Democracy and the Rule of Law Promote China’s Development
After democratic deliberations had been in practice for several years, the towns and townships of Wenling found that the budget was an issue of wide concern. Therefore, in July 2005, the people’s congress of Xinhe Town introduced democratic deliberation into the discussion, examination and approval of budgets, and created a “participatory budget” system, involving the public in the initial examination, review and approval of the budget draft by the people’s congress, and implementation and supervision of the budget. This “participatory budget” has promoted communication and interaction between the government and citizens, promoted consultative democracy, and strengthened supervision of the government by the people’s congress. More importantly, consensus has been reached through communication, debate and consultation in “participatory deliberation,” enhancing the responsiveness, pertinence and scientism of the public budget, and promoting social stability and development.
The merits of the “participatory budget” have been noted by local governments in Suzhou and some cities in Henan Province, which have adopted Wenling’s method.
After nearly 20 years of practice and development, consultative democracy now has extensive coverage that continues to expand. But despite its rapid spread, on the whole the system is not mature and its effectiveness requires reinforcement.
This can be measured by its influence on policymaking. Public participation can be roughly divided into three types: ( 1 ) On site: Individuals participate in public activities but cannot influence policymaking; ( 2 ) Sub-participation: In the process of policymaking, individuals and policymakers influence each other but the decision-making rests with one party; and ( 3 ) Full participation: Both sides enjoy equal policymaking rights. In practice, consultative democracy in China manifests in four forms: the advisory-type, coordinative-type, public hearing-type, and policymaking-aimed. Among them, policymaking-aimed consultative democracy belongs to “full participation,” the main embodiment of direct democracy in grassroots autonomy. Public hearing-type consultative democracy belongs to “sub-participation,” that is, the populace participates in the process of policymaking, but the agenda and final decision-making are in the hands of the government.
At present, the public hearing-type consultative democracy is widely applied. However, such issues as whether a hearing should be conducted and how are not always decided strictly according to law. And the mechanism of amassing public opinions at hearings and collecting feedback afterwards is flawed, leading to low enthusiasm and feelings of powerlessness; thus, the effectiveness of public participation is poor. Therefore, it is necessary to guarantee the orderly development of consultative democracy through the rule of law to make sure that the results of consultation are incorporated into policymaking.
Guarantee Rights and Interests Through the Rule of Law
The rule of law can guarantee citizens’ right to know, right of participation, right of expression and right of supervision, promoting institutional construction of consultative democracy. Meanwhile, it can also promote social justice and guarantee human rights, laying a foundation for the development of democratic politics.
In the practice of consultative democracy we should sum up the positive experiences and tried-and-tested methods and sublimate them to institutional norms. This is an inevitable requirement in promoting sustained development of consultative democracy. For instance, in 2004 the CPC Wenling municipal committee promulgated a document entitled Certain Regulations Concerning “Democratic Deliberations.” It clearly stipulates the topics and procedures of various kinds of democratic deliberations at different levels, leading to their further institutionalization, normalization and routinization, and laying grounds for greater extension of the Wenling Mode.
In recent years, many provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions, such as Shanxi, Liaoning, Heilongjiang, Jiangsu, Anhui, Jiangxi, Shandong, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Yunnan, Gansu, Qinghai, Tianjin, and Chong-qing, have promulgated local statutes and regulations concerning procedural rules for decision-making on important issues, and hearing rules on administrative decision-making. They clarify regulations on the presentation of topics, the principal body of participation, discussion procedures, and opinion feedback, so promoting institutionalization of consultative democracy. Some provinces and cities, such as Guangdong, Gansu, Fujian, Hebei, and Shenyang, have also promulgated regulations on public participation in the making of local statutes regarding environmental protection and enterprise management to guarantee citizens’ political participation in an orderly way.
To build the rule of law China must coordinate the advancement of legislation, law enforcement, judicature, law popularization, and legal supervision. During the early years of reform and opening-up, the aim was to “have laws to abide by,” so legislation was the primary task in the construction of the rule of law. In 2011, the socialist system of laws with Chinese characteristics took shape, so the focus shifted from legislation to the implementation of the Constitution and laws. Correspondingly, the guarantee of human rights has also undergone a profound transition from legislative guarantee to judicatory guarantee.
As regards the judicatory guarantee of human rights, misjudged cases most impede judicial fairness. Therefore, perfecting the mechanism of prevention, correction, and responsibility-assigning of misjudged cases is the bottom line of judicial fairness. Among these, strictly carrying out the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence, accurately defining the standard of proof in criminal cases, and implementing the principle of presumption of innocence reflect major progress in China’s judicial guarantee of human rights. In judicial practice, significant changes have taken place in the correction of misjudged cases. In the past, the court normally wouldn’t reopen a concluded case unless someone other than the accused confessed to the crime of an adjudged case or the allegedly killed victim turned out to be alive and made a new accusation. But in recent years several retrials were ordered based on unclear facts and insufficient evidence. In August 2014, after eight years of litigation, nine trials, four impositions of the death penalty, and six postponements, the “Nian Bin Murder Case” was handled by the Fujian Provincial High Court. After the hearing, the court ruled that Nian Bin be acquitted of a charge due to insufficient evidence. These changes show that China’s criminal justice system is developing towards the rule of law orientation.
China has deepened judicial system reforms, perfecting the trial supervision procedure, the election and appointment of judges and procurators, the judicial supervision system, the letters and visits system concerning litigation and laws, as well as the legal aid system, and enhanced judicial independence and judicial transparency. These efforts will greatly promote justice and the judicial guarantee of human rights. Furthermore, progress in this area will provide new momentum and support for the development of democratic politics.
LIU XIAOMEI is an associate research fellow at the Institute of International Laws, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
