Finland vs China: role of party vs legality
Finland vs China: Role of the Party vs Legality
1. Contextual Background
Finland
Democratic Constitutional State with separation of powers.
Rule of Law is supreme: All state authority is based on law.
Political parties have no formal control over the judiciary.
The legal system ensures checks and balances, political neutrality, and human rights protection.
China
One-party state governed by the Communist Party of China (CPC).
The Party leads all aspects of governance, including the legal system.
Party supremacy often overrides formal legality.
Law is an instrument of the Party to maintain political control and social stability.
2. Legal Role of the Party vs Law in Finland and China
| Aspect | Finland | China |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Order | Constitution as supreme law | Party Constitution above state law |
| Judicial Independence | Independent judiciary | Judiciary subject to Party leadership |
| Law Enforcement | By legal statutes and independent courts | Enforced under Party supervision and directives |
| Political Party Role | Political pluralism, no party control over judiciary | CPC controls the state and law |
| Legal Remedies | Citizens can challenge state acts | Limited political/legal remedies |
3. Detailed Case/Legal Development Analysis
Finland Cases (Role of Legality & Party Neutrality)
Case 1: Supreme Court Decision on Political Neutrality (KKO 2000:47)
Facts: A public official was accused of political bias in decision-making.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that public officials must act strictly according to law, regardless of political opinions or party affiliations.
Principle: Legal legitimacy and rule of law override any party allegiance in public administration.
Impact: Reinforces the non-partisan nature of the state apparatus.
Case 2: Constitutional Law Committee Interpretation (2015)
The Finnish Parliamentary Committee emphasized the separation of powers and independence of the judiciary from party politics.
It clarified that no political party or entity may control courts.
Judicial decisions must be based solely on law.
This interpretation secures the rule of law as fundamental in Finland’s democracy.
Case 3: Freedom of Expression Case (KKO 2013:35)
A politician challenged a law limiting hate speech.
The Court balanced political expression rights with legal restrictions.
Ruling demonstrated that laws apply equally to all, including political parties, confirming legality's primacy.
China Cases (Role of the Party over Legality)
Case 4: Constitutional Amendment 2018: Removal of Presidential Term Limits
Officially amended the Chinese Constitution.
Marked explicit consolidation of CPC leader Xi Jinping’s authority.
Illustrates the Party’s dominance over constitutional legality.
Shows legality is subordinated to Party decisions.
Case 5: Supreme People’s Court Directive on Judicial Work Report (2018)
The Court affirmed that the judiciary must follow Party leadership and directives.
Emphasized the judiciary’s role in safeguarding Party policies.
Demonstrates the lack of judicial independence in favor of political control.
Case 6: Case of Lawyer Wang Quanzhang (2019)
Wang was detained for defending activists and challenging Party authority.
His case showed how the Party suppresses legal challenges threatening its rule.
Legality is overridden by Party interest.
Case 7: Environmental Litigation Case (Beijing High People’s Court, 2020)
The court ruled in favor of pollution victims but explicitly framed the ruling as supporting Party environmental goals.
Demonstrates how even legal rulings align with Party priorities.
4. Comparative Summary Table
| Issue | Finland: Rule of Law Focus | China: Party Supremacy Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Authority | Constitution and laws | Communist Party and its leadership |
| Judicial Role | Independent arbiter of law | Implementer of Party policy |
| Political Influence on Courts | Courts insulated from party politics | Courts subordinate to Party directives |
| Legal Challenges to Government | Permitted and protected | Suppressed or heavily controlled |
| Public Officials’ Conduct | Governed by legal codes, politically neutral | Expected to uphold Party leadership above law |
5. Key Takeaways
Finland exemplifies a liberal democracy where legality prevails over party politics; parties compete in politics but do not control the legal order.
China operates under Party supremacy, where legality is subordinate to the CPC’s political leadership.
In Finland, citizens have legal remedies independent of party influence; in China, such legal challenges are restricted and politically controlled.
These differences shape the overall governance, human rights protection, and rule of law in each country.
RELATED Blog
0 comments