China's Broken Petitioning System Exposed: The Heartbreaking Tale of Zhang Xuejun and Bao Shifeng

China’s Petitioning System and the Long Fight for Justice: The Tragic Case of Zhang Xuejun and Bao Shifeng

For over a decade, Zhang Xuejun and Bao Shifeng, a couple from Dashiqiao City, fought an uphill battle for justice after their home was forcibly demolished. This journey, which began in 2011, saw them traveling from local to provincial authorities, ultimately reaching Beijing in their quest to seek redress. Despite filing over 5,000 petitions, their efforts were met with consistent resistance from the legal system. Zhang and Bao’s case highlights systemic issues within China’s petitioning system, drawing attention to the hardships many citizens face when they attempt to challenge injustice. Their story is a powerful example of the gaps in China's grievance mechanisms and the repercussions of a broken system.

A Decade-Long Struggle: From Forced Demolition to Incarceration

Zhang Xuejun and Bao Shifeng’s struggle began in 2011, when their home in Dashiqiao was forcibly demolished. The couple’s grievances were centered around the alleged misconduct of local authorities, including the mishandling of public land resources and the illegal seizure of personal property. Despite these seemingly legitimate claims, Zhang and Bao faced repeated obstacles during their pursuit of justice, including the refusal of courts to file their case, changes in the nature of their complaints, unjust rulings, and a complete lack of response to their numerous petitions.

Undeterred, Zhang and Bao’s pursuit of justice led them from their hometown of Dashiqiao to the regional capitals of Yingkou and Shenyang, eventually bringing them to Beijing. During their long journey, they filed more than 5,000 petitions. However, instead of finding resolution, their persistence resulted in serious personal consequences—ultimately being charged and sentenced for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” a charge often used in China to silence dissent.

Tragic Consequences: The Passing of Zhang Xuejun

Zhang Xuejun’s health took a dramatic downturn during his imprisonment. He was diagnosed with late-stage liver cancer while in custody and, despite receiving treatment at the Shengjing Hospital affiliated with China Medical University, passed away on August 29, 2022, just six months before his 59th birthday. His tragic death highlights not only the physical toll of the couple’s ordeal but also the severe consequences faced by petitioners within China’s bureaucratic system.

Following Zhang’s death, Bao Shifeng was released, but her pursuit of justice has not ended. She continues to fight for their case to be heard and their grievances to be addressed, showcasing her determination in the face of overwhelming adversity.

Administrative Punishments and Unjust Proceedings

The hardships faced by Zhang and Bao did not begin with their incarceration. In both 2011 and 2013, the Dashiqiao Public Security Bureau imposed administrative penalties on the couple. However, in 2014, the Xicheng Branch of the Beijing Public Security Bureau released information that called into question the legitimacy of these penalties, indicating potential misconduct by the authorities in handling their case.

The questionable nature of these penalties further emphasizes the difficulties faced by Zhang and Bao, reflecting the broader systemic issues within China’s petitioning and legal systems—where power dynamics often tilt in favor of local authorities, leaving petitioners with few options for recourse.

A Broader Issue: The Broken Petitioning System in China

The case of Zhang Xuejun and Bao Shifeng is not an isolated incident. In China, petitioners routinely face significant obstacles, ranging from bureaucratic indifference and harassment to outright punitive measures. The petitioning system, meant to provide citizens with a formal avenue for redress, often ends up being a source of further victimization. Many petitioners, like Zhang and Bao, encounter systemic challenges, including being intercepted by local authorities who aim to prevent their complaints from reaching higher levels of government.

The tragic case of the chained woman in Xuzhou, who was found in early 2022 living in inhumane conditions after being trafficked, further illustrates the broken nature of China’s redress system. Initial efforts by local authorities to cover up the situation only came to light after significant public outcry. Similarly, the forced abortion of Feng Jianmei in 2012, conducted by local family planning officials because she could not pay a fine for violating the one-child policy, highlights the severe challenges faced by those who are marginalized within the system.

Systemic Barriers to Justice

China’s petitioning system, established as a formal means for citizens to seek justice, is marred by significant barriers. Local governments often employ measures such as intercepting petitioners, preventing them from traveling to Beijing, or using informal means to intimidate or detain those who persist in their complaints. This practice has become so prevalent that it has effectively formed a gray industry, further damaging public perception of the government’s ability to handle grievances fairly.

In some cases, local authorities focus on achieving a “zero-petition” target rather than genuinely addressing citizens’ issues. Such a target encourages superficial solutions, such as detaining petitioners, rather than addressing their legitimate concerns. This focus on optics rather than substantive justice has drawn widespread criticism, with many observers pointing out that the petitioning system’s failure is symptomatic of a broader issue within China’s approach to governance—a lack of effective legal recourse for ordinary citizens.

Learning from the West: A Comparative Perspective

The petitioning system in China has deep historical roots, dating back to imperial times, when citizens could appeal directly to the emperor through a system known as “drum towers.” In its modern form, petitioning allows citizens to bypass unresponsive local authorities and seek resolution at higher administrative levels. However, its flaws are evident in the way cases like that of Zhang and Bao are handled.

In contrast, Western countries provide alternative mechanisms for grievance redress that are less prone to misuse. Independent judicial systems, ombudsman offices, legislative advocacy, and civil society organizations play significant roles in addressing citizens' grievances. These systems emphasize rule of law, judicial independence, political accountability, and the protection of civil liberties, making it easier for citizens to voice their concerns without fear of reprisal.

While China’s petitioning system is intended to provide a direct line to government authorities, the risk of retaliation and the systemic barriers faced by petitioners undermine its effectiveness. Western grievance systems, on the other hand, benefit from transparency, accountability, and independent judiciary processes, making them more robust in addressing public grievances.

Conclusion: The Need for Systemic Reforms

The tragic story of Zhang Xuejun and Bao Shifeng underscores the urgent need for reform within China’s petitioning system. Their experience is a stark reminder of the personal costs that often accompany the pursuit of justice in a system fraught with obstacles and resistance. As China continues to modernize and strive for social stability, reforming the petitioning system to ensure transparency, fairness, and accessibility is crucial.

Drawing lessons from international best practices could help China establish a more effective system for grievance redress—one that protects the rights of its citizens rather than punishing those who dare to seek justice. Only by addressing the root causes of systemic issues within its governance framework can China hope to prevent future tragedies like that of Zhang and Bao, and move towards a more just society for all its citizens.