When Chinese dissidents talk about democracy and rule of law, American media immediately start the echo chamber in criticizing China and provide the stage for whomever in the spotlight. It irks me to no end this fetish on rule of law is not based on reality but more on fantasy and rarely examined in depth. Wikipedia defines it as:
“The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, and not individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials. The phrase can be traced back to the 16th century, and it was popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote “Law should govern”. Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right.
Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as “an exceedingly elusive notion” giving rise to a “rampant divergence of understandings … everyone is for it but have contrasting convictions about what it is.”’
As the dissidents use U.S. as the model for rule of law, I like to examine here whether the reality is anywhere near the ideal. As anyone familiar with American history knows that the rule of law didn’t apply to Native-Americans or slaves, considering hundreds of treaties signed and torn up as soon as gold, oil, or the land was needed, and slavery was written into the U.S. Constitution I will not rehash the past history, but limiting the discussion to more recent history. Obviously, the interment of Japanese-Americans, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the immigration policy of treating European favorably over Chinese until 1960s violated the rule of law. The differing sentences of cocaine and crack, differing death penalties for black and white for similar crime, and the prison population of different racial groups violate the rule of law. Consider that Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of law, those 9 men and women essentially set up the rule of man over rule of law with ruling Bush over Gore, a one time ruling, can’t be used as precedent, by not counting all the votes in Florida, twisting the meaning of equality. By appointing George Bush, we now have Roberts and Alito setting up the Citizen United decision with money as speech, corporation as person, all by 5-4 decisions. I consider all those as poisoned fruits of rule of man over rule of law.
Look at the racket in Chinatown, all those false political asylum seekers from 1 child policy. And more recently with all those Honduran children in camps after fleeing criminal gangs in fear of their lives ready to be deported. How can that be the rule of law, although blind Chen Guangcheng may be harassed and under house arrest, but he’s certainly not in as much danger of his life as those children. He got his fellowship at NYU, but I understand he’s not too happy that he’s not treated as royalty, and NYU is now happy that’s only 1 year and he’s gone. Consider the Federal Reserve’s QE, saving the Wall Street bankers at the expense of senior’s retirement savings. Such is the rule of law in U.S.A..