Violence Must be Condemned, its Cause Sorted Out

Cover editorial, issue no. 376 July 14 2008
Original article: [Chinese]

A series of violent incidents occurred in Guizhou, Shanghai and Shaanxi recently.

On June 28, residents of Weng'an county, Guizhou, set fire to local government buildings and a police station in protest against police handling of a girl's death. On July 1, a 28-year old man broke into a police station in Shanghai and killed six officers. And on July 3, after witnessing the accidental drowning of a man fleeing from police for traffic violations, bystanders attacked two police cars.

These events stemmed from small incidents, but involved the masses and caused significant damage. There were also a negative impact on China's international image.

At a time when the country is facing a troubled economy and is still recovering from the largest natural disasters in decades, systematically looking for solutions to such events seems of particular importance to social stability, public trust, and economic development.

Above all, the idea to solve a conflict with violence itself is the source of all violence. Even a violent reaction to injustice may not necessarily be justifiable. In a society pursuing harmony and democracy, all violence should be criticized, and more importantly, be thoroughly analyzed.

In terms of the public mentality, it is undeniable that the Chinese education system and expression environment have contributed to rashness and extreme thinking, and may to some extent explain why these people were inclined to react to conflict with violence.

Instead of being encouraged to debate, tolerate, and think constructively, the public have long been infused with violent concepts such as "rebellions are a historical rule" and "a new world can be built only when the old is brought down".

In line with modern thought, people should be taught to be gentle, law-abiding, respectful, and honorifically invested in their country. We should remove the zero-sum thinking of both the public and government officials, and encourage democratic solutions and the awareness of compromise.

Violent events in China also reflect barriers between public opinion and judicial decisions. From past cases we can see that inappropriate government handling of land acquisition, business restructuring or project construction have consistently been major incentives for mass disobedience to occur.

To promote China's democratic base, and to grant more rights in speech and participation to local people when major decisions are made, would to a certain degree eliminate the potential for backlash.

On the other hand, many events began as common disputes which could have been solved through the judicial process. However, a lack of an independent judiciary combined with low efficiency spurred a crisis of trust. When justice was deemed undelivered, people could only gather at the gates of government buildings, thus increasing the potential of violence.

The only way to solve this problem is to implement further reforms in the political and judicial systems, which could provide better channels for people to express themselves, and promote expectations of judicial fairness.

The Weng'an incident taught us that if the government handled the masses through force or tight-supervision, it would trigger strong dissatisfaction and bury seeds of violence.

In a law-abiding society, even actions threathening national security could be solved through legal means, let alone that most recent incidents did not have political motivations. The old, struggle-centric mindset and dictatorial tools are entirely contrary to the rule of law.

Meanwhile, as China undergoes a social transformation, interests are diversifying, with their conflicts becoming the norm. The government should take this into consideration when responding with measures.

Violent incidents could happen anywhere, even in countries with the most mature social and legal systems. The real threat, however, is trying to cover up these potential crises, and that will only make things worse.

Having systematic mediation mechanism and being open and transparent are the best ways to deal with conflicts of interests. This in turn would encourage citizens to express more mature and rational opinions and fulfill their end of the social contract. Lastly, it would promote democratic mechanisms for social stability and curb violence.