MCLC: divide and rule (1)

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: Thomas Pickering <thomaspickering919 at gmail.com>
Subject: divide and rule (1)
***********************************************************

Francesco Sisci¹s negative take on the judicial reforms proposed by the
Third Plenum fails to acknowledge either the stage of development of the
judicial system in China now or the rapid rate of its change.

Whereas English common law and the legal system surrounding it has taken
1200 years to reach its current state of development, China¹s legal system
has had less than 70 years in its modern configuration.

Sisci notes that ³reform of judiciary creates the first real division of
power between local administrators and the courts.² Exactly! This is a
very positive reform and a huge step in the development of China¹s
judiciary.  

Sisci states that under the proposed reforms ³...provincial judiciary will
answer to Beijing¹s Supreme Court and the top leadership, [my emphasis]
and local ties will be looser.² He sees this as a means to divide and
rule. It may be better seen as a necessary reform towards a more just
system if -- as is not clear in interpretations of the proposed reforms --
provincial judiciary answers to a national Supreme Court only.

Consider that as late as 1780 the colonies that are part of today¹s Canada
had central administrations with courts which were not free-standing
estates. Government interference with court decisions was not uncommon.
Parliament under George III recognized that separating the colonial court
systems from the rest of administration would lead to more justice, more
social stability and thus improve the climate for economic development.
The change was made. Colonial judiciaries henceforth answered to London
and not the local administration. The change was made not to ³divide and
rule², but to instill more justice into the judicial system. Perhaps that
is Mr. Xi¹s motive as well.

Thomas Pickeringthomaspickering919 at gmail.com