Legitimacy of political participation

the government's protection of "political participation" is the need and embodiment of the government's legitimacy. zt

In the deep thoughts of China people, it is dangerous to talk about politics.

This fear of being stung by "politics" all the time has completely erased people's basic rights from Chinese real life and even memory. It fundamentally reduced the existence of China people as citizens to animal captivity, and made all demands for getting rid of slavery and fighting for rights illegal. Once China people realize that they have rights and want to fight for them, it is simply "impatient to live". China people's thinking and wisdom are changed and distorted everywhere.

"citizen participation in politics" is the fundamental reason for the legitimate existence of all political power. All men are born equal, and people are born with some inalienable (transferable) rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In order to guarantee these rights, mankind has established a government among them. The only legitimate purpose of the government is to defend individual citizens' rights to life, property and freedom. In order to achieve this goal, the government must get the consent of the governed (or through the representative).

under the democratic system, "political participation" is a summary of citizens' participation in politics, a manifestation of sovereignty among the people, and enjoys a lofty position protected by the constitution. The main feature of "political participation" is that citizens directly or indirectly influence political choices or public welfare distribution by individuals or groups at all levels of the political system. For example, participating in elections or not participating in elections, supporting or opposing a politician are all "political participation". Because a legitimate government has been created (and supervised) in "political participation", the government must and must protect "political participation". In other words, the government's protection of "political participation" is the need and embodiment of the government's legitimacy.

Although democracy is not necessarily the best, it has won too many dictatorships. The relative superiority of democracy is clearly manifested in the election of "political participation". Regular elections can not only continuously select the most capable candidates, but also avoid bloody or bloodless coups under autocracy and the social unrest caused by them, greatly reducing the cost of social resources. As long as citizens know the political achievements and platforms of candidates and their political parties, they can make a quick choice, and voters can make a relatively rational choice without spending huge costs to collect information.

In an election, a candidate's good or bad, sincerity and hypocrisy, truth and lies, merits and mistakes, and his character and integrity are all subject to the strictest test by voters. This is what despots are afraid to think about, let alone dare to try. In the election, winning is not a saint, losing is also a gentleman, and honor and disgrace are * * *. If the winner is tall, then his height is based on the people's votes. If the loser is worthy of respect, with the loser's defeat, the winner's victory is truly valuable.

since 198s, there have been two kinds of so-called "political participation" phenomena in China. The first category is the election and voting activities of deputies to people's congresses at or below the county level in university school districts and rural areas. Some scholars classify it as "institutional participation" and "civil empowerment movement". The second type is non-institutional protest participation, which is manifested as "civil rights protection movement", and the specific form is ...

The first type of "institutional participation", without a serious attitude, can't really bring people's wishes into the government and turn them into government policies. The emergence of the second kind of large-scale protest movement just shows that the first kind of participation did not meet the requirements of the people's "political participation."

According to Professor Guo Zhenglin of Sun Yat-sen University, there are 26 villages and three types of areas in Guangdong Province (Pearl River Delta Center; Edge; A sample survey of more than 1,8 people found that the absolute majority (64.%) did not participate in the election of deputies to the National People's Congress, and only a few (3.2%) participated in the election many times. Among the farmers who participated in the election, party member accounted for an absolute majority (63.5%), while non-party member accounted for only a minority (29.7%). In addition, personal political outlook and job experience (party member, cadres) have the most obvious influence on participating in the election, while economic income has only a slight influence on the election. It is found that the degree of farmers' political participation is closely related to their social and political outlook and social identity (reflected by their job experience).

Scholars' research also proves that the prominent feature of farmers' "political participation" in China is the non-economization of goals. Professor Guo Zhenglin's research found that in the orientation of farmers' political participation, the first ones are "doing things fairly" and "being good in character and not corrupting", which shows that farmers have strong demands for fairness and justice; The second place is "literate and sensible" and "dare to speak for the villagers", which shows that farmers attach great importance to knowledge and culture and the "spirit of protecting the public" that dares to drum up and blow for the interests of civilians. In particular, it is worth noting that whether party member ranks first from the bottom in farmers' election orientation, less than 2% people choose party member. Yu Jianrong's survey in Hunan shows that farmers who take part in the election don't think voting is very important to their own interests, but they seek "doing things fairly". The survey by He Baogang and Lang Youxing shows that the voting actions of rural voters are mainly driven by their political rights and civic responsibility consciousness, which indicates that the civic consciousness of rural society is taking shape. Among foreign scholars, Ou Bowen and Li Lianjiang's research on farmers' political culture found that during the transition period, China farmers' political participation activities, such as election participation and legal struggle, are shaping the "obedient people" and "unruly people" who love to contradict authority into citizens needed by a democratic society.

It is not difficult to see that, on the one hand, China people's awareness of "political participation" is awakening; On the other hand, "political participation" is squeezed in a very narrow space and a very low level, which has fundamentally changed its meaning under democracy.

In today's social transformation period, it is very important to get rid of the "original sin" of "engaging in politics" shouldered by China people and restore the right of "citizens to participate in politics" of China people.

/archiver/? Tid-35438.html

Analysis of the legitimacy of leapfrog petition

Abstract: leapfrog petition is a manifestation of citizens' legitimate political participation, an evasion of grass-roots government failure and inaction, and it is also conducive to the construction of political legitimacy in contemporary China. In order to obtain legal identity, leapfrog petition must establish a standardized and institutionalized interest expression mechanism.

Keywords: leapfrog petition, legitimate interest expression, political participation and government failure

First, the problem is raised

Any interest structure objectively has certain interest needs, and certain interest needs must always be expressed through certain channels, that is, interest expression. Letters and visits are a relatively direct channel for the expression of mass interests in contemporary China. According to Article 2 of the Regulations on Letters and Visits promulgated by the State Council in 25, letters and visits refer to the activities that citizens, legal persons or other organizations use letters, e-mails, faxes, telephone calls, visits, etc. to reflect the situation to people's governments at all levels and departments of people's governments at or above the county level (hereinafter referred to as administrative organs at all levels), and put forward suggestions, opinions or complaints, which are handled by relevant administrative organs according to law. [1] As for "leapfrog petition", from the perspective of "Petition Regulations" promulgated by the State Council in 25, leapfrog petition is not prohibited. In other words, it is not illegal to go to petition.

In recent years, with the advancement of the rule of law in China and the improvement of citizens' legal awareness, leapfrog petition has gradually become an important weapon for people to solve interest disputes and safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. It should be said that this point, whether from the height of rule of law construction or from the practice of political life, is a great good thing. However, in real life, "leapfrog petitioners" are often excluded, attacked, retaliated and even treated unfairly, which is sometimes seen in the media.

Deng zaisheng, a farmer in Hengyang county, Hunan province, went to the county to complain to the county magistrate because the taxes and fees charged by his village cadres were much higher than those stipulated by the central and provincial governments. As a result, when he returned to the village, his wife was pushed down from the upstairs and was beaten unconscious. Later, like Qiu Ju in the movie, he went to Changsha, the provincial capital, and Beijing to petition for an explanation for the farmers. When the county government launched a crackdown, it offered a reward of RMB to 5 yuan, who wanted him because he couldn't find anyone and smashed his house. [2] Its horror cannot be said to be soul-stirring and shocking. Such people who plead for the people have finally become the targets of "strike hard" and "purge" by some local governments, but those who defend their rights have been treated unfairly or even unconstitutional by the holders of public power.

Some local governments even openly posted "It's a crime to appeal to the higher authorities!" Eye-catching slogans such as "severely punish the culprit who takes the lead in petitioning" [3]. In some places, economic measures have been used to restrict petitions. For example, in order to prevent employees from petitioning, Jiangxi fengcheng city Power Supply Co., Ltd. even issued a written notice with the threat of withholding wages and fines, "a fine of 2 for petitioning once, 4 for petitioning twice and withholding wages for petitioning three times" [4].

Ma Jiyun, a 61-year-old woman who was widely reported by the media in Sifangtai District, Shuangyashan City, Heilongjiang Province, was detained for 75 days and was "released" to go home because of paralysis. In the case book about her, it was impressively written: "Ma Jiyun ... has been petitioning for eight years for a long time ..." [1] In their view, petitioning is "making trouble" The way to deal with "trouble" and "unruly people" should be to adopt "sanctions" and "punishment" without mercy, not to mention "this can be tolerated and which can not be tolerated" for petitions that go beyond the level.

the process of reform and opening up for more than p>2 years is also a history of rapid division of social classes and strata, and the rapid growth and development of various associations and organizations in the workshop. This historic appeal has caused the re-integration of social interests, and in the process of social interest integration, it will inevitably lead to conflicts and confrontations of various interest contradictions. The increasing number of leapfrog petitions is the ultimate manifestation of the conflict and confrontation of this interest contradiction.

As far as the current leapfrog petition is concerned, most of them are not out of hostility to the government and dissatisfaction with the country, but really to safeguard and defend their legitimate interests. However, many of our local administrative organs and some departments often locate leapfrog petitions from the political and ideological perspectives, and a few local governments and departments even deal with leapfrog petitioners with "conspiracy theories".

under such circumstances, it is difficult for both sides to communicate, talk and negotiate, because the first thing they lack is the same perspective on the problem and a rational way to solve it. In this way, the political behavior of leapfrog petition has been artificially strengthened and upgraded. For leapfrog petitioners, there is no doubt that what needs to be paid is greater price, moral courage and the increasing cost of petitioning; For local governments, in order to defend their so-called authority, vested interests and even personal promotion, they have to take all kinds of high-handed means, such as personal attacks, property damage and revenge on the families of petitioners who have gone above the level. And these are just contrary to Article 3 of the State Council's Regulations on Letters and Visits, "No organization or individual may retaliate against the complainant" [2], and they think it is "playing against Taiwan" and "acting against the government".

article 4 of the regulations on letters and visits stipulates that under the leadership of people's governments at all levels, letters and visits should adhere to the principles of territorial management, responsibility at different levels, who is in charge and who is responsible, and the combination of solving problems in accordance with the law, timely and on the spot with guidance and education. If we look at the six prohibited behaviors of petitioners in Article 2 of the Regulations on Letters and Visits, leapfrog petition is not one of them. [3] That is to say, as far as the general working procedures are concerned, our petition work should solve the problem according to such a "hierarchical" principle. It is true that we have not advocated or over-publicized the advantages of leapfrog petition. We just want to start from the most basic fact-leapfrog petition does exist around us, and such cases account for more than 85% of petitions (see below for the data in 22)-and how to explore and take the pulse of leapfrog petition soberly and rationally, rather than from a certain position. Therefore, the next question is, what is the political legitimacy of leapfrog petition? This is also the main problem to be solved in this paper.

second, the analysis of the legitimacy of leapfrog petition

if the essence of political science is an art, then it is also the art of choosing the most valuable policy and system among all feasible policies and systems. Since it is to choose the most valuable policies and systems, it is inevitable to involve the legitimacy of policies and systems. Regarding the legitimacy of leapfrog petition, this paper intends to discuss it from the following three aspects:

1. Leapfrog petition is the expression of citizens' legitimate political participation < P > Political participation refers to the legitimate activities that civilians carry out more or less with the direct purpose of influencing the choices of government officials and/or the actions they take. One motive of political participation is the behavior aimed at influencing the government's decision-making, or "authoritative distribution of social values". There are four different modes of political participation: voting; Election campaign; Citizen's active contact; Cooperative activities. The main thing related to leapfrog petition is citizens' active contact. Individuals with special problems take the initiative to contact with government officials-either individuals to the government or individuals to a government department-to discuss the specific issues they care about. Only with the participation of this model can people reasonably expect it to produce special benefits. Because it can choose the "agenda" of participation behavior, that is, it can decide what to talk about when it contacts; Unlike voting and campaigning, the agenda is completely controlled by candidates and government officials. [1]

From the perspective of political participation, the leapfrog petition is mainly because political participation is an important content of modern democratic politics, and leapfrog petition is an important channel for citizens to consciously exercise their democratic rights; Political participation has also become one of the remarkable features of modern political development, and once leapfrog petition is recognized as "identity", it will greatly promote the development of democratic politics. From the function of political participation, on the one hand, it has the function of restricting and supervising the government; On the other hand, it also helps to enhance the legitimacy of political rule.

judging from the characteristics of political participation in the mode of contacting with government officials, petitioners mainly want to contact with high-level officials or government departments-the law will never stipulate that citizens can only deal with grass-roots officials, but not with high-level officials, so as to gain their support and trust and solve their own problems. As far as this mode of political participation is concerned, it is not illegal. Because any citizen has the right to contact with senior officials or government departments (except state confidential departments). That is to say, in most cases, leapfrog petition is an activity that citizens exercise their legal rights endowed by law, turn their attitudes, opinions and suggestions into ways to express their demands for government actions, and aim to influence the government's decision-making or policy-making process.

judging from the situation of leapfrog petition at this stage, most of them are because the legitimate interests of petitioners are not effectively protected, and the grass-roots governments are often indifferent to the problems reflected by petitioners or delay for a long time. In this way, instead of fully satisfying their interests, they constantly infringe on their interests, so they have to communicate, talk and negotiate with higher-level administrative organs and their officials to express their interests, hoping to pass this individual request.