ZHOU Yongkang was tried under the allegation of embezzlement, abuse of power, and disclosure of state secrets, and sentenced for life imprisonment. According to the Chinese laws, this is a light sentence after all. The reasons are as follows, the indictment of these illegal conducts upon one person who’s been in charge of the national armed police for years with the responsibility of security even for the core of the Party and the state should be amplified instead of understated. What this man was capable of in terms of taking bribes, disclosing state secrets, and abusing power cannot be put into comparison with any other ordinary man. Besides, powers differ from powers: the power to designate a project to a certain party varies from the power to sentence a certain person to death. Reportedly, ZHOU Yongkang and BO Xilai, the former Chongqing governor, plotted to “pull off a big program”, and apparently this program was not singing the Red Songs.

Emphasis on “Maintaining Stability” as the True Threat to the Social and Party Security

A more serious problem is that this trial does not show how sly ZHOU was, but rather how flawed the Chinese system is. This system ignores the Constitution as the social consensus, but resorts to violence and temptation in order to seek for stability from the weak party of the social conflict. Obviously this is illogical. From a political science point of view, violence and interest cannot be relied upon. Hannah Arendt pointed out that the main characteristics of violence was its “unpredictability”. It does not only refer to the extent of violence, but the direction of it. In terms of interest, the Book of History, an ancient Chinese book, pointed out “The citizens are changeable but only hold interest as constant.”(民心无常，惟惠是怀) . Temptation of interest is the critical flaw as there will never be stability without interest, and yet interest can be changeable just as citizens.

What more dangerous is the fact that “maintaining stability” requires violence, and therefore the department of armed forces. This then leads to the better conditions for them in order to tempt further compromises, which leads to potential threat. It does not mean these armed police departments are intrinsically violent and dangerous, but that when the limitation on those who hold violence is eradicated, they tend to mobilise the violence in their pursuit for interest. Such conduct have appeared once and again in the royal guards of the ancient emperors in China’s history.

In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon mentioned that a team of Praetorian Guard was kept in order to secure the emperors, threaten the senators, and eradicate the budding rebells. Such guards were revered with privileges and high salary. However, their power did not only threaten the civilians but also infuriated them.

On the other hand, the royal guards could also be lethal for the emperors. Living in a prosperous city with lavishing supplies, the guards with their enormous power have bred a sense of arrogance. They began to be self convinced that the life of the monarchy and other authorities including the senators were at their mercy, and the wealth and security of the state were in their control. In order not to let the guards stray, emperors had to apply a carrot and stick policy upon them in order to gain their loyalty and protection as well as control. The rewards were so high that people like Claudius had made it a rule to reward the royal guards when taking the throne. However, it did not prevent them guards from murdering the emperors and auctioning the throne.

In this sense, the constant emphasis on “maintaining stability” by using the armed police is a true threat to the social stability and the security of the decision-making authorities. It is especially so when these departments were entrusted with the power to “make a profit” as they are shortly funded, which led to harm upon the citizens. It was reported that in 2003, the financial budget for the police department in a county in Sichuan Province was only one fifth of the rational amount. The profit making amount equals RMB 20 fine for every single citizen of that county. However, to one’s disappointment, such systematic wrong doings were only partially corrected.

When ZHOU Yongkang was the member of the Politburo at the 16th Party Congress and the head of China's law-and-order , the Further Reinforce and Improve Police Work by Central Government(Document 13) was passed in 2003 which emphasised the importance of maintaining stability. It resulted in the promotion of the police department directors into the party and administration group, and the mismatch of the people’s courts and people’s procuratorate. As more and more staff was needed for maintaining stability, and more and more tasks emerged, there were more and more profit-making conducts with more serious and malignant means. Some of these staff were reported to have been hired by local governments to deal with the removal of resident houses and economic affairs which led to murders and conflict between the police and the citizens. 

On the other hand, the plot between ZHOU Yongkang and BO Xilai was obviously an attempt to overthrow the authorities, a deliberate attempt to alter the reform and opening up policy, and as former Premier WEN Jiabao said, a reverse to the “cultural revolution”. As we know, half of the police are in charge of the security of the central government and the Party’s central authorities. However, it is not the more the secure. This facilitated ZHOU Yongkang’s ambition in the first place. Once again, ZHOU Yongkang was not born a devil. He was a hardworking man when he was young. It was against the backdrop of the system and the “stability maintaining” policy that he became a “tiger”.

As we noticed, the year when “maintaining stability” was initiated in 2013, China embraced the rapidest economic development. The telecom market was in boom, automobiles were flourishing, and the real estate market began to boom. Resources prices were increasing steadily without sudden hikes; GDP grew by 10% while the consumer price index increased by 1.2%. 2013 was the year when this “maintaining stability” policy was least likely to be initiated. However, expenditure on implementing this policy has been increasing ever since. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, the public security expenditure increased from RMB348.6 billion in 2007 to RMB 778.6 billion, an annual growth of 14%, even higher than that of the GDP. However, the social security worsened. Come to think of it, has the society become more secure since 2003? The answer is clear as more and more malignant events took place in the last coupe of years involving murders by the police officers towards civilians.  

Among these events, many were due to the profit-making conduct of the police department which inflicted discontent and struggle from the civilians. In 2012, over 100,000 mass events took place, half of which concerned the expropriation of residents’ land. About 22.2% of these events involved conflict between police and citizens. Once there is an event like this, the possibility of negative handling by the government in the form of violence rose to 62.2%, including cover up of the news, violent dissipation  and arrest of the participants, which brought about new potential for disability. The more efforts put in maintaining stability resulted in more disability, and therefore, more power to the police departments. This is how ZHOU Yongkang and his fellows gained power.

Avoiding Risks from Violent Stability Maintaining by Upholding and Implementing the Constitution

Then, how does the ruling party “rule” without “maintaining stability” policy? As we know, theoretically China is a state where the sovereignty belongs to the people. This means the political power is built upon the consent of the people. The people consists of various walks and classes where conflict exists between them. The will of the people which indicate the interest and rights of the 1.3 billion people is showcased by the Constitution which stands for the consent of the people in a whole.

For the ruling party, the Constitution is the most important foundation of its rule. The Party disciplines aim to handle its internal affairs, while the Constitution links it with the society. By following the Constitution, the people are thusly convinced that the ruling party is just. This will work better in keeping the stability of the society than by violent means. Without the Constitution, what’s left in the hand of the authorities are violence and interests, which as know are not reliable.

Some might say that the people’s sovereignty over the state is not implemented nowadays, therefore, the ruling party needs not consider the people’s consent, i.e., the Constitution. This is wrong. As Hannah Arendt said, “James Madison's words “all government rests on opinion”  does not only describe democracies, but also other forms of monarchies.” She quoted Bertrand De Jouvenel and said that “emperors may appear like oligarchies, but he needs more popular support than any other form of government.” Therefore, the people’s consent is not only in text, or the regulation as the political structure, but also the core of politics, which cannot be easily denied.

In essence, China’s existing Constitution is not flawless, but it consists of the difficulties posed by China’s history, the cost of artificial tragedies in the past, and the efforts and wisdom to correct the wrongs of the past. The 1982 Constitution summarised the historical lessons of the Cultural Revolution and provided valuable principles for avoiding similar catastrophes in the future. A real statesman cannot miss the concrete good from the Constitution in perspective of the society, his party, and himself. Of course, this good is longterm and general. Implementing and executing the Constitution, and protecting the rights of the people given by the Constitution will do good to the society in the first place; And the prosperity and stability of the society will in turn enhance the legitimacy of the ruling party. Only those who consider the immediate interest over the long term interest of the party, and those who mistake the interest of the party for the interest of the society, will view the Constitution as some limits and bonds.

Therefore, the foundation for ruling in line with the principle of “benefiting others without harming oneself”, and “deciding without much effort” is the implementation of the Constitution. And upholding and protecting the Constitution is also the key measure to avoiding violent stability-maintaining. To protect the Constitution means to fight against any behaviour that attempts to violate and destruct the Constitution. The target should be firstly set on the political entities, that is the administrative departments. As the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee stressed “rule of the Constitution”, and stated “any violation of the Constitution shall be held accountable and corrected”, certain actions were witnessed such as the internal disciplining of the administrative departments and the annulment of the administrative documents that are against upper laws and the Constitution. Some cases even involved the procuratorate. Even though similar actions were taken during former Premier ZHU Rongji’s time, this round of actions is linked to the safeguarding of the Constitution, and therefore, indicating that the ruling party knows clearly the strategic significance. Even though the actions were taken mainly on a self-examining note, the general path is unshakable.

Sorting Out the Constitution-Violating “Secrete” Documents

The main issue here is that some of the documents of the Party and the administration is not public, some even labeled “top secrets”. Should these documents be sorted out and annulled if they violate the Constitution? The answer is positive for sure. These documents can prove to be lethal to the Constitution.

Taking the GAO Yu case for instance. Regardless of the technical details, we’ll discuss it on the strategic sense. GAO Yu was sentenced 7 years of imprisonment for illegally providing state secrets to foreign media. These “state secretes” were “Concerning the Situation in the Ideological Sphere” （Document No. 9） issued by the General Office of the Communist Party of China in 2013, which promulgated the so-called “seven don't mentions”. It aims to regulate the seven areas that are prohibited to be discussed by universities. This is an obvious violation of Article 35 of the Constitution on freedom of expression. It seems easy to understand why before the Party emphasised rule of the Constitution there existed an inertia ignorance of the Constitution in the Party and administrative authorities as they drafted documents and policies.

The document was considered a “state secret” once it got disclosed and GAO Yu was punished for disclosure of it. However, the ruling party failed to recognise the mistake again, which turned to another blow to the reputation and credibility of the Party. The logic here is, once a government document is considered a “state secret” and it violates the Constitution, whoever discloses it gets punished, then people will begin to wonder if there are more similar “state secret” documents. If it is indeed a “state secret”, “disclosure” means a small portion of the secret get out. It can then be deducted that every article of the Constitution may hide a similar “state secret”, which will jeopardise the whole Constitution as it is made up of such “secrets.” It can be said that the GAO Yu case denied the whole Constitution. We now know that the Constitution is a public good and an instrument for governing. If it is abandoned, there is no other option but to use violence to solve all problems, which is extremely dangerous.

Obviously, after the ruling party stressed the importance of “rule of the Constitution”, those constant constitution violating departments are not so keen on changing. They even tend to challenge this strategic decision by the inertia of conduct. The “seven don’t mentions” is such a challenge. The General Office of the Communist Party of China is just an internal secretariat without legislative power or the power to decide strategic path, however, in order to hide their mistake, the whistleblower was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.

As a result, in order to confirm a document by the Office, the Decision of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee was thusly overturned. This is a clear violation of any institution, including the organizational principles of the ruling party: the subordinates shall obey their superiors, and the secretariat shall obey the authorities. And the institutional outcome led to other copy-cat incidents. Constitutional violations can become a general phenomenon, which will eventually break the consent between the ruling party and the society, and the order and discipline of the party will eventually disappear.

Therefore, the case of the “seven don’t mentions” concerns the fundamental argument for the foundation of the public governance by constitution or violence. If stability is to be maintained by violence, then the Constitution will be violated, especially Article 35 of the Constitution. What’s at issue is whether you can violate people’s right while keeping them quiet. Executive measures are taken to keep people quiet. However, without the backing of the Constitution, the executive measures are no more than threats. As we know, this is also a dangerous path for the ruling party to take. Moreover, the government as the provider of public good should provide justice as a top priority, otherwise, the government will lose its legitimacy. By using revenging and threatening executive measures, the executive justice is denied, and the foundation for ruling by the ruling party is shaken.

Of course, it is not easy to implement and safeguarding the Constitution. Psychologically, when one puts himself in others’s shoes and becomes an impartial third party, he is qualified as a provider of justice. The governors are ordinary people as well. They also find it hard to keep impartial and just. They also get criticised. However, this is how they get information that’s not accessible to others. Therefore, the freedom of expression stipulated by the Constitution is not only good for common citizens but also for the ruling party. They may be weak and displeased to take in criticisms, but as one strives to become an outstanding statesman, taking hits is inevitable. As we know the second and third presidents of the US, President Adams and President Jefferson are political opponents. They both took serious criticisms, even personal accusations and curses, but they stood out as statesmen. Even during the feudal days of China, Emperor Renzong of Song Reign wanted to promote a relative of his favourite empress and got criticised by BAO Zheng, his prime minister. The emperor complained, “it felt like BAO Zheng came to face me and spit on my face. ” Therefore, it can be said that statesmen should be able to overcome human shortcomings, instead of amplifying them by using power.

Suppression of Criticism will Increase the Negative Asset of the Administration

Both the “seven don’t mentions” and the PU Zhiqiang case have a simple goal, that is to amplify the shortcoming of taking in criticisms by humans. The “seven don’t mentions” are all against the “socialist core values” of the Party. Nothing on PU Zhiqiang’s Weibo sounds harsher than what’s said between the two American presidents. Besides, some of PU’s comments were not even true. But even so, he should not have been convicted. There is no freedom of expression if there’s no freedom of saying something wrong, which is violating the Constitution. The governors tend to consider what they don’t like “wrong”, and suppress it with executive measures. By doing so, the governors will not be able to benefit from the freedom of expression. In the meanwhile, this is not a sign of strongness, but rather a sign of weakness.

It will also fail to hide the mistakes by suppressing criticisms. Like WEI Zheng said, prime minister of Tang Dynasty, “the emperor is the highest authority of the world. When he errs, every man sees it as if the error is eclipse.”  If the government does not keep justice, and make institutions and policies to the harm of the citizens, then, how can it expect not to be noticed? If the government prove itself right by distinguishing criticisms, then it is wrong. Even with historical errors.

The best thing to do is to recognise the error, correct it, instead of hiding it. It has been proved the people care most about the present. If the ruling party could apologise for its errors in the past, show its courage to correct the errors, then the people will support it. A recent example is the Kuomintang’s apology for the “228 Incident”. Suppression of criticism is a new error in itself. It is even worse than hiding the old errors.

Suppression of criticism itself is counter-productive. On the one hand, it increases the cost. When covering up for the errors of the predecessors, you are taking the blame, which adds to your negative political asset. A large staff is needed to suppress criticism on a large scale, and this staff also have its own interests: when ZHOU Yongkang and BO Xilai were still in office, they abused their power to suppress criticism towards themselves. Therefore, it can be said that the control over the internet in order to suppress the freedom of expression is a violation against the Constitution, and it is used as an excuse for criticism towards certain people. At last, hiding the errors of the past and suppressing criticism of the present have given a subject for those who abuse their powers in the name of “maintaining stability.” People may have well forgotten what happened twenty years ago if it was not because of what the policy department did recently. The reason why they have not let it go is that their addiction to power and money have come up. On the other hand, it is merely an illusion to think by controlling the Internet they get to control the flow of information. When has the flow of information been cut off since DENG Xiaoping’s directive for China?

All in all, in terms of the choice between the Constitution or violence, the political wisdom of ancient China has already concluded with a discussion between “persuasion by morality” or “persuasion by power”. According to Lv’s Commentary of History, ZHAO Xiangzi of Kingdom Zhao was very good at war. Once he conquered two cities in one morning’s time. People frequently found him sighing and asked him. He answered, “Even though the rivers are broad, but a flood won’t last over three days; Even a big storm won’t last over a morning’s time. Now I’ve conquered two cities in one morning, but I don’t have the moralities required. It must be an omen of my destruction.” Confucius heard about it and said, “ZHAO will prosper!” Sticking to the Constitution is persuasion by moralities, and maintaining stability with violence is persuasion by violence. If we are not moved by this story, then what can ZHOU Yongkang’s case serve for our interest?