China Has Laws Banning Political Activism. Why Charge Critics with Non-Political Crimes?

Why does China’s government charge political critics with non-political crimes when political activism itself is often illegal?

INSIGHTS

• Analysis of over 13 million Weibo posts during a crackdown on online dissent reveals China’s government is more likely to charge critics with non-political versus political crimes if the critic is more influential online. 

• Charging popular critics with overtly political crimes inflamed online dissent against the government more than when using non-political charges. 

• A survey experiment involving over 1,000 respondents reveals charging hypothetical critics with non-political crimes reduces their public support while also boosting audience self-censorship and tolerance for repressing the critic.

• The researchers conclude that compared to overt repression, “disguised repression” using non-political crimes delegitimizes activists, deters criticism, and boosts public support for government actions. 

Source Publication: Jennifer Pan, Xu Xu, and Yiqing Xu (2023). “Disguised Repression: Targeting Opponents with Non-Political Crimes to Undermine Dissent.” Conditionally accepted at The Journal of Politics.

Ren Zhiqiang, real estate tycoon and vocal Communist Party of China (CCP) critic, was charged with embezzlement. Ai Weiwei, outspoken dissident artist, was charged with tax evasion. Xue Manzi, another critic with 10 million online followers, was charged with “licentiousness.” Critics Zhou Lubao and Tian Jiguang were charged with “extortion and blackmail,” Bian Min for “illegal business,” and Qin Huohuo and Lierchaisi for “profiteering.” China has many laws that criminalize political activism, like those that ban “illegal assembly” and “disrupting public order.” So why does the government charge government critics with non-political crimes?  

The data. The researchers analyzed over 13 million Sina Weibo posts that mention the name of 28 critics of the CCP from late 2009 to early 2014 who were arrested for a mix of political and non-political crimes following a major crackdown on vocal critics of China’s government in 2013. The analysis compared various characteristics of those charged with non-political versus political crimes, including public perceptions on social media. 

The researchers also conducted an online survey experiment with 1,065 respondents, randomly assigning them to either a control group or one of three treatment conditions where they read about a dissident charged with a political crime, or non-political crimes of soliciting prostitutes or tax evasion. Respondents answered questions on their attitudes toward the dissident, repression, and dissent. The survey included an “I don’t want to answer” option for sensitive questions to gauge self-censorship. 

Overtly political charges prompt public backlash. After the 2013 crackdown on online dissent, the number of Weibo posts mentioning individuals charged with non-political crimes dropped rapidly, suggesting that charging dissidents with non-political crimes greatly reduced online discussion about the dissidents. In contrast, the number of posts mentioning individuals charged with political crimes or jailed without justification increased after the crackdown, and the number of posts calling to release those charged with political crimes vastly outstripped the number of calls to release those charged with non-political crimes. The researchers suggest that overtly political charges (but not non-political charges) may have the effect of inflaming online dissent against the government among those who supported the arrested individual.

Social media posts condemning charges against government critics 

Critics with broader online presence more likely to face non-political charges. Prior to the 2013 crackdown, critics mentioned or referenced in social media at high rates — often with hundreds of thousands of posts daily — were more likely to later be charged with non-political crimes when compared to critics later charged with political crimes or imprisoned without justification, who often garnered only hundreds of mentions prior to the crackdown. This suggests that the government is more likely to use non-political charges against more influential critics.

Survey results on perceived morality of government critics 

Non-political charges reduce support for critics, boost self-censorship and tolerance for repression. The researchers conducted a controlled survey experiment to test the effects of political versus non-political charges on public perceptions of critics. The results show a hypothetical critic charged with non-political crimes loses more support than one charged with political crimes. Respondents were also more likely to support punishing a dissident charged with non-political crimes: the absolute level of support for arresting the dissident was 7.5 on a scale where zero was “totally unreasonable” and ten was “totally reasonable.” Respondents more frequently deemed critics with non-political charges to be immoral and were less likely to engage in dissent on their behalf. Eighty-nine percent of respondents believed the dissident guilty of the non-political crime. When asked whether they wanted more information on the dissident charged with a non-political crime, respondents who chose to read more were more likely to look for information about the critic’s personal life rather than their political activism. This evidence suggests that using non-political charges caused public perception to shift from viewing critics as political heroes to seeing them as morally compromised individuals. 

“Disguised repression” minimizes backlash, represses dissent. This research indicates that when repression is disguised as punishment for non-political crimes unrelated to actions taken by the dissident against the state, the public may support rather than oppose repression. This form of “disguised” repression not only delegitimizes individuals in ways that account bans and post deletions cannot, but also instills a chilling effect among other activists, thereby lowering the costs of other digital censorship strategies. This approach may undermine the moral authority of political dissidents and reduce public backlash, making repression less likely to mobilize opposition.