Disappointed to see my article with @CriticAsianStds used in this @ConversationEDU article in this way

Full article by John Garrick and Yan Bennett: “How China is controlling the COVID origins narrative — silencing critics and locking up dissenters” here: https://theconversation.com/how-china-is-controlling-the-covid-origins-narrative-silencing-critics-and-locking-up-dissenters-152751

At no point do I argue “there are no contradictions btw party ideology and ‘rule of law’” or fwd normative argument that “there is no need for a legal separation of powers”

The relevant sections of the article posted below. Full article at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14672715.2016.1263803?journalCode=rcra20

This section of the @CriticAsianStds article was written to explore the four societal values of freedom 自由, equality 平等, justice 公正and rule of law 法治

The use of the term 法治 and, specifically, it’s translation to “rule *of* law” was and still is dismissed as rhetoric - a meaningless claim made by the CCP that the socialist legal system resembles a “rule of law” system in any way, shape or form.

My argument challenges this dismissal by exploring the difference btw “rule of law” and “rule by law” - two terms which frame the discussion in English - and two Chinese terms 以法治国 (a nation ruled by means of law) and 依法治国 (a nation ruled according to the law)

以法治国 - *rule by means of law* equates to the English term “rule of law” and the separation of powers that characterise it. No individual is above the law, and laws enshrine rights and convey duties upon individuals

依法治国 - *rule according to the law* does not quite equate to “rule by law”. Mainland China is a system whereby the CCP leads, and the rights of society are prioritised, superseding the rights of the individual, and placing social duties upon citizens.

A propaganda video

Note both include terms - 以法治国/依法治国 - include the characters 法治 which is translated in official discourse as “rule of law”, but can refer to two different conceptions of legal governance.

The “who is above the law” question is the perhaps wrong one to ask. The distinction between the two terms is that one (以法治国) involves separation of powers, and one (依法治国) does not

But asking *what* is above the law in China is a very important question to ask.

People are not above the law in either system - but in China *everything* is under the party.

The Executive (PRC govt), the legislature (National People’s Congress) and the Judiciary (Supreme People’s Court and Procuratorate)

CCP officials are not above the law, and therefore there’s an argument that China’s legal system is not technically a “rule by law” system (though this is difficult to argue at the apex of CCP power, especially politburo +)

When we do see CCP officials prosecuted and convicted under law, the process reveals this nuance.

Officials are firstly investigated through the internal CCP authorities - the Central Committee for Discipline Inspection or CCDI (中国共产党中央纪律检查委员会)

They are then expelled from the CCP before any criminal charges. Why?

Because it is the CCP itself which is above all branches, not necessarily the individuals who serve in CCP roles (meaning CCP members in active CCP roles. Not all CCP members and not all PRC cadres)

My article does not at all advocate for the system, or claim there is no need for separation of powers.

Nor does it claim there is no contradiction between Party ideology and “rule of law” (when that term is being used to describe a system defined by separation of power)

What it does do is highlight that when the Party does use these terms - 法治 in Chinese and “rule of law” in English - in reference to the PRC legal system, it is categorically not laying claim to having a system based on separation of powers.

Moreover, it is a criticism of any scholarly analysis which claims that the CCP are arguing they do have “rule of law” as we understand it or would use it to refer to, say, the British or US systems

In fact, CCP regularly and explicitly reject this idea

http://www.qstheory.cn/dukan/qs/2019-02/15/c_1124114454.htm

My @CriticAsianStds article then argues that it is the reversal - giving primacy to the rights of the nation and society as opposed to the rights of the individual - which is a defining characteristic of the Mainland (especially the criminal) legal system.

To make this argument does not constitute a normative agreement with or advocacy for it

It is absolutely problematic, not least due to absence of due process within criminal system - clearly evident in cases against HRDs, citizen journalists highlighted by Garrick and Bennett.

Yet it is important to understand because the system itself is undergoing rapid transformation. To the constitution, to legislation, to the courts, and the wider the repressive apparatus.

The Chinese legal system has a bounded rationality. It is not as arbitrary as many would have us believe.

We may not like it. We may be repulsed by it in many instances. But understanding how and why it works the way it does, and how it’s likely to change - this is our job.

Finally, on the “Marxist scholar” term - used pejoratively with “party propagandists”.

I primarily use Gramsci, Bourdieu, Althusser to frame and explore aspects of contemporary China.

Marxist and Neo-Marxist theoretical frameworks are useful for critiquing capitalism. In post-socialist PRC, they are particularly useful for examining transformations in political, civil and commercial society.

My use of them is not normative, but theoretical and analytical

Using Marxist theory to critique, analyse does not equate to advocacy for Communism and/or the CCP.