A person** may be because his beliefs are not firm, or it may be because of the system. It's like in a fish pond, where some fish die, perhaps because of the fish themselvesIf a large number of fish are dying, then there must be something wrong with the water in the pond.
Political science is an ancient and ancient science.
This subject began with Aristotle and has been around for more than 300 years. He has pioneered a variety of fields and is the author of numerous books, including Political Science.
Aristotle said that among the many learnings, which one is the most important?I'm sure he's going to go for political science. In his book Political Science, he described political science as the "master science" of "the primary discipline" or "the dominant discipline". Why?Because political science is related to the well-being of society or the well-being of the public.
27 years ago, when I was teaching at Peking University about the difference between politics, economics, and morality. I'm telling you, the economy is a matter of studying how to use the least resources, use the least resources, get the maximum benefits, and then how to distribute them, this is a political issue.
There are many explanations for political science, the most accepted of which is: "Politics is the authoritative division of important interests." "It's the same in our country, after you get out of work, you can say whatever your superiors want, and you have to look at it from a political point of view, which is very important.
A French economist wrote last year: "The problem of distribution is no longer applicable in economics. When it comes to "allocation", it is no longer a pure economy, but a political economy.
Because politics is related to the basic interests of human beings, people have different opinions. So, it is difficult to agree on the basic principles of political science. In political science, people tend to disagree.
Political science is very complex, but political science has its own principles. Anyone who violates the rules, will be sanctioned.
The creator of rights, the owners of rights.
For example, in our country, civil servants are the servants of the common people. Normally, civil servants are expected to obey the orders of their masters, but you have seen many ministers groveling to their superiors and shouting at their masters and the common people.
How is that possible?This is because the system of selecting some cadres violates a political truth: Those who have the power must have the power.
If the plebeians appoint him as an official, then he must obey the will of the people. If the people above appointed him, he would naturally obey the orders from above.
The way to govern the country lies in the head of the family
Nowadays, there are a lot of people in officialdom, but it is also very hard.
A Ph.D. student at Peking University conducted a study on the number of 124 county-level institutions at the provincial level. But so much**, everyone works hard, as the saying goes, 5+2, day shift and night shift. I often hear the official say that Saturday is open, and Sunday is open and there is no guarantee. Once, when I went to a certain area to do a survey, a big local leader said to me, I don't understand, some of us are working from morning to night, why are the masses still dissatisfied?
Why?The reason for this lies in the fact that many of China's institutional settings violate a basic principle, that is, the ability to govern and the institutional settings are inseparable: governing the country must come from a portal. One thing, many different departments to do, will reduce the efficiency of the work.
Everyone was knowledgeable, so they took out books and gave examples. According to the publishing regulations, in order to write a book, it must have a title, which cannot be done by the publishing house itself, such as the Religious Affairs Bureau, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ethnic Affairs Committee, and the Party History Office. The manuscript is submitted to the publishing house, and if the publishing house does not make a decision, it will be forwarded to the superior leadership, and after the superior leader reviews it, it will be sent to the relevant ministries and commissions for review by them one by one. You see, if a publishing house wants to publish a book, it has to go through so many branches, and there are so many people to review, and the staff must be overwhelmed.
Decisions about instructions and influences cannot share the same channel
There is also a situation where the superior will see some untrue figures when investigating. When state leaders inspect various localities, they must be prepared locally, but many of the preparatory work is actually fake, and even some "masses" are also pretending to be some people. In some areas, one thing will be said in the morning, but at night, it will be said in private, and it is useless to say anything during the day, and what is said is what it is.
Everyone wants to tell the truth, but why is the truth so hard?This is because many of our institutional designs violate another political principle: that top-down policy orders and bottom-up policy effects cannot be communicated through the same channel. Anyone who violates this rule will get some information that does not correspond to the facts.
In my opinion, ** is not willing to see a person lying, the people do not want to see a person lying, and a person does not want to see a person lying. But if you think about it, if I were the drafter of it, and I would evaluate its role, and I said that its role was very small, it would be tantamount to slapping myself in the face. If it is not an order issued by me, but an order issued by the above, I will implement it, and other departments and units have said that it is okay, and I will say it alone, then wouldn't the higher authorities say that I am not doing things well?So, lies are always inevitable.
It takes the power of balance and restraint to form a closed cycle
In addition, we have also seen a phenomenon that we are carrying out a big blow and have already caught more than a hundred "tigers". In fact, every leader has been very concerned about the issue of anti-corruption. Three years ago, one of my postdocs conducted a study on the party's rules and regulations, and there were 102 articles related to integrity. To be comprehensive, to achieve "four dishes and one soup" or "three dishes and one soup", we must be comprehensive. In such a strict situation, how can there be ** people?
As a politician, we see this as an institutional problem. A person** may be because his beliefs are not firm, or it may be because of the system. It's like in a fish pond, where some fish die, perhaps because of the fish themselvesIf a large number of fish are dying, then there must be something wrong with the water in the pond. Some people think that saying that there is something wrong with the system is a kind of debasement of themselves, but this is not the case. Saying that "there is something wrong with the system" does not mean that there is something wrong with the fundamental system, but that there are defects in the specific supervision and restraint mechanism of the "system."
Many people understand that rights are subject to constraints. However, what they don't realize is that rights must not only be restricted, but also have to have a closed cycle. There must be no missing line, once one line is missing, the rest of the lines will be useless. In particular, the constraints on the first secretary are too missing.
In the past two years, there has been a marked increase in the number of cases involving the first secretary. The leaders of the people's congresses in many regions are faulty, they are not familiar with Chinese politics, and they think it is a big phenomenon. In fact, most of the people who were arrested were local county party secretaries, and most of the crimes were committed when he took office.
Theory of subordination
In modern society, the power between the superior and the subordinate of the bureaucracy is not the same as the power between the superior and the subordinate of the bureaucrat. Officials at all levels are not equal in terms of their powers, but they enjoy the same rights and interests as citizens. However, in practice, the authority of ** is often overpowered.
Some bosses can dispose of their subordinates at will, and some subordinates have lost the most fundamental personality in front of their superiors, such as "not keeping their word" and "obeying orders". How is this the case between superiors and subordinates?This is due to the fact that some of our systems go against what is called "subordinate power" in political science.
That is, in the ** system, there are hierarchical rights and hierarchies, which are both the basic characteristics and the norm of contemporary politics. However, the authority of ** must have a hierarchical relationship, which does not mean that the civil rights and interests of superiors and subordinate civil servants are not equal. Even as a subordinate, he enjoys legitimate personal power and has complete independence.
For example, cadres at all levels not only have different salaries, but also have differences in retirement, housing, transportation, medical care, and so on. Many developed countries have such a clause in the constitution: "The person below also has his personality, he has his power, and he must respect him in the process of performing his official duties, but he cannot arbitrarily encroach on his legitimate right to be a subordinate."
Each has its own "rationality".
At present, there is a headache in China's political life, that is, "separation of public interests," "colloidalization," "profit," and "selfishness." Although they are all public employees, because of different departments and regions, there are also great differences in salaries, so the new "Civil Servants Law" will be promulgated, so that the state can carry out unified management of state employees.
After 30 years of reform, we have achieved a lot. In practice, however, interest groups have been established, each with its own interests, some of which have the power to decide and consciously or unconsciously favour the interests of their own group or sector in formulating policies.
Every official has a reason, and this reasonableness lies in the fact that every man can seek his own welfare, and under the right welfare, what he seeks is justice. However, at present, many systems do not take these "rationalities" to heart, believing that our party members are selfless and do not seek personal interests.
In fact, officials are also real people with their own interests, and their actions must abide by certain "rational" norms. Correspondingly, while regulating public employees, it is also necessary to regulate the "rationality" of public employees, and while protecting their reasonable rights and interests, it is also necessary to avoid excessive expansion of "rationality".
Yu Keping, born in 1959 in Zhuji, Zhejiang, majored in political history at Shaoxing Normal College (Shaoxing Humanities Academy), and was one of the first batch of people to obtain a doctorate degree in political philosophy since the founding of the People's Republic of China. Doctor of Political Science (the first two PhDs of philosophy in China since the founding of the People's Republic of China), professor and doctoral supervisor. Currently, he is the Director of the Institute of Administration and Economics at Shenzhen University.