How does China get out of the political trap?

The intellectuals in China were the first class to awaken, but the intellectuals in China may be the first political group to be dissolved. Intellectuals in China try to dress themselves up as prophets, but intellectuals in China can easily fall into the trap of history or repeat the same mistakes; Either learn from others and become a propagandist of democratic politics in contemporary capitalist countries. In countries based on public ownership, or in areas where most social resources are in the hands of the government, the development of democratic politics must follow a bottom-up road, and the property gains in political elections must be gradually stripped off to protect the state's stock assets and citizens' property rights to the maximum extent. Only in this way can China's democratic politics get out of the historical cycle of Asian democratic politics and thoroughly wash away the blood left by liquidation and revenge.

The Chinese nation is a nation good at learning. However, since modern times, the Chinese nation has gradually lost itself in the process of learning, so that it has fallen into a dilemma on the road of democratic political development. In the past, there was a joke in academic circles: China learned from the Soviet Union, but as a result, he established a feudal bureaucracy; China studied Yugoslavia, but as a result, local protectionism appeared; China studied Vietnam only to disturb the normal political order; China learned from the United States, but there was a financial crisis.

In fact, democracy, as a national system, cannot be confused and learn from each other. Democratic political system is a basic system rooted in national tradition. The democratic political system is not only a technical election system, but also a bureaucratic system under the election or examination system. The democratic political system is a way of life and cultural tradition, which is integrated into the blood of the nation. If we blindly copy the democratic political system of western countries, then the final result is likely to be that painting a tiger is not a dog, and democratic political reform has become synonymous with disaster for the country and the people.

At present, Chinese mainland and Taiwan Province Province present two completely different forms of democratic political development. Under the constitutional system, the mainland is trying to use the power of the ruling party to constantly change the ruling team, go to the old and welcome the new, and consolidate the interest base of the ruling party. But now it seems that such reform has many disadvantages. First of all, in the absence of public opinion, "the flag of the king changes over the city" can only increase the resentment of voters, but will not bring practical benefits to the ruling party. In the traditional clean and honest political culture, people only pay attention to the actions of the Chief Executive. To establish his prestige, the Chief Executive must form a cabinet in person and be responsible to his own cabinet. However, due to the so-called open selection system in Chinese mainland, the power of the Chief Executive has been replaced by the administrative organ at the next higher level, and it is difficult for the Chief Executive to be responsible for the actions of the ruling team. This leads to the embarrassing situation that the Chief Executive enjoys administrative power in form, but has no substantive power. Therefore, the open selection of cadres will not only fail to form a capable team, but also lead to unclear rights and responsibilities. Once a major production safety accident or emergency occurs, the abnormal operation of administrative bureaucracy will be directly exposed. Now more and more intellectual elites join the ruling team, but the more elites in the ruling team, the lower the administrative efficiency will be.

Secondly, from the perspective of reform strategy and value orientation, the ruling party tried to improve the government's credibility by attracting celebrities from all walks of life to join the ruling team, but in this way, it subverted the civil service system stipulated by the Constitution and laws and affected the normal job-hopping of a large number of civil servants. This kind of reform can not improve the efficiency of governance, but will dampen the enthusiasm of civil servants, making a considerable number of civil servants look for shortcuts to the south outside the normal system. /index.html

Third, because there is no general resignation system, a large number of civil servants have accumulated within the ruling team. The ruling party has carried out streamlining reforms again and again, but the result of the reform is that the ranks of civil servants are getting bigger and bigger. In the case that civil servants are inseparable, the ruling party has administratively set up institutions in some countries, including institutions of higher learning, scientific research institutions and even large state-owned enterprises, and regards the positions of these units as rewards for civil servants. As a result, many enterprises and institutions are becoming more and more administrative. Under the official standard system, this society has gradually formed a special bureaucratic structure.

Fourthly, because there is no regular election system, there is an obvious phenomenon of "insider control" among civil servants, and collective corruption or institutional corruption has almost become the norm in Chinese mainland. As long as you enter the civil service, you can share the fruits of corruption. If civil servants try to break away from this system and protect the interests of voters, then they will become the target of public criticism. Those civil servants who deviate from the rules will either lose their posts in the Party or be brought to justice. The selective enforcement of law by law enforcement agencies can not only play a deterrent role, but also give civil servants obvious psychological hints: as long as they obey the rules and obey the superior leadership, they can enjoy the success; On the other hand, if you try to subvert the existing corrupt system, the final result is likely to be a victim of political struggle.

In fact, the greatest achievement in the development of democratic politics in South Korea and Taiwan Province Province lies not in the establishment of a democratic political system, but in the fact that after regular elections, the ruling party will do everything possible to liquidate all kinds of corruption of the opposition party. Due to regular elections, the liquidated opposition party may regain power in the next election. In order to win more votes and get a chance to liquidate their political opponents, politicians will try their best to dress themselves up and win the election again.

So, don't be fooled by the gorgeous political rhetoric of some politicians. In the development of democratic politics, the biggest problem facing the Asian region is that politics is more like a collective activity of sharing stolen goods. When the vast majority of resources are in the hands of the government, mastering political power means gaining the right to control resources. It is precisely under the temptation of such interests that people will strive to climb the political stage wave by wave.

A thorough analysis of the political ecology of Asian countries will produce pessimism. In my opinion, democracy under privatization and democracy under public ownership are completely different concepts. Democracy under the condition of private ownership is a kind of pure democracy that manages social affairs; Democratic politics under public ownership is a kind of democratic politics dominated by property distribution. Under the condition of public ownership, or under the condition that resources are controlled by minority groups, democratic political elections are typical political plunder. Overexaggerating the function of democratic political elections, or being confused by the incorruptible image of a few politicians, thus placing high hopes on the development of democratic politics in Asian countries, if it is not naive, then it is ulterior motives.

In the discussion of constitutional reform, some scholars once pointed out that the purpose of establishing a country is not to distribute citizens' property, but to better protect citizens' property, or that the constitution is to provide opportunities for citizens to create wealth. Therefore, the constitution cannot, cannot and will not stipulate the property system in the past. The property system of a country should be stipulated by civil law or property law. This constitutional concept comes from the traditional social contract thought of social enlightenment thinkers. This concept regards the state as a political system or social structure divorced from reality, but in fact, under the condition of modern market economy, the state is a huge asset, and whoever masters this asset will have the right to distribute or control wealth. Because of this, the national constitution must stipulate the distribution of wealth in principle. Only in this way can we prevent a few people from taking advantage of the competition between political parties and constantly encroaching on the wealth of the country; Only in this way can the staff of state power organs be prevented from using their state power to plunder or embezzle citizens' personal property rights.

Protecting citizens' property rights is an important function of the Constitution. If the constitution can't protect citizens' property rights, or the constitution can't effectively restrain the power of administrative organs, then the periodic election system will become a meaningless trading system full of copper smell. Facts have proved that political elections in many Asian countries are more like a real power transaction. If politicians want to get votes, they must pay money; In order to get more money, we must get enough votes and gain the ruling position.

It is not easy to get out of this historical cycle of power and money trading. In such a political transaction, all participants may gain wealth, but opponents will never lose the opportunity to distribute wealth. This is why, instead of decreasing, corruption in multi-party countries in Asia is getting worse. Singapore is a very special city country in Asia. In such a tiny place, the ruling party has gained a lot of wealth through efficient operation, and directly transformed some of it into means of subsistence, meeting the basic requirements of Singaporeans for the supply of public goods. It is this "public ownership" of the means of subsistence that enables the rulers of this country to be in power for a long time. Some opposition parties tried to undermine this political system. As a result, they lost their means of subsistence and were put in prison. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is a special political region transformed from a colony. This area is ruled by bureaucrats, but the bureaucracy has done nothing in economic development, and the administrative authorities have hardly played any role in the economic field except the right to auction land. Because of this, this region will form a relatively clean political atmosphere, and corruption will be relatively rare.

Therefore, when designing the road map of China's democratic political reform, we must not indulge in the already formed political system framework and try to transform China's political system by copying the political structure or legal system of other countries and regions. In China, a country with a large population, the so-called democratic politics is "one person, one vote" from a microscopic point of view. However, from a macro point of view, it is necessary to establish a community autonomy system that completely divests property attributes and openly elect state power institutions through community representatives. Otherwise, the "one person, one vote" political election is likely to have periodic social disasters. Democratic politics is an external system to protect citizens' property rights, and property rights are the basis for the development of democratic politics. Only by giving priority to citizens' property rights can a real democratic political system be produced. This does not mean that democratic politics can only be realized at the stage of developed productive forces, but that the legal system for protecting property rights must be placed in a prominent position in the process of democratic political development. Only on the basis of fully protecting citizens' property rights can we discuss the development of democratic politics. Generally speaking, no matter which political party comes to power, citizens cannot be deprived of their property rights at will. Democracy at that time was the real modern democracy.

At present, in Chinese mainland, some representatives of the new left advocate big government, trying to ensure the fair distribution of social resources by expanding the power of the government. However, some representatives of the extreme right advocate the separation of the three powers, and through the implementation of federal reform, decentralization is implemented within each federal subject, and finally a state power system similar to that of the United States is established. In my opinion, the new left lacks historical reflection on the harm caused by excessive government power; The separation of powers advocated by the ultra-right representatives is nothing more than the ultimate goal of China's disintegration, and it will not bring good news to the Chinese nation except the continuous turmoil. China's political system reform must go its own way, which is both a historical lesson and a summary of China's current political system reform experience.

In my opinion, China's political system reform must pay attention to the following issues: First of all, we must attach importance to technological reform and conceptual reform, and we cannot replace conceptual innovation with technological reform. Decentralization and open elections are technical reforms, and these reforms are necessary. However, before the concept changes, the author can boldly say that these reforms may stand still. There is a simple reason. After mastering the national resources, the ruling party has trained a large number of bureaucrats, who may know more about China's political ecology than some theorists. Therefore, after the implementation of open elections, they can sweep all political election battlefields with thunderous momentum. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, many people mistakenly thought that liberal intellectuals would take power, but they woke up overnight and suddenly found that the country had changed, but the traditional bureaucratic team of the Soviet Party was in power. This shows that the political system reform must start with the change of ideas. If there is no change in ideas, then open elections are likely to change their forms.

Secondly, we must pay attention to the political stance of social intellectuals. In the development of democratic politics, social intellectuals will constantly change. Those intellectuals who stand outside the bureaucratic system and hold high the banner of criticism are likely to give up their positions because of the temptation of political interests, so as to enter the system and play the role of accomplices. Now some intellectuals in mainland universities are getting used to political speculation. They voluntarily give up critical tools and work part-time in the system, thus enjoying more social welfare. This political stance determines that the development of China's democratic politics cannot rely on the intellectual class, but can only seek the motive force of China's democratic political reform from wealthy entrepreneurs or petty bourgeoisie. The vacillating position and speculative mentality of intellectuals in modern China determined that it was difficult for China intellectuals to play a mainstay role in the development of democratic politics. After a few intellectuals surrendered and rebelled, they turned to attack their former comrades. This is not only a living reality in China, but also a political norm in China for a long time to come. Intellectuals are always giants of words and dwarfs of action, and cannot play a key role in social and political changes.

To sum up, the intellectuals in China were the first class to awaken, but the intellectuals in China may be the first political group to be dissolved. Intellectuals in China try to dress themselves up as prophets, but intellectuals in China can easily fall into the trap of history or repeat the same mistakes; Either learn from others and become a propagandist of democratic politics in contemporary capitalist countries. In countries based on public ownership, or in areas where most social resources are in the hands of the government, the development of democratic politics must follow a bottom-up road, and the property gains in political elections must be gradually stripped off to protect the state's stock assets and citizens' property rights to the maximum extent. Only in this way can China's democratic politics get out of the historical cycle of Asian democratic politics and thoroughly wash away the blood left by liquidation and revenge.