YANG  Haikun* 

 

Abstract: Good governance system and capacity, the connotation or criteria of which is democratization, scientification, high efficiency, civilization and rule of law, is indispensable for realizing China Dream. As the foundation and goal of good governance system and capacity, human rights protection should be, in all fields and from different aspects, integrated in the whole process of promoting the modernization of state governance system and capacity. Rule by public law should be guaranteed in this connection.

 

Keywords:     good governance       human rights protection        modernization of state governance

 

As China is launching in an all-round way a new round of comprehensive and in-depth reform, promoting the building of a China under the rule of law constitutes the major and important content and a prominent theme of this round of reform. We will comprehensively make laws in a scientific way, enforce them strictly, administer justice impartially, and ensure that everyone abides by the law; we will uphold the unity of the rule of law, law-based government and law-based administration, and the integral development of a law-based country, government and society as a whole. All of these indicate that an “all-round and integrated” outlook of China of the rule of law based on top-level design has come into being. Building a China under the rule of law runs parallel to promoting the modernization of the state governance system and capacity. Promoting the modernization of the state governance system and capacity means to adopt thinking and methods based on the rule of law to run China in a modernized way, with the purpose of guaranteeing human rights and the maximization of the interests of the mass of the people. [page]

 

 

The Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China decided to position the overall goal of comprehensive reform as “to improve and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics, and to promote the modernization of the state governance system and capacity.” Of this goal, taking the promotion of the modernization of the state governance system and capacity as the core content of comprehensive reform represents a significant breakthrough, and it is also a strategic deployment consistent with the historical mission of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation as well as the trend of development and reform in the current world. It is closely related to the Chinese Dream of making our country prosperous and powerful, rejuvenating the nation and achieving people’s well-being. Without the modernization of the state governance system and capacity, how can one speak of modernization of industry, agriculture, national defense, and science and technology? What is particularly worth mentioning is that Xi Jinping, the President of the People’s Republic of China, made quite meaningful remarks in his speech at the meeting commemorating the 50th anniversary of the establishment of China-France diplomatic relations during his visit to Europe in the spring of 2014. He said, “Napoleon Bonaparte once compared China to a ‘sleeping lion’ and observed that ‘when she wakes she will shake the world.’ Now China, the lion, has awakened, but it is a peaceful, amicable and civilized lion.” I summarize these remarks as “theory on the awakened lion.” Just imagine, how can China be compared to an “awakened lion” without the modernization of the state governance system and capacity? In other words, modernization of the state governance system and capacity constitutes an important characteristic and basic quality of an “awakened lion.” Historical lessons are worth reflecting on, particularly that of the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, in which China suffered a disastrous defeat. Such a war typifies the war in which a giant country was beaten by a very small state. It seems inconsistent with the conventional rules of war, but it really occurred. Militarists and historians generalized many lessons why China was defeated, including political corruption, insufficient preparation for the war, backward scientific and technological strength, and others. As I see it, however, the reason for China’s failure was that China, a country with a slack state governance system and weak state governance capacity, lagged far behind Japan, a country that was emerging after the Meiji Renovation. The most striking characteristic of China’s feudal political system was its highly centralized authority. The general law of the development of a Chinese dynasty was usually as follows: during the thriving period, the political environment was relatively well regulated, the decrees of the court would be observed, and social order could be maintained; such a situation would not last long, however; once there appeared political corruption, the dynasty would fall into decline, and such decline would be strikingly manifested by a state governance system that plunged into chaos or even collapsed and a state governance capacity that failed completely to deal with any anxiety from within or trouble from without. Unfortunately, China was faced with such a situation towards the end of the Qing Dynasty when members of its ruling group were in strife, corruption ran rampant, and the national will was too weak to withstand any blow; the government was so weak and timid that government decrees and military orders were not consistent, and the mobilization of the whole society was incapacitated. Contrary to China whose state governance system and capacity were declining, Japan was then a country whose people of all ranks were of one mind and single-minded to beat China and made long-term preparation for it. Under such circumstance, how could China stand any chance of winning in the war against Japan? A review of modern Chinese history leaves too much room for our reflection and thinking.   [page] 

 

Given the current domestic and international situations, China must attach high importance to the modernization of the state governance system and capacity.  

 

Currently, as China’s reform is wading through the “deep-water zone,” various kinds of complex social conflicts are growing. In response, the Central Committee of the CPC established a central leading team to comprehensively deepen reform, with Xi Jinping, the General Secretary of the CPC, as its head. In light of the domestic and international situations, the antiterrorism situation in particular, Xi Jinping proposed the strategic concept of “taking safeguarding the people’s security as the aim, and sticking to the Overall National Security Concept.” In addition, China established the Central National Security Commission (CNSC), the Central Internet Security and Informatization Leading Group, and the National Antiterrorism Leading Group. All these measures have captured people’s attention. Some have the mistaken notion that the modernization of the state governance system and capacity simply equals centralization of authority. They hold that the more functions and power in the hands of government, the larger the power at the government’s discretion; the larger personal power the leaders can use, the more mandatory the orders and instructions from the higher authority; the more and fuller the mandatory power the State wields, the stronger the state governance capacity. Some others worry that the modernization of the state governance system and capacity will be promoted at the expense of the guarantee of human rights, and that there will appear “new monopolization of power” in China. It is therefore indeed necessary to clarify theoretically the relationships between guaranteeing human rights and promoting the modernization of the state governance system and capacity.

 

II.The connotation or standard of the modernization of the state governance system and capacity is making such modernization democratic, scientific, efficient, civilized and law-based, and such connotation or standard takes the guarantee of human rights as the basis and goal. [page]

 

State governance should be a concept held by a contemporary country and given brand new content, and should be a new concept formed on the basis of discarding the traditional concept of ruling and administrating the country. First, the concept of state governance highlights the new circumstance where the administrators of a political power should be responsible for its holders and may be held accountable by them; second, the concept stresses the importance of exercising administration jointly by diverse social forces including the holders, administrators and interested parties of the political power; third, the concept attaches equal importance to promoting social public interests and safeguarding social public order, taking the overall, fundamental and long-term interests of the people as its starting point and its end purpose. Judging from these three points, modernization of the state governance system and capacity will not suppress nor sacrifice human rights; instead, it will base itself upon the guarantee of human rights and take such guarantee as its goal. 

 

Specifically, the modernization of the state governance system and capacity has very rich and profound connotations, which include at least governing the country in a democratic, scientific, efficient, civilized and law-based way.

 

Being democratic means to deal with the incentives, resources, goals and values of the state governance system and capacity. In other words, it answers the questions of who is to exercise state governance and for whom to do so. Modern state governance system and capacity differs from traditional state governance system and capacity in terms of the source of state power and value orientation. As President Xi Jinping put it much earlier, “Rights are conferred by the people and power is used for their good.” In other words, all state power belongs to the people; the owners, administrators and stake holders of a national regime should all participate in the process of state governance; necessary concentration of power should be kept highly consistent with the republic regime, and should be matched with corresponding division and balance of power, and the ultimate goal of enhancing the state governance capacity is to provide safety and well-being to the people. Democratization is of primary importance in the process of modernizing the state governance system and capacity. However, as its name suggests, democratization refers to a progressive process. In the initial stage of democratization, there is particular need to centralize the necessary power, and it is imperative to have a powerful, charismatic and popular leader to take the helm. However, centralizing power is totally different from exercising totalitarian rule, or monopoly of power or autocratic rule. Nor does it have anything to do with personality cult and superstition. In other words, it is imperative to conscientiously and strictly differentiate centralizing state power from others. Here the discussion about the so-called “new authoritarianism” needs to be mentioned. Deng Xiaoping, the chief architect of the policy of reform and opening-up propounded “new authoritarianism.” He held that “new authoritarianism” does not conflict with “democratization.” “New authoritarianism” should take the promotion of power centralization and the guarantee of division of power as its basic characteristics, and take democratization as its connotation and development its orientation. In my opinion, such a relationship may find its expression in the lines of “Ode to the Plum Blossom – to the tune of Pu Suan Tzu,” a poem composed by Mao Zedong, which reads: “Wind and rain escorted Spring’s departure, flying snow welcomes Spring’s return. On the ice-clad rock rising high and sheer, a flower blossoms sweet and fair. Sweet and fair, she craves not Spring for herself alone, to be the harbinger of Spring she is content. When the mountain flowers are in bloom, she will smile mingling in their midst.” The relationship between the “new authoritarianism,” modernization and democratization should reflect such a process as described in the poem. The process of China’s reform and opening-up reflects the following characteristic. The “new authoritarianism” delegates power to the market, causing the development and formation of a modern market economy; it allows people to retain profits, promoting the mechanism of fair distribution and public services featuring social equalization; it gradually delegates power to the society, increasing the freedom of citizens and strengthening public participation and enhancing social vitality; it gradually delegates power to judicial organs, promoting judicial independence and establishing a judicial system for guaranteeing human rights; it delegates power to local governments and grassroots units, establishing and improving a new-type relationship between central and local governments whereby authority of office matches authority of finance, developing grassroots democracy, and bringing initiative and creativity at the local and grassroots level into full play, and others. The integration of centralizing power with dividing, delegating and limiting power is characteristic of this “new authoritarianism” and fundamentally distinguishes centralizing power from exercising a monopoly of power or totalitarian rule. In terms of orientation, centralizing power is different from dividing, delegating and limiting power; but in essence, they connect with, interlink with and complement each other. All of them take the people’s interests as their point of departure and the guarantee of human rights as their aim. Therefore, the “new authoritarianism” merely represents a means, a method and a transition. In the form of centralizing power, it fights against privilege, monopoly, corruption, secession from the country, violent terrorism, promotes in a powerful way the policy of reform and opening-up, and tries to minimize the opposition to the policy of reform and opening-up. It is in this sense that the “new authoritarianism” is but an external characteristic appearing in a certain period of the process of modernizing the state governance system and capacity, while its connotation is still democratization. The “new authoritarianism” represents only a necessary historical transition towards modernization and democratization. Of course, such an issue is discussed here from the perspectives of optimism and idealism. The facts are far from being so simple as the discussion may seem. After all, the “new authoritarianism” cannot replace nor be equal to democracy, and the integration of the “new authoritarianism” with democracy calls for the coordination of various conditions and various kinds of hard work. Once the “new authoritarianism” is cut off from democracy and power division, delegation and limiting, it may develop uncontrollably towards monopoly of power and even the exercise of autocratic rule. Such is the case that we are unwilling to see, and is what we must take every possible means to prevent from happening. It is quite likely that things will run counter to our wishes. It is imperative for us to recognize at any time that, if the “new authoritarianism” is not exercised based on or backed by power limitation, or if it even runs against power limitation, and in practical process, moves backwards continuously towards retaking power, eliminating power division and even intentionally ignoring the limitation of power by concentrating power, it will finally concentrate power to a high degree and may evolve into totalitarianism and kill the cause of democracy. Therefore, we do not oppose power concentration, but we should prevent and oppose totalitarian rule. Such a process is the formidable process of democratization. The “new authoritarianism” will be unavoidable at the early period of comprehensively deepening the reform, and will be an inevitable choice. However, there indeed exist two development orientations for implementing the “new authoritarianism”, and may lead to two different results. The key to address this issue lies in our efforts in institutional system innovation.[page]

 

Being scientific represents a remarkable characteristic of modern state governance system and capacity. Without such a characteristic the state governance system and capacity will neither be modernized nor keep its vitality. In the process of governing a modern nation, various kinds of governance players all have their own initiatives, and perform their respective responsibilities based on specialization and professionalization. In such a big country as China, it is particularly necessary to exercise scientific and precision management. 

 

Efficiency represents the foothold of being scientific, and calls for government decrees to be carried out without obstruction, the orders are observed and the prohibitions are kept;¹ it calls for streamlining government organs and keeping a crack team, and obtaining the most effective management results and realizing the fullest service functions with the minimum input; it also calls for bringing the initiatives of all kinds of governance players into full play, so as to manifest the governance effect comprehensively and make such effects benefit all the people. 

 

Being civilized demands that the state should put human sympathy into consideration when exercising administration, and guarantees the freedom and dignity of each citizen. In the process of state governance, there should be “more agreement and less coercion,” “more communication, reasoning, dialogue and coordination and less arbitrary acts,” “better activated rights and functions and less repression, repelling and discrimination” and “making service a medium of management.”² Being civilized means taking a humanitarian approach, whereby people are always the goal instead of the means in the process of governance. 

 

The rule of law perfectly combines and presents the above-mentioned being democratic, being scientific, being civilized and efficiency. The core content and the most striking characteristic of the modernized state governance system and capacity is a law-based state governance system and its operation. Deng Xiaoping said that the essence of a socialist republic is democracy and the rule of law. And as is known to all, the core of democracy and the rule of law is the guarantee of human rights.

 

III. The guarantee of human rights should and must run through the whole process, all areas and aspects of modernization of the state governance system and capacity, so rule based on public laws should be primarily exercised.[page]

 

The guarantee of human rights should and must run through the whole process of the modernization of the state governance system and capacity. The guarantee of human rights is not only the basis and driving force, but also the starting point and ultimate goal of the modernization of the state governance system and capacity. Without such basis and driving force, it is impossible to realize the modernization of the state governance system and capacity; on the contrary, if the guarantee of human rights cannot be realized and developed, promoting the modernization of the state governance system and capacity will lose its meaning, or in other words, the state governance system and capacity will not be modernized at all. The process of promoting the modernization of the state governance system and capacity will not affect the guarantee of human rights, instead, it should greatly push forward the guarantee of human rights. The criterion of judging whether the modernization of the state governance system and capacity is successful or not, in the final analysis, is whether people’s interests and rights are duly guaranteed and fully developed. People’s rights embrace both material and spiritual rights, covering economic, political, social, cultural and ecological rights; they also include substantive and procedural rights.³

 

With China’s social, economic, cultural development and human rights progress, Chinese citizens’ awareness of democracy and the rule of law will be inevitably enhanced, so will their awareness of human rights. I believe that public law, especially the Constitution that regulates state powers and the administrative laws that regulate government power should play critical roles in the process of modernizing the state governance system and capacity. 

 

 

The past decline of China can be mainly attributed to the state of disunity that appeared in Chinese history. The goal of national salvation in modern Chinese history was to pursue independence and seek the way of making China prosperous and powerful, which urgently called for a scientific and democratic decision-making center and a strong-willed and powerful core leadership. The Communist Party of China was born just at that time. Having suffered setbacks and hardships, the CPC has carved out a way of seeking national independence, and explored a way of building socialism with Chinese characteristics. Without a core leadership, China’s revolution and construction will not succeed. It is imperative to guarantee that such a core leadership is correct, however. In particular, during the construction period, the reform of the ruling party itself becomes the key to whether it can correctly lead the socialist undertaking towards success. The CPC has already had a high degree of consciousness of exercising its rule in accordance with the Constitution and laws, and is now engaged in the practical exploration of running itself in accordance with the Constitution and laws. Correctly developing the relationships between the power of the CPC, the political regime and civil rights, the reform of the CPC itself and the law-based reform led by the CPC over the state leadership system are the prerequisites for not only the modernization of the state governance system and capacity, but also sound progress in guaranteeing human rights in China.  [page]

 

What is closely linked with the leadership of the CPC, is that we must pay attention to the improvement of the system of the people’s congresses and the system of the political consultative conference, the integration of electoral democracy and consultative democracy, public participation and the improvement and development of various forms of self-governing democracy. People’s democracy forms an inexhaustible motive resource for the modernization of the state governance system and capacity, as well as a supervising mechanism for fundamentally guaranteeing that the state governance system and capacity will be modernized along the correct orientation. 

 

 

As governmental functions cannot afford to be ignored, we cannot blindly weaken governmental functions; instead, we should make them perform in a scientific way. In a broad sense, we should well handle the relationships between government and market, the state and the society, the parties and the people. In daily management, the government is the administrator and organizer of most routine tasks. It is a formidable task to build a law-based government, and there is a lot of experience to be further summarized. We should set specific indicators for establishing a limited, promising and efficient government. The basic content of a law-based government indicator system in fact refers to various indicators of the system of guaranteeing citizens’ human rights.  

 

A relevant issue is building a clean government. Anti-corruption mainly refers to fighting against governmental corruption. This is a task of worldwide concern, and is particularly a task of immediate significance in China today. The anti-corruption system and the modernization of capacity constitute a part of the modernization of the state governance system and capacity, and moreover, they are its basic requirements. The failure to address this issue will inevitably lead to a wide gap between the rich and the poor, social unfairness, and popular resentment, let alone inhibiting any other accomplishments of the state. Only when China is free from corruption can it “frighten the world.” The anti-corruption power should also be brought onto the track of the rule of law, and be put into an institutional cage. Currently this issue is particularly worth our attention. On the one hand, it is necessary to obtain people’s support for new experiences and new measures; on the other hand, it is necessary to summarize experience and attach importance to protecting and educating officials and preventing corruption institutionally. Limiting and supervising power provide the best protection not only for public rights and interests but also for the officials’ rights and interests. 

 

3. Realizing social fairness and justice and strengthening the judicial system of guaranteeing human rights are the mechanisms guaranteeing the normal state and stabilization of the state governance system and capacity[page]

 

The direct result of governance is to guarantee human rights and pursue well-being for the people. To this end, all specific systems should take people first. The most important is to establish a judicial system for guaranteeing human rights, in a bid to guarantee social stability and realize social fairness and justice. For example, currently how to handle the relationships between administrative reconsideration, administrative procedure and the system of complaining by letters and visits, and how to amend the relevant laws are closely related to this issue. An ideal practice is to establish a mechanism for resolving administrative conflicts by “relying mainly on administrative reconsideration, less on administrative procedure, and still less on the voice of complaints through letters and visits.”  

 

 

It can be said that China enjoys a longer history than that of any other country, and the law of successful and unsuccessful governance in Chinese history can be generalized and followed. Under the new historical conditions, it is necessary to summarize historical experience and draw on international experience concerning the emergence of a country as a major power. We should accord special importance to mobilizing the initiatives at both the central and the local levels. While guaranteeing the necessary concentration of state power, we should attach importance to horizontal, particularly vertical divisions of power. As the institutional systems on governing different regions of China are complex and diverse, they must carefully handle the imbalance in economic, political and cultural development, the relationships between the Han ethnic group and other ethnic minorities, the policy of “one country, two systems” and that of exercising a high degree of autonomy. We should pay special attention to democracy at the grassroots level, because in a certain sense, community governance is the basic program for state governance.    

 

5. Renovating national defense diplomacy, effectively waging war against terrorism, and improving law-based measures to deal with emergencies are the basic guarantee for modernizing the state governance system and capacity and protecting the basic human rights of people such as working in a peaceful way, living in peace and being free from fear. [page]

 

During his visit to Europe, Xi Jinping said that China has turned from a sleeping lion to an awakened lion, and moreover, China is a peaceful awakened lion. Currently, China is playing an increasingly important role in international affairs, and is shouldering international duties and obligations that cannot be shirked. As there are favorable and unfavorable factors in the international environment, it is a long-term and formidable task for China to strengthen its national defense and diplomatic work. Modern society is a risky one, where unexpected events occur due to various reasons, including natural and social ones, and domestic and international ones. It is therefore necessary to equip China with a law-based system for dealing with emergency, improve the capacity of dealing with any emergency in accordance with the law, including waging wars that have direct and deterrent effects on terrorists or can even eliminate terrorists. According to Xi Jinping, “China does not incur trouble, however, it is not afraid of being involved in trouble.” Recently he also pointed out that, compared with any other historical period, currently the concept of national security is enriched with much more connotative and denotative meanings, the sphere of time and space is more expansive and internal and external factors are more complex. It is therefore imperative to adhere to the overall national security concept, with people’s security as its goal, political security as its foundation, economic security as its basis, military, cultural and social security as its back, so as to develop the concept of national security with Chinese characteristics. He proposed such concepts as external security, internal security, territorial security, citizens’ security, traditional security, nontraditional security, one’s own security and joint security. He also proposed to establish a national security system integrating political security, territorial security, military security, economic security, cultural security, social security, scientific and technological security, information security, ecological security, resource security, and nuclear security. In addition, he proposed that the Central National Security Commission should observe the principle of concentration and unification, scientific planning, integration of unified and divided actions, coordinated actions, and being smart and efficient. All these proposals can be said to have made creative breakthroughs in the modernization of China’s state governance system and capacity, and have made outstanding contributions to both domestic and international human rights progress. Advanced countries in the world all pursue the “overall national security concept.” Take Japan for example. The main characteristic of Japan’s “overall national security concept” is that under the direction of such a concept, people holistically look upon the security problems confronting the country. In other words, people organically link various problems and address them in an all-round way by utilizing in a planned way the resources and methods that the country has. In the post-war days, subject to the influences of the Cold War, Japan attached importance merely to traditional security issues, mainly military security. However, since the 1970s, Japan experienced the oil crisis and the financial shock caused by the collapse of the “Bretton Woods system”; meanwhile, how to protect overseas security of citizens’ life and property around the world rapidly posed a realistic problem for Japan because of the presence of Japanese citizens in all parts of the world. Against such a background, Japan became aware of the complexity of problems in the area of national security, since a significant event having nothing to do with war may also cause considerable loss no less than that of a war to Japan. That’s why the concept of “comprehensive security” has gradually come into being in political and academic circles in Japan. Such a concept embraces not only military security, but also political security, economic security and security in the area of preventing large-scale natural disasters. In his monograph Concerning the Origin of Strategic Diplomacy, Nobukatsu Kanehara, Deputy Chief of the current Japanese National Security Council, expounds on the different elements required for maintaining national security such as economy, military and soft power by quoting the allusion from The Analects: “Give them enough food, give them enough arms, and the common people will have trust in you.” Under the direction of the “Comprehensive Security Concept,” Japan highlights a holistic and long-range approach in its design of diplomacy policies. The concept of policy making must be backed by a guarantee mechanism. As a basic national policy, the implementation of the “Comprehensive Security Concept” calls for the overall planning of the government in strengthening security affairs and the integration of the functions of various departments and various kinds of resources. This requires sound top-level design and overall planning at the state level. In December 2013, the Japanese government led by Shinzo Abe established the mechanism of the “National Security Council” based on the original “Security Council” (the “National Defense Meeting” restructured by Nakasone Yasuhiro in 1986), and established the National Security Bureau as the executive department of the National Security Council. The bureau has become the platform for formulating policy, gathering information and managing crisis. Its members are composed of scholars from institutions of higher learning and think tanks as well as those from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, the National Police Agency and other governmental departments related to security matters. With knowledge and experience not restricted by the vision of any individual department, these members can formulate national security policies that have a holistic, long-range, macroscopic and comprehensive view at the state level. [page]

 

Another example is India. The overall national security concept of India also covers a wide range of topics including political and military security, economic security and cultural security. Of these topics, political and military security is the core while economic security is the basis. To deal with the domestic armed splitting forces, the Indian Parliament adopted the extremely important National Security Law as early as 1980, which grants enormous power to the central government and governments of various states. The National Security Council of India is modeled after the National Security Council of the U.S. and has been operating for over 10 years. However, it is criticized for its failure to play the role of making an overall arrangement of the forces of various parties to effectively safeguard national security.⁴

 

 

Chinese culture has both its quintessence and dross. We need to be aware that Chinese history was subject to the influences of autocratic culture and bureaucratic culture. That’s why it is necessary to work hard to cultivate modern democratic culture and culture based on the rule of law. Culture based on the rule of law constitutes the cultural foundation for modernizing the state governance system and capacity. It is necessary to actively cultivate and put into practice the core socialist values and integrate such values into the process of promoting the modernization of the state governance system. In a general sense, “being prosperous and powerful, democracy, civility and harmony” are part of the value orientation at the level of state governance; “freedom, equality, fairness and the rule of law” are part of the value orientation of social governance; and “patriotism, professional commitment, trustworthiness and friendliness” are requirements made by national and social governance on the value of individual citizens. The more intense consciousness of the Constitution and the law the people have, and the stronger the citizens are, the stronger the whole people. So long as each Chinese citizen has the consciousness of the Constitution and the law and carries the responsibility of developing a modern China, the Chinese nation can rank among the great peoples in the world. Here I cannot help remembering the words of Hu Shih, a renowned Chinese thinker, who said to the effect that to strive for personal freedom is to strive for national freedom, and to strive for individual personality is to strive for social personality. So true are these words that they are worth our consideration.[page]

 

IV. Conclusion
 

The essence and core of modernization of the state governance system and capacity is the realization of people’s interests and rights, and it represents the development of the undertaking of guaranteeing human rights. The important strategy for achieving such modernization is to practice the rule of law, in particular governance based on the public law. In short, the modernization of the state governance system and capacity represents the modernization of the national legal system and operation, in particular the modernization of the system and capacity of governance based on public law. Constructing China based on law is the inevitable logical result of the modernization of the state governance system, as well as the inevitable logical result of developing the socialist undertaking of guaranteeing human rights.

 

*YANG Haikun（杨海坤）, professor at the School of Law, Shandong University, Ji’nan, China.

 

1.In the wake of the occurrence of a violent terrorist attack on May 22, 2014, the Central Government decided to launch a yearlong special campaign against violent terrorism, in which an intense atmosphere of severely punishing violent terrorists would be formed so as to make them the target of public hatred and attack. This is a typical move from the point of highlighting efficiency.

 

2. In the present public security work and community governance practice, the community correction system is being extensively promoted after relevant pilot programs were launched. Such a system represents the vivid practice of rule of law, a significant achievement of judicial reform and beneficial exploration of guaranteeing human rights. Specifically speaking, the criminals who are sentenced to public surveillance, suspension of sentence, parole and probation outside prison will be put inside the community. With the help of relevant social bodies, private organizations and social volunteers, and within the period specified by judgment, ruling and decision, the special national authority will correct the psychological state and the bad behavior of criminals, so as to facilitate them smoothly returning to society. Establishing and improving the non-imprisonment criminal punishment system with Chinese characteristics will complement the imprisonment criminal punishment system. The advantage of the nonimprisonment criminal punishment system is maintaining a low rate of recidivism by the criminals serving sentences in the community. Such a system has become a powerful measure for maintaining stability.[page]

 

3.Human rights enjoyed by Chinese citizens, as summarized in Progress in China’s Human Rights in 2013 issued by the Information Office of the State Council on May 27, 2014, include the right to development, the right to social security, the democratic right, rights to freedom of speech, rights of the person, rights of ethnic minorities, rights of persons with disabilities, and the right to a clean and healthy environment.

 

4.Reference News, April 23, 2014, p. 11.