The World Justice Project (WJP) has laudable visions and missions. Intended to serve the world community as “an independent, multidisciplinary organization working to create knowledge, build awareness, and stimulate action to advance the rule of law worldwide”, its vision is “a world comprised of rule of law communities delivering justice, opportunity, and peace”. It aims to foster “understanding of the rule of law and its foundational importance”, “greater rule of law adherence by governments” and “multidisciplinary, home-grown cultures of the rule of law”. Since its founding in 2006, the WJP has issued the Rule of Law Index report every year. I have been following the report closely and found that it adheres to scientific standards and is always prepared professionally.
Nevertheless, it suffers from some pitfalls.
The pitfalls relate to an unfortunate inconsistency. It is great that one of its goals is to promote “multidisciplinary, home-grown cultures of the rule of law”. Indeed, the laws of different countries are different. But given the phrase “homegrown cultures of the rule of law”, one wonders why both China and its Hong Kong Special Administrative Region are rated so low in the subitem of “transition of power is subject to the law” under “constraints on government powers”.
As far as I know, transition of power from one administration to the next in both jurisdictions follows strictly local laws. In Hong Kong, there was indeed an attempt to deviate from the law by the opposition, the so-called “pan-democrats”, which called for violating the Basic Law. Article 45 of the Basic Law states: “The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People’s Government,” and “The method for selecting the CE shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the HKSAR and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the CE by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.” The SAR government in 2015 presented a proposal allowing election of the CE by universal suffrage. But the “pan-democrat” legislators rejected it, insisting that the candidates could bypass the nominating committee. Since the proposal was rejected, it is logically deemed that “the actual situation in the HKSAR” was not ready for election by universal suffrage. Given the violence that broke out trying to force the issue, Beijing and the SAR government had good reason to temporarily suspend the progress toward universal suffrage in Hong Kong. This is not a violation of the Basic Law.
I would like to remind all who may respond to next year’s WJP survey not to be misguided by ideological biases in assessing whether China and the HKSAR respect the equal political rights of their people and if there is lawful transition of power
In the case of the Central People’s Government, transition of power from one administration to the next has been peaceful and has adhered to the Chinese Constitution for decades. It is thus very strange that the score for lawful transition of power is so low. For this year, it stands at 0.27 out of 1.0. Although it is up from 0.25 in 2023, such a low score still suggests that China deviates from the law in transition of power, which is untrue. Apparently, the respondents who answered the WJP survey think that since China is led by the Communist Party of China (CPC), there is no transition of power as such.
The CPC is a pragmatic organization that is not beholden to any ideology except serving the people. The late Deng Xiaoping, one of the key architects of modern China, advised that China’s policymakers should not be constrained by ideology but should simply adopt whatever policy works. In November 2002, the requirement that the CPC must abide by the Theory of Three Represents was written into the CPC’s constitution during the 16th Party National Congress. It was also written into the Chinese Constitution on March 14, 2004. With a membership exceeding 90 million, the CPC is not a political party in the Western sense. Political parties in the West typically have a specific focus, such as protecting the environment, or a specific class interest to serve, such as labor or business. The CPC, on the other hand, represents “the development trend of China’s advanced productive forces, the orientation of China’s advanced culture, and the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people”. The spirit of all this can be summarized as “the public interest”.
Politicians and pundits in the West like to call China’s leaders “authoritarian” or even “dictators”. But rather than “dictating” whatever they decide arbitrarily on the people, they are reminded by the Scientific Outlook on Development, which was proposed in April 2003 by then-general secretary Hu Jintao, to strictly follow scientific principles of governance.
I would like to remind all who may respond to next year’s WJP survey not to be misguided by ideological biases in assessing whether China and the HKSAR respect the equal political rights of their people and if there is lawful transition of power. May I reiterate my call for an amendment of Article 21 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which wrongly assumes that equal political rights have to be realized only through periodic elections through a secret ballot. It should be up to each country to come up with its own way of selecting leaders, as long as it is fair. The fact that the Democracy Perception Index 2024 found China to be among the world’s most democratic countries vindicates China’s political system.
The author is an adjunct research professor at the Pan Sutong Shanghai-Hong Kong Economic Policy Research Institute and the Economics Department, Lingnan University.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
