit was brought the local government said that this problem had become a mess and they needed to [make their handling of the case look] legitimate and [make it look] like a case borne out by ironclad evidence. So they convicted him.\u201d That\u2019s why I say we do not have an authoritative judicial system.<\/p>\n What\u2019s more, do we have a truly representative system [of government]? Again, no. Of the lawyers sitting here today, are there [even] a few of us who have actually gone and voted to choose our [representatives in the] National People\u2019s Congress? None. We don\u2019t know who our representatives are either. Even if we did know, it wouldn\u2019t do any good. People say, \u201cYou\u2019re not the representative I elected; I only know \u201cThree Representatives**,\u201d but these \u201cThree Representatives\u201d are nowhere to be found! (Laughter, applause) Why? Because our representative system of government is not whole.<\/p>\n Finally, do we have an open media? No. Don\u2019t think that the internet of today [was meant to] provide us with a space. The reason we have the internet is because they didn\u2019t have a choice. If they did, they would hope that we couldn\u2019t even have the internet. Now isn\u2019t it the case in Xinjiang that you can\u2019t get on the internet? A member of your same legal profession is a very well known person named He Weifang who is a good friend of mine. He is currently in Shihezi [in Xinjiang Autonomous Region]. He told me that the hardest thing is that he can\u2019t keep in touch with us. He can\u2019t get text messages, he can\u2019t get on the web. What\u2019s he to do? I said, \u201cWho told you to get yourself sent to Shihezi.\u201d***<\/p>\n We often say that things are so much more open now. But this is for technical reasons. It is not because of the government itself; it is not because the government\u2019s philosophy on ruling has changed. Faced with this situation, some local governments say, \u201cGo ahead and criticize us.\u201d Some officials say, \u201cGo ahead and criticize me.\u201d But do you really dare criticize them? You can mention some small things that are not particularly aggravating and they might even give lip-service and say they\u2019ll do something about it. But if you really criticize them, then you immediately find yourself laid off from your job and under arrest in a different province! So, as I\u2019ve pondered this over, [I\u2019ve come to the conclusion that] a harmonious society must have clearly defined property rights, an authoritative judicial system, a truly representative system [of government], and it must have an open media.<\/p>\n Because it is very hard for us to do these things today, I especially feel that law is important. (PowerPoint slide) This is a picture taken when I was giving a lecture in Suzhou on [December] 18th. A banner appeared in the street which read, \u201cDown With Lawless Governments.\u201d Why? [Because of] demolitions. This [term] lawless government is quite interesting\u2014a government without laws. Ordinary people now don\u2019t say \u201ccorrupt government\u201d; they say that it is a \u201clawless government.\u201d In my mind, law still might be the baseline of our society. So I have often asked: can our judiciary become the baseline of our society? I think our judiciary should become our baseline, but we have not been able to accomplish this!<\/p>\n Our judiciary currently has many problems. One core problem is that the regionalization of the judiciary is becoming increasingly pronounced. The control of the judiciary by interest groups is becoming increasingly evident. \u201cA political party simultaneously in charge of the judiciary\u201d: this is the view of your Wei Rujia, Esq.. \u201cThe [Party] Secretary controls the hats people wear [i.e., what positions people hold], the mayor controls the cash flow, and the Communist Party Political and Legislative Affairs Committee controls the cases.\u201d These are the words of an extremely famous member of your profession and were spoken during a presentation given to central government leaders. Not long after his presentation, China University of Political Science and Law invited me to give a lecture to the students there and talk about land issues. After my lecture I was about to leave when a student proposed an idea, \u201cProfessor Yu, can you provide any suggestions for us University of Political Science and Law students?\u201d I said, I\u2019m not famous and I\u2019m not one of the nation\u2019s leaders, what kind of hope or suggestions can I provide?\u201d The student said, \u201cJust offer whatever suggestions you might have.\u201d I said, \u201cSince you want me to offer [suggestions], let me tell you what I think. I feel that here in China, a country that does not have religious beliefs, a country whose government has lost a portion of its legal mandate, a country in which [the] political party\u2019s ideology is already in the process of disintegration, in this country, we in the legal profession must defend the laws, this baseline of society. We must defend the baseline of society, defend the future of society, defend the future of our people, defend the future of our children, our grandchildren and our descendants. (Applause) <\/p>\n After I said this, I grabbed my bag and was about to go when that person\u2014he is currently an important leader at China University of Political Science and Law\u2014got really excited. He grabbed the microphone and said this. He said, \u201cJust now, Professor Yu said that we University of Political Science and Law students should defend the baseline. That\u2019s right but, but can we actually succeed? I don\u2019t think we can!\u201d (Laughter) He said:<\/p>\n Two days ago, our university wanted to hold a school celebration. The Deputy Chief Justice of the Hunan Provincial High People\u2019s Court came to our school. He said, \u201cProfessor so and so, the situation now is this way: the [Party] secretary controls which hat people wear. Who is going to be the court\u2019s chief justice? Who is going to be the head of the procuratorate? This all depends on the Party committee [led by the Secretary].\u201d [He also said,] \u201cThe mayor controls the money. If your expenditure is in the city; for example if you want to construct a building and the mayor doesn\u2019t agree to it, then there\u2019s no way you can get the money.\u201d [He also said that] the Political and Legislative Affairs Committee controls the cases. So there\u2019s nothing we can do. We have the good intentions but lack the means!<\/p>\n After he spoke, I was thinking, \u201cForget it,\u201d and grabbed my bag to go. That University of Political Science and Law student stood up again and said, \u201cProfessor Yu, can you comment on what the directors just said?\u201d I said I could not comment. When someone invites you to give a lecture and even gives you money, how are you supposed to comment? (Laughter)<\/p>\n The student insisted that I comment so I said, \u201cIf you really want me to comment, then I\u2019ll give you my comments.\u201d I said, \u201cI wouldn\u2019t have thought that someone who is called a famous legal scholar would be so unqualified to stand before and speak to students at the University of Political Science and Law. What is he talking about, saying \u2018the [Party] Secretary controls the hats people wear, the mayor controls the cash flow, and the Political and Legislative Affairs Committee controls the cases.\u2019 If [it seems] that nothing can be done, then all of us in the legal profession should dare to take off our black gauze caps in resistance****\u2014then we\u2019d be doing something about it.\u201d What a mess [this created]. After I said this I just grabbed my bag and ran because I felt a bit awkward. The second day a post appeared on the internet saying that Yu Jianrong had an angry rant against so and so and that I gave him a thorough tongue lashing. After that, for several years this person ignored me. We usually had meetings together during which he would pretend he didn\u2019t know me. But now our relationship is better. Not long ago there was a case involving land and he invited me to a meeting [to discuss the case.] He said, \u201cYu Jianrong, tell me what you really feel; was what I said at the time incorrect? You\u2019re a bad influence, you want my students to all take off their black gauze caps, what am I supposed to do when they\u2019re all laid off?\u201d <\/p>\n I replied, \u201cWhat you said wasn\u2019t incorrect. In China the reality truly is that the [Party] secretaries, the mayors, and the Political and Legislative Affairs Committee are controlling things. But how could you say this in front of the students and cause them to lose their faith! China needs a big group of people who have faith in the law and who defend the law. Our country having a future depends entirely on us holding true to our faith in the law! (Enthusiastic applause) As a teacher, how can you say that kind of thing to your students?\u201d (Enthusiastic applause)<\/p>\n If China is to reform how is to go about doing it? How should China\u2019s political power be reformed? Recently I\u2019ve proposed an idea that big changes are not going to happen. Let\u2019s first not touch the central government, let\u2019s not touch Political and Legislative Affairs Committee of the Communist Party of China, let\u2019s not touch the Supreme People\u2019s Court. Can we start from the ground level? Because ground level courts and intermediate courts are primarily what directly affect the peoples\u2019 interests, is it okay if we start there? Let\u2019s not call it \u201cjudicial independence;\u201d how about we call it \u201cjudicial checks and balances?\u201d Let\u2019s not say that its checks and balances are directed towards the Communist Party. If I say that I\u2019m going to check and balance you, then you in the Communist Party will be unhappy for sure. How about we say that the checks and balances are directed towards local governments? We support our leaders in the Communist Party, but we use a vertical judiciary to rein in local governments. That is because the local [level] is what directly affects the people\u2019s interests.<\/p>\n That is why I have recently held several forums at which I especially invited many people from the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China to discuss whether we could do [reforms] in this way, but no one paid attention to me. I wrote reports and sent them up [to the government], but no paid attention to me [or] said that this was still not okay. However, I think that China\u2019s problems have truly gotten to this point. That\u2019s why I have repeatedly asked, with China now facing so many problems, what is to be done? I\u2019ve pondered this [and think that the answer] is to rely on the law. Let\u2019s strip ourselves of all ideologies. Let\u2019s not go back again to the era of Mao Zedong, and let\u2019s also not say this and that about the era of Deng Xiaoping. Let\u2019s just defend our constitution. There\u2019s no longer [anything else] in Chinese society left to defend. We\u2019ve retreated further and further in defeat. Will we be able to defend our ultimate baseline? Will Chinese society experience upheaval? How serious will be the problems the future brings? That all depends on whether we are able to defend our ultimate baseline. <\/p>\n There was once someone who asked me, burning with anxiety, \u201cAccording to the look of China\u2019s current situation, is institutional reform even a possibility? Is there still hope of China developing in a positive direction?\u201d My response was that there was hope. This hope comes from the rational choice [that must be made] in the face of social pressure!<\/p>\n When conflicts intensify, social pressure will become greater and greater. When everyone feels that there is no way out, all kinds of social forces will start searching for a baseline. If they were not to do this, there would be extreme social upheaval that would utterly destroy social order. In light of this situation, there are two most basic choices. The first is that anxiety about these [potential] catastrophic consequences will spur all interested groups into working towards a rational compromise; they will use reason to search for a baseline that everyone can agree upon. The second is that maybe because this compromise does not occur, [China] will experience fundamental, revolutionary upheaval. From the look of the current situation, the vast majority of Chinese people hope that social conflicts can be reined in, which is to say that the majority of people hope that China does not experience large-scale social upheaval. The question is how all levels of Chinese society, especially levels that have clashes of interests and clashes of political power, will make the necessary compromises to benefit society\u2019s structural stability. This to a large extent is determined by whether members of society, especially parties to conflicts, can seek out a baseline that is acceptable to everyone.<\/p>\n So, what currently is Chinese society\u2019s baseline of stability? In my view, the whole society must reach a consensus on how to facilitate the actual implementation of the constitution. Society must form a consensus on how to make the constitution the cornerstone of China\u2019s social stability.<\/p>\n * For more on Julie Harms, see \u201cAmerican Woman Hunts Elusive Chinese Justice\u201d at http:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/china\/julie-harms\/.<\/p>\n ** The \u201cThree Represents\u201d (which is the same in Chinese as \u201cThree Representatives\u201d) is a socio-political ideology developed by Jiang Zemin. The \u201cthree represents\u201d are: 1) The Party must always represent the requirements of the development of China’s advanced productive forces. 2) The Party must always represent the orientation of the development of China’s advanced culture. 3) The Party must always represent the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people in China. For more information, see http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Three_Represents.<\/p>\n *** For the reasons He Weifang was sent to Shihezi see \u201cLeading Dissident \u2018Exiled\u2019 to Chinese Northwest\u201d at http:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/china\/he-weifang\/.<\/p>\n **** To take off one\u2019s black gauze cap (\u4e4c\u7eb1\u5e3d) is a reference to what would occur anciently when a government official refused to follow an order out of principle. Removing one\u2019s black gauze cap was a way of symbolically stepping down from one\u2019s post so that they would not have to follow an order that contradicted one\u2019s principles.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [To be continued]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dr. Yu Jianrong (\u4e8e\u5efa\u5d58), chairman of the Social Issues Research Center of the Rural Development Institute of the China Academy of Social Sciences, delivered a speech entitled “Maintaining a Baseline of Social Stability” before the Beijing Lawyers Association on December 26, 2009. This is part 8 of the CDT translation, here are part 1, part […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[100,5,4202],"tags":[1587,264,5703],"class_list":["post-52539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","category-society","category-translation","tag-social-stability","tag-social-structure","tag-yu-jianrong","et-doesnt-have-format-content","et_post_format-et-post-format-standard"],"yoast_head":"\n