No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Popular Contention and Progressive Legal Repression in China
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 November 2022
Abstract
How do state authorities cope with popular contention under authoritarian legality? Based on ethnographic fieldwork and legal repression cases in China, this article highlights that conflicting rules and signals regarding contention management can impose considerable pressure on governments and motivate them to respond cautiously, even though the prevailing rhetoric of law-based governance provides a convenient basis on which authorities can legitimize their coercive actions. This study further theorizes a discreet pattern of government reaction under authoritarian legality – progressive legal repression – that rests on bureaucratic processing to overcome political uncertainty and lower potential risks before formally employing criminal sanctions to achieve domination. Instead of directly using criminal penalties to deter unruly protesters and potential dissenters, the preferred state action is to induce them to engage in available legal-bureaucratic procedures. By reconceptualizing protesters’ claims and behaviour as unreasonable and signalling fulfilment of responsibilities, bureaucratic practices help officials to reduce the risks of damaging their political image and receiving disciplinary action, encouraging them to deploy legal repression. This study reveals more complicated dynamics of state repression under authoritarian legality and emphasizes the important effects of procedural practices on governmental responses and the regime's stability.
摘要
本文探讨中国地方政府在依法治国背景下如何处置非法的社会抗议。本研究基于田野调查、公开的裁判文书以及政府文件等多种资料发现,虽然盛行的法治修辞为地方政府合法化其压制行为提供了便利,但是国家在社会冲突治理方面相互冲突的话语、规则和信号也给地方政府带来了明显的压力,进而导致地方政府对于非法抗议活动的谨慎应对。相比于直接采取刑事手段去威慑抗议者,地方政府更通常的策略是引导抗议者遵循即有的解决社会冲突的官僚程序。通过借助官僚程序重新构建抗议者的诉求和行为和展示政府责任的完成,地方政府在降低损害其政治形象和遭受问责的风险之后再转向刑事惩罚。本研究揭示了依法治国背景下更为复杂的国家压制图景和强调了程序性实践对于政府应对行为和社会稳定的重要影响。
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of SOAS University of London