China: From Revolution to Reform. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2021. 336 pp. (Tables.) US$140.00, cloth. ISBN 978-94-6372-945-1.
Qiang Fang investigates the judicial system in communist-controlled regions in China from the founding of the Jiangxi Soviet base area in 1927 to the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976 in this content-rich book. The transformation of the Chinese judicial system in the reform era after 1978 has attracted much academic attention, leading to abundant work; however, the judicial system established and developed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) before the reform era is understudied. Therefore, Fang’s book is particularly valuable. By using multiple types of archival materials and ample Chinese and English literature, Fang argues that the fundamental incentive for the establishment and operation of the communist judicial system is the CCP’s fear of losing power. Despite the changing security circumstances over time, what remains unchanged is the CCP’s use of the judicial system as a coercive and faithful instrument to crack down on political adversaries and eliminate potential threats. A unique contribution of this book is the inclusion of first-hand archival materials from the Shanghai Municipal Archives, which were briefly available to the public before 2013. Fang took advantage of this time window and in 2009 collected an extensive array of legal archives concerning court trials, political campaigns, and other relevant archival materials.
Fang’s book provides a chronological overview of communist courts’ attitudes toward politically-sensitive cases between 1927 and 1976. He divided these six decades into six periods roughly in line with the upheavals of the Chinese Revolution. Chapters 1 and 2 examine the development of the communist judicial system before the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Embodied with Soviet-style anti-counterrevolutionary concepts, rules, and mechanisms while facing a life-or-death fight with the Nationalist Party, the nascent communist judicial system was used as an integral mechanism of the CCP against counterrevolutionaries. The outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War drove the Nationalist Party and CCP to form a united front against the Japanese in 1937, which transformed the communist judicial system towards a regional judicial system under the Republic of China with the promulgation of several criminal regulations and frequent citations of criminal laws of the republic in its judgements. Consistent with the outbreak of civil war between the Nationalist Party and the CCP in 1945, the regional judicial system period ended, and the communist judicial system’s loyalty to the CCP and its primary function as the instrument against class enemies was emphasized once again.
Chapters 4 through 7 investigate the development of the communist judicial system from 1949 to 1978. The period between 1949 and 1952 witnessed an abrupt shift in the communist judicial system from excessive lenience to harshness. Such a shift, according to Fang, was due to the deterioration of the security situation triggered by the Korean War. Fang challenges the previous view that the years between 1953 and 1957 were a “golden age” for the communist judicial system. He argues that with the exception of a short period from the spring of 1956 to the early summer of 1957, the years between 1953 and 1957 were not much different from the past—official infringement of the law widely persisted. In the early 1960s, the CCP scaled back its severity and its unlawful activities. However, throughout the first half of the 1960s, the party’s judicial policies were inconsistent and sometimes contradictory—the communist judicial system swung between being a loyal party instrument and honouring legal principles such as judicial independence and due legal procedures. In the first two years of the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), the communist judicial system was characterized by inaction and revolutionary chaos as judicial cadres were involved in factional fighting. In the early 1970s, efforts were made to rehabilitate the communist courts, which lasted until the spring of 1976.
In the final chapter of the book, Fang acknowledges the significant progress of the Chinese judicial system in promoting the rule of law during the reform era after 1978, but he remains critical and pessimistic about the future role of the communist judicial system that, according to Fang, will remain a coercive and faithful party instrument.
Fang is right to argue that the primary role of the communist judicial system has been to support the survival of the CCP under the context of constant attacks from its political enemies in the difficult early era. However, I am doubtful whether fear remained behind the initial momentum for its operation after the CCP seized power in 1949. Fang has reached such a conclusion a bit rashly. Due to limited archival sources, his explanation follows an external perspective, mainly focusing on the court’s attitudes toward litigation parties. Other internal issues essential to the development of the communist judicial system, such as legislation, courts’ capacity building, and the interaction between courts and other stakeholders, were either occasionally mentioned or not discussed. Most of the time, Fang uses criminal cases to support his arguments. I understand that compared to other types of litigation, criminal litigation can offer more apparent evidentiary information to support the argument of this book; criminal case-focused description tends to increase sample selection bias, for example. That said, it could reveal a fuller picture of the development of the communist judicial system which, in turn might lead to the alteration of the primary conclusion if Fang had paid more attention to other types of court activities that not only deal with “class contradiction” but also “people’s contradiction.” Nevertheless, The Communist Judicial System in China is an invaluable source of knowledge for readers who are interested in the Chinese judicial system in the pre-reform era and certainly will inspire the production of other thought-provoking works.
Yang Feng
Zhejiang University, Hangzhou