Commentary

China Watch

Forum Digests

Columnists

Letters

Respect for people's rights eases tensions

By Qiao Xinsheng
Updated: 2008-07-21 07:23

The recent riot in Weng'an, South China's Guizhou province, has shocked the whole nation, although the provincial government took timely measures to keep the local security situation stable. The riot was provoked last month by the drowning of a teenage girl, whose family members and relatives doubted her autopsy by the police. With the incitement of local mafia-style gangsters, people took to the street for a massive protest against the local police and government. The event led to the removal of the chiefs of the county Party, government and police authorities, and local officials who served as "protection umbrellas" for gangsters being punished.

Although calm has been restored, there are some underlying factors that cannot be underestimated. The fundamental reason for the violent protest is attributed to the lack of a set of elastic system arrangements in the country that respect citizens' right of "disobedience".

In a democratic nation, all behaviors aimed at toppling a current regime are defined as crimes. And in any modern country, there is no legitimate clause justifying subversion, and any citizen who takes violent measures to overthrow the government or take radical actions against government officials will be brought to justice.

But this does not mean citizens are only bound to obey. Under the constitutions and legal systems of all countries, citizens can obey the current system, but they can also choose not to obey. But such "disobedience" is different from extremism adopted by some citizens.

Compared with representations of extremism in some radical behaviors such as violence, disobedience is a kind of right for passive behavior and non-violence. Also, different from the former that cannot be controlled because of lack of effective procedures, the latter can be brought under control under the framework of modern laws and regulations.

In addition to the two points, there are other differences between disobedience and extremism. The former is both normal and abnormal, while the latter is absolutely abnormal; the former is a kind of behavior shown by citizens aimed at functional government bodies and their employees, which will not cause damage to innocent people, while the latter is a kind of behavior targeted at the whole society, which will inevitably damage innocent people.

Another outstanding difference between the two is that the former can be both collective and individual, and any citizen who exercises such a right still can enjoy other rights such as political, social and civil rights that are under the protection of the law, while the latter, in most cases, is a collective revolt, and the purpose behind people taking such actions is to attempt to overthrow the country's legal system through violent means. But such a legal system is aimed exactly at protecting their political, social and civil rights. In other words, extremists will enjoy no right except the right of extremism, given that their purpose is to dismantle the existing power arrangements.

It is true that the existing social order of a country is not laid out for all of its citizens and will not bring to everyone a maximum benefit. Under the framework of the law in a modern democratic nation, the principle of democracy and the principle that the minority should be subordinate to the majority is implemented. However, its constitution is also bound to protect the basic rights of the minority, and allow marginalized citizens dignity and access to live on. Due to the dysfunction of judicial organs or other State machinery, it is possible that the rights of some individual citizens may be seriously compromised in the process of the application of the constitution and law. Under such conditions, they should be permitted to ventilate their emotions through abnormal channels in addition to administrative lawsuit and administrative reconsideration, both included in the clauses of law. With these channels, citizens can at least vent their dissatisfactions, display to the society their requirements or attract attention from government organs, although that may not inevitably lead to the settlement of their problems.

Respect for the citizens' right to such forms of disobedience may possibly cause some disorder in some regions, but it can effectively solve daily contradictions in the society, and thus can prevent contradictions from being accumulated and finally leading to some large-scale extremist activities.

Respect for such a right, which is a constitutional right for a citizen, will also be helpful in creating a favorable buffer for the settlement of some social issues, thus helping the government learn about the opinions of the people and then adjust its decision-making. That will, to some degree, help it postpone the outbreak of some social contradictions and even eliminate them.

China has witnessed a string of violent events across the country. The basic reason is that the country only stresses respect for citizens' procedural rights, hoping they solve their problems under the procedural law. As a result, individual citizens sometimes have to take to more powerful mafia-style gangs and other means such as violence or self-destruction, to resolve their problems if normal judicial means fail.

In addition to extremism and obedience, there is another choice in front of citizens, the choice for disobedience.

Respecting citizens' right to disobedience does not mean putting aside their problems, but to allow them to exercise the disobedience right. That will help remind those in power of social contradictions and then prompt them to take timely measures to defuse these contradictions.

At a time of China's social transformation, the number of issues involving conflicts of interests among different social groups is on the rise. This poses a challenge for the government to handle them efficiently.

The author is professor with Zhongnan University of Economics and Law

(China Daily 07/21/2008 page4)