Bo Xilai Case: China Dream Remains a Distant Dream

Bo Xilai Case: China Dream Remains a Distant Dream
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 30, 2013

Summary: Today's CCP places the party above the law. The party cannot permit the law to control the party. Xi Jingpin wanted the "party to control the party." This is all the result of "one -party dictatorship." This is why there is no "partisan politics." This is why there is no "tripartite separation of powers." This is why there is no "justice." The Bo Xilai trial was a "copy of the West." But it merely inverted cause and effect. It merely adopted the external trappings. The Bo Xilai case tells us that the Chinese mainland remains a long way from its "China Dream."

Full text below:

During the five day long Bo Xilai trial, the Mainland authorities made considerable progress in terms of due process. Leave aside the larger economic and political backdrop for the moment. Look only at the adversarial process within the courtroom. The process was clearly orderly. The prosecution's arguments were reasonable. The defense said everything that needed to be said. The proceedings were directly webcast by microbloggers. Could this mark the beginning of future CCP judicial reform?

Consider the conduct of the justice system. The conduct of the Bo Xilai trial was very different from the 1967 trial of Bo Xilai's father Bo Yibo. Back then, a single document, "The Confession and Surrender of Bo Yibo, Liu Lan Tao, An Ziwen, Yang Hsien-chen" led to the persecution of Bo Yibo. Bo Yibo's wife Hu Ming, Bo Xilai's mother, committed suicide while in custody. The conduct of the Bo Xilai trial also differs from the 1962 persecution of Xi Jinping's father Xi Zhongxun, who was accused of writing an "anti-party novel" entitled "Liu Chih-tan." That case did not even go to trial. Instead an "ad hoc committee" branded Xi a member of an "anti-party group." Xi Zhongxun was imprisoned for 16 years. Over 60,000 people were implicated. The conduct of the Bo Xilai case also differed from the Liu Shaoqi case and the Peng Dehuai case.

The CCP's Criminal Law and Criminal Procedures Act were hastily during the 1980 "Gang of Four" trial. Before that one could say there was no such thing as justice. Evidence was one-sided smears. Courts were "Ad Hoc Committees." There were even "public trials," which were essentially lynch mobs. The Jinan Intermediate People's Court trial of Bo Xilai by contrast, was webcast live by microbloggers. That is amazing progress.

Bo Xilai's retraction of his previous confession may have taken Mainland authorities by surprise. But Bo's retraction makes him the defendant who has contributed the most to criminal justice in the history of the Chinese Communist Party. Bo Xilai was a closely watched, high-profile official. During this trial, prosecution and defense arguments were webcast live by microbloggers. This enabled the public on the Mainland to undestand for the first time, that in a court of law the defendant and the government enjoy equal standing. Their human rights must be respected and upheld. Even after Bo Xilai retracted his confession, the trial continued to be webcast live. The trial was lengthened to five days. One cannot deny that this was a significant achievement for the CCP justice system. It may have been a case of someone riding a tiger finding it difficult to dismount. But it merits affirmation nonetheless.

This was a Trial of the Century. It showed that the CCP authorities know what the civilized world expects from a criminal trial. It attempted to meet those expectations under the watchful eyes of the world. This trial should enable the CCP to better understand why the Mainland's justice system failed to meet required. To meet such stanards requires more than a pro forma, bootlegged version of a Western-style criminal trial.

The CCP denies the existence of "universal values." But it can not deny that "justice" is the highest judicial value. During this trial, they wanted to show that "socialism embodies the rule of law." But that too shows that "justice" is a "universal value." The result however was still not credible. The Chinese Communist Party does not deny the value of "democracy." But it also says it "will not imitate the West." By implication it was affirming "socialism with Chinese characteristics." It was taking another road to "democracy." But that is not a workable option .

The mainstream believes "justice" must be based on the "tripartite separation of powers." The "tripartite separation of powers" must be based on the possibility of "partisan politics." A "one -party dictatorship" cannot ensure the "tripartite separation of powers." Without the "tripartite separation of powers" it is impossible to ensure "justice." The Chinese Communist Party wants on the one hand to uphold the "four cardinal principles." But it wants on the other hand the "rule by law." This is asking for the impossible .

A CCP public security system that is not independent and impartial, violates human rights. It also creates a crisis in national governance. Take the Bo Xilai case. It involves three problems. The first problem was corruption. The Bo Xilai case was exposed because Wang Lijun went to the U.S. Consulate in Chengdu. Corruption was uncovered first. Corruption in this case was overwhelming. Gu Kailai committed murder. Twelve years ago she purchased a "Nice Fontaine St George's Villa" that still belongs to her. The second problem was abuse of authority. Bo Xilai was investigated only because the Gu Kailai case failed to follow procedure and relieved Wang Lijun of his post. This was "abuse of authority." But at the same time they found that Bo's "waving of the red flag to expose corruption" led to many false prosecutions. The third problem was that Wen Jiabao compared the Bo Xilai case to "Cultural Revolution errors and feudal influences." But the justice system cannot address problems at this level. As everyone knows , Bo Xilai's "leftist" maneuvers were more serious than "Gu's murder." They were more serious than the "Xu Mingsong Villa." As we can see, the Bo Xilai case was subject to political spin doctoring. Paradoxically this highlights the CCP governance crisis.

Today's CCP places the party above the law. The party cannot permit the law to control the party. Party Disciplinary Representatives have priority over public security. Therefore the party has no control over the party. Xi Jingpin wanted the "party to control the party." This is all the result of "one -party dictatorship." This is why there is no "partisan politics." This is why there is no "tripartite separation of powers." This is why there is no "justice." The Bo Xilai trial was a "copy of the West." But it merely inverted cause and effect. It merely adopted the external trappings. .

The Bo Xilai case tells us that the Chinese mainland remains a long way from its "China Dream."

從薄案看「中國夢」有多遙遠
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.08.30 01:56 am

薄案五天審理，在司法程序正義的形式表現上，有相當可觀的進步。大體上，若不問本案全貌業經政治剪裁，單就庭訊攻防而言，卻可見審方節度分明，控方論辯得體，被告也把能說的都說了；這些皆經微博文字直播，未知能否成為未來中共司法改革的起步。

就司法表現言，薄熙來案與一九六七年的薄一波案（薄熙來之父）大有不同。當年，一紙《薄一波、劉瀾濤、安子文、楊獻珍等自首叛變材料的批示》，就使薄一波等受到迫害批鬥，薄妻胡明（薄熙來之母）在關押期間自殺。薄熙來案也與一九六二年習仲勛（習近平之父）所涉「反黨小說《劉志丹》案」大有不同。該案也根本未經法院審判，而是由一個「專案委員會」將習仲勛打成「反黨集團」；習仲勛被殘害關押了十六年，當年株連者逾六萬人。當然，薄熙來案也與劉少奇案與彭德懷案大有不同，在此不贅。

中共的《刑法》與《刑事訴訟法》等，是為一九八○年審判「四人幫」始倉卒草成，前此可謂沒有司法這回事；證據只是片面之詞的「黑材料」，法院就是「專案小組」，甚至是「公審大會」。因此，此次濟南中級人民法院大審薄熙來，能發展至微博文字直播，堪謂是驚人的進步。

薄熙來的翻供可能出乎中共當局的意料，但薄的翻供卻使他已成為中共司法史上最有貢獻的被告。由於他受矚目的身分，其庭訊攻防論辯經微博文字高度真實直播，使得大陸人民首次知道，在法庭上一名被告與控方的政府其實處於對等地位，而其人權應當或可以被尊重及維護到什麼程度。尤其，在薄熙來翻供後，法庭仍然維持直播，且將庭訊延長至五天，這不能不說是中共司法表現的重大成就；縱使是由於騎虎難下，亦值肯定。

這場世紀大審顯示，中共當局知道一場合乎文明世界價值的司法審理應當有何種規格，並力圖在世人眼前表現出那樣的規格。經由這場審理，中共應更能理解，大陸的司法表現為何無法符合那樣的標準，以及要作到那樣的規格標準，不能只是在程序形式上搬演一場山寨版的西方式審理而已。

中共諱言「普世價值」，卻不能否認「公正」乃司法的最高價值。這場審理，若是意欲證明「社會主義法治」也能體現「司法公正」的「普世價值」，其結果是仍不具可信性。猶如中共亦不否定「民主」的價值，卻又稱「不照搬西方那一套」，言下意謂「有中國特色的社會主義」另有一條實現「民主」之路。然而，恐怕也是此路不通。

以司法論，普世主流理論認為，「司法公正」必須建立在「三權分立」之上，而「三權分立」的可能性又必須建立在「政黨政治」之上。因為，「一黨專政」就絕無可能「三權分立」，沒有「三權分立」也就不可能有「司法公正」。所以，中共一方面要「四個堅持」，另一方面又要「以法治國」，無異緣木求魚。

公檢法體系不能獨立公正，對中共而言，非但侵害人權，更有國家治理的危機。以薄案的三個層次為例。第一個層次是貪汙：但薄案爆開是因王立軍奔赴成都美國領事館，而不是先查出貪汙。貪汙情節在本案是喧賓奪主，若非谷開來殺人，十二年前所購「尼斯楓丹‧聖喬治別墅」現在還是她的。第二個層次是行政犯罪：本案僅追究薄熙來因谷案未循程序即逕免王立軍職等情節，謂為「濫用職權」。但同時發現薄在「唱紅打黑」涉及許多冤錯假案，卻未見下文。第三個層次在路線：溫家寶將薄案喻為「文革的錯誤／封建的影響」，但司法卻不能處理這個層次的問題。盡人皆知，薄熙來的「左」的操作，比「谷開來殺人」嚴重，也比「徐明送別墅」嚴重。由此可見，薄案全貌經過政治剪裁的避重就輕，反而凸顯了中共國家治理的危機。

今日的中共，黨大於法。且因黨不容法來管黨（中紀委先於公檢法），所以黨也管不住黨（習近平倡「黨要管黨」）。這皆是緣於「一黨專政」，所以沒有「政黨政治」，所以沒有「三權分立」，所以也沒有「司法公正」。此次薄案審理，演出了一個「照搬西方那一套」的法庭，卻只是買櫝還珠、東施效顰而已。

省思薄案，即知中國大陸距「中國夢」仍然遙遠。