China's Trapped Transition_ The Limits of Developmental Autocracy - Minxin Pei [42]
Additionally, judicial independence is compromised by local governments that wield enormous influence over the courts through their control of judicial appointments and court finances.89 Dependent on the local governments for funding, services, and political support, Chinese courts find it hard to try cases fairly where the economic and political interests of the local governments and officials are at stake. In the most crucial respects, Chinese courts are run like other government bureaucracies and follow a similar modus operandi. Administrative ranking or seniority, not judicial qualifications and experience, determine the hierarchical structure in the courts. For example, trial committees, which have the ultimate authority in determining judgments, are composed of individuals with the most senior administrative ranks, rather than the best judicial qualifications.90
Trials in courts are conducted like planned production drives. Typically, during the first half of the year, the pace of trials falls below average, leading to a backlog of untried cases. Backlogs force courts to try cases in a typical “campaign style,” contributing to higher error rates. In 1998, for example, 13 percent of the cases were tried in the first quarter (which includes the Spring Festival), 26 percent in the second, 25 percent in the third, and 30 percent in the fourth quarter. Mistakes abound in the cases hastily tried at the end of the year. Of the economic cases tried in December 1997, a third of the judgments were revised or ordered to be retried on appeal, a much higher percentage than the cases tried in other quarters.91 Similarly, the courts’ enforcement of judgments is performed through campaign-style drives. Under the direction of the SPC, Chinese courts often designate a certain period for such campaigns to clear up backlogs of unenforced judgments.92
Inevitably, the politicization and administrative control of the courts corrupts judicial integrity.93 In public perception, the Chinese judiciary is one of the most corrupt government institutions. A survey of 12,000 people in ten provinces commissioned by the CCP’s Central Discipline Inspection Commission in late 2003 found that the courts, along with the police and the procuratorate, were considered among the five most corrupt public institutions; 39 percent of the respondents said corruption in these three institutions was “quite serious.”94 The Chinese press frequently reports corruption scandals involving judges. In Hubei province, from 2002 to mid-2003, ninety-one judges were charged with corruption. The accused included one vice president of the provincial high court, two presidents of the intermediate court, four vice presidents of the intermediate court, and two presidents of the basic-level court. In 2003 alone, 794 judges in the country were investigated and punished (chachu).95
Corruption by senior provincial judges was reported in many other jurisdictions. The presidents of the provincial high courts in Guangdong and Hunan provinces were convicted of corruption in 2003 and 2004. In Heilongjiang, the president, a vice president of the provincial high court, and the head of the provincial judicial department were removed from office in late 2004 for corruption. In Hainan, a vice president of the provincial high court, along with the head of the enforcement department of the court, a vice president of an intermediate court, and a president of a district court, were sentenced in 2004 to long jail terms for corruption.96
Fragmentation of Judicial Authority
The control by the party and local governments of the judiciary has contributed to the fragmentation of judicial authority and undermined