Rule of Law in China

Oxford Analytica reports that since 2004 the “protection of constitutional rights have subsided in China.” More specifically, since 2008, a new political doctrine “requires all judges to uphold ‘the Party’s cause, the people’s interests, and the constitution and the law’ as ‘supreme.’ By contrast, an independent rule of law would require supremacy of the constitution only. Courts have also been instructed to follow earlier models of adjudication practised under Mao Zedong (pre-1976), when the party-state saw courts as instruments of ‘people’s dictatorship’ and used legal processes to fight ‘the people’s enemies.’”

The progression of an independent rule of law in China through changes in judicial practice will be enhanced through international instruments in the broader multilnational community. As China assumes broader responsibilities as a stakeholder in the international system, an independent rule of law will be fostered.

Lawless Places, Yemen Edition

Barak and I end up talking quite a bit about the misperception that states such as Somalia and Afghanistan are failed.  As Barak likes to point out, the problem isn’t that there is NO governance, but rather that it is not the Westphalian statehood model of governance we have all grown accustomed to in the US.  Here, now, almost as it was written just for us, is a blog post about similar ‘ungoverned’ areas of Yemen.  According to the authors, the correct term is ‘alternatively governed’, which I agree with, although it is close enough to late ’90s PC terminology to make me giggle.

Random thoughts on Haiti…literally

I hope that the Washington Post’s Alec MacGillis just googled “experts Haiti” for his recent story on rebuilding the country. The article appears to be a set of random and somewhat contradictory ideas from a haphazard survey of people who know something about Haiti. If it reflects the actual policy discussions taking place, they country will only improve by luck.

Continue reading »

Freedom, the Rule of Law, and a Walk in Kampala

A friend here in Kampala recently commented to me that in Uganda you find freedom without the rule of law, and in Rwanda you find the opposite.

Today I may have a chance to explore that. The police are deployed throughout the city in anticipation of political protests sparked by the decision to keep the CBS radio station closed. The government shut down the station last year – along with several other media outlets – as part of its response to the riots that shook the capital and left 27 dead. The coalition of opposition parties, which is organizing the attempted political actions today, will also be protesting the continuation of the leadership of the highly controversial Electoral Commission.

Since I have been in Uganda I have seen cartoons in the press that have characterized the police as out of control and inclined towards violence. One of them depicted a voter about to grab a helmet to participate in the 2011 elections. Certainly Uganda has many challenges with regard to the rule of law, police discipline being one to which Ugandans are frequently exposed. The police also have a reputation among them of being highly corrupt. Moreover, the police are often irrelevant: mob justice is common here, and foreigners are even advised not to stop if they cause an accident on the road…for their own safety. Up in the region where my team works, Karamoja, crimes as serious as murder are often still dealt with through local elders and traditions (usually involving reimbursement of a certain number of cows) rather than through the Ugandan criminal justice system.

The rule of law is flouted at higher levels too: official corruption, tales of exorbitant spending, and stories of “ghost” soldiers, workers, and even clinics (with “ghost” budgets) routinely make the headlines here in the non-government sponsored papers. The fact that these stories and cartoons are a regular facet of life here is certainly indicative of a level of press freedom and independence. But the decision to keep CBS closed and other tales of media harassment demonstrate that this freedom has limits.

For example: I cannot speak intelligently about Uganda’s experience with freedom, rule of law, etc. in comparison to Rwanda, but Ugandan journalist Andrew Mwenda can, and did in an article in his Independent magazine.  It is one of the most scathing and interesting articles I have read since I have been here. He writes in response to a letter from a Ugandan politician that criticizes him for taking a positive stance on the “authoritarian” regime in Rwanda. “Colin,” he answers, “democracies do not rob their own citizens the way we are witnessing in Uganda.”

After reading his opinion piece I instinctively googled, “Andrew Mwenda death threat.” This lead me to an article in which I learned that Mwenda has been held at gunpoint by government agents, charged with 20 criminal violations including sedition, and has purportedly already survived several plots against him. Still, Mwenda says in the article, “If Museveni were like Idi Amin (the infamous Ugandan dictator), I’d already be dead.”

Now there’s the power of positive thinking. I’m off to see what the papers and the police are up to on the streets of Kampala.

Who supports democracy in Honduras?

As Hondurans go to the polls tomorrow, the big question is whether the election will help end or deepen the country’s political crisis.  On the surface, the answer seems clear.  The military overthrew President Zelaya in June and the election will restore democracy to Honduras.  If this is so clear-cut, why is every democracy in the hemisphere with the exception of Costa Rica, Panama, and the US against it?

The answer lies in considerable disagreement concerning the nature of the problem.  Some argue that Zelaya’s removal was an illegal coup and hence the only way to restore democracy is to place him back in power.  Others suggest that Zelaya is to blame for his removal because he repeatedly violated the country’s constitution. Since the constitution does not allow for impeachment, it thus lacks a legal mechanism for solving the political crisis he created.  Accordingly, removing Zelaya was the only way to restore the rule of law.  Those who take the first view see the election as legitimizing the coup.  Those who take the second view see the election as a return to democracy.

For someone whose main concern is democracy, neither view seems reasonable.  On the one hand, restoring Zelaya without an enforceable mechanism for sanctioning him if he violates the Constitution again hardly seems prudent.  On the other hand, holding an election under a questionably legal government that is illegally silencing its opponents doesn’t seem sensible either.  To me, the democratic solution has to address the roots of the crisis: the Constitution’s silence on impeachment.  It’s a messy solution to be sure, but neatness is not one of democracy’s virtues.  (Interestingly, most Hondurans support constitutional reform as well.)  The instrumental path the US has chosen, condemning the coup but supporting the election, seems unlikely to solve the crisis.  Stay tuned…