Misblog

It took me awhile to realize that when China’s governmental officials use the phrase "Rule of Law" they most often mean "Rule by Law" or Rule of Law with Chinese characteristics. Of course, "Rule by Law" or Rule of Law with Chinese characteristics is nothing more than a dictatorship or rule by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Suddenly assertions like the Chinese have individual freedoms of religion, expression, and association notwithstanding routine arrests for exercising these freedoms, made sense. Of course, the Chinese have individual freedoms. They were only arrested and jailed because they were not exercising those freedoms as defined and agreed to by the CCP¹.

Imposing a CCP defined (or undefined) and agreed to law on the Chinese people is not a "Rule of Law" system it’s a "Rule by Law" system. A "Rule of Law" system implies, at its foundation, that those being subjected to the law had something to do with formulating and agreeing to that law. That a law so formulated and agreed to is not applied arbitrarily. That a law so formulated and agreed to is applied with substantive and procedural due process or fairness.

So long as only the CCP is formulating, agreeing to, and applying the laws in China there cannot be a "Rule of Law" system. Arguing whether a "Rule by Law" or dictatorship system provides for individual freedoms is a bit like arguing whether a parent provides their children’s freedoms. Maybe, until they don’t.

It is precisely "Rule by Law" that "Rule of Law" seeks to eliminate. "Rule by Law" and "Rule of Law" are inversely proportional. When you have more "Rule of Law" you have less "Rule by Law". When you have more "Rule by Law" you have less "Rule of Law".

-----notes-----

1. In the case of religion they did not worship in one of the five designated religions, at the designated facility, and in the manner arbitrarily dictated by the CCP.

Technorati Tags: china, individual rights, rule of law, rule by law, dictatorship, chinese communist party, ccp