From beginning to end, Zhang maintained that the book was trouble for the party.
"This book doesn't encourage people to obey the law or work hard, but glorifies crime and violations of discipline," he said. "It incites the peasants to protest in large groups, launch surprise attacks on police, steal guns, insult county party secretaries and so on. . . . If 900,000 peasants are guided like this, what kind of result will there be for China?"
Lawyer Pu Zhiqiang, center, and client Chen Guidi, at right, brief peasants outside the courthouse about libel trial's progress.
(Special To The Washington Post)
|
|
He sneered when the defense noted that the book had been critically acclaimed, and he reminded the judges that it had been banned. "Why haven't domestic newspapers and media said anything about it since March?" The book, he said, "was strangled" by the party.
When it came time for Pu to question Zhang, he asked only one question.
"I've been willing to believe you originally didn't know the facts," he said slowly. "But today, facing the suffering of these people, including suffering at the hands of your subordinates, do you have any regrets or remorse or a feeling you let these peasants down?"
Zhang replied: "No."
Waiting for a Verdict
In his closing statement, Pu argued that the authors had a right to criticize Zhang's performance in public office. The law should protect people's rights, he said, not serve as a tool of revenge for officials. But then he broadened his rhetoric, suggesting the trial had shown that not only Zhang but others in the party could be held accountable under the law, no matter how old their crimes.
"This case has given us a chance to reexamine what happened during the reign of party secretary Zhang 10 years ago," he said. "We hope this case will make it clear to hundreds of thousands of officials that they should not abuse their power and oppress the people. . . . All of it will be redressed with time."
Pu ended with a subtle plea to the judges to defy their party superiors.
"Obviously, there is room for you to be creative," he said. "If you are appropriately creative, your efforts and morals will lead society toward the further development of civilization and democracy. Your names will go down in history. . . . Your judgment will show whether the judiciary in China can shoulder its responsibility to promote the development of society."
But the lawyers said the judges have told them they cannot decide the case, which suggests that higher-level party officials are involved. The party's deliberations have been complicated because accounts of the trial have been published on the Internet and in Hong Kong. In a sign of the party's indecision, several officials have contacted the authors and their attorneys and urged them to settle the case.
So far, the authors have refused. "Settling isn't an option," Chen said recently. "We've come this far. We want a verdict."
Researcher Jin Ling contributed to this report.
