The Economist
August 25,2012
An ex-leader’s wife receives a suspended death sentence for murder.
Show trials are not what they were. In 1980 Chinese television viewers were transfixed by the outbursts of Mao Zedong’s unrepentant widow, Jiang Qing, in nightly broadcasts of her appearance in a Beijing court. On August 20th, in the most sensational trial since then of a member of one of China’s elite families, Gu Kailai, the wife of a deposed provincial leader, was found guilty of murder. Like Madame Mao she was given a suspended death sentence. This time, however, nervous officials were at pains to keep publicity to a minimum. Today’s viewers (and tweeters) have too many difficult questions.
Ms Gu, whose husband, Bo Xilai, was purged from the Politburo in April, is unlikely to be executed. Despite a fondness for capital punishment, the Communist Party rarely applies the death penalty to its own elite. As with Madame Mao, Ms Gu’s sentence is likely to be commuted to life in prison. Jiang Qing was released on medical parole a decade after her trial (and within a few days was reported to have committed suicide). Ms Gu, the court was told, suffers from depression and paranoia. She could be similarly freed in nine years, according to Dui Hua, an American NGO that monitors China’s legal processes.
In a trial that lasted only a day, Ms Gu admitted that she had plotted the murder of Neil Heywood, a British businessman with connections to the Bo family. She apparently poisoned him with cyanide last November in a hotel room in Chongqing, the region of which her husband was then party chief. Ms Gu said she believed that Mr Heywood was threatening her son, Bo Guagua, following a collapsed business deal. Ms Gu’s aide, Zhang Xiaojun, who admitted helping her carry out the murder, was given a nine-year prison sentence.
In Jiang Qing’s case, the authorities wanted to use her trial to make clear that the days of Maoist excess were over. China’s leaders appear less keen today to highlight their intentions. Some of them are undoubtedly happy that Mr Bo has been discredited by association. His populism and ambition were seen as threatening the leadership’s stability. But Mr Bo’s name was kept out of official reports of the trial, as was any accusation of economic wrongdoing by his family. News of the case was played down in the media.
China’s leaders, it appears, worry that a more open assault on Mr Bo would draw public attention to high-level corruption while also antagonising his sympathisers. There are still many of these, including within the elite. Even to Mr Bo’s critics, the trial of Ms Gu has not given much cheer. Many of China’s ever-vocal microbloggers have accused the authorities of letting her off too lightly. Some have even suggested that the woman who appeared in court was a lookalike (at her trial Ms Gu did appear plumper than in earlier photos). Questions have also been raised about oddities in the prosecution’s case, including the alleged threat to Ms Gu’s son. Officials hoped the trial would show a commitment to the rule of law. It appears to have aroused little more than cynicism.
