High-scoring rewards are offered for 2-3 small cases that urgently "prevent social issues from entering the policy agenda"! ! !

Domestic stranded problem cases:

/question/25395182.html?si=1

Analysis of the legality of leapfrog petitions

Abstract: Cross-level petitions are a manifestation of citizens’ legitimate political participation and an avoidance of grassroots government failure and inaction. Cross-level petitions are also conducive to the construction of political legitimacy in contemporary China. To obtain legal identity recognition for cross-level petitions, a standardized and institutionalized interest expression mechanism must be established.

Keywords: Leap-level petition, legality, interest expression, political participation, government failure

1. Raising the issue

Any kind of interest structure has certain objective existence Interest needs, and certain interest needs always have to be expressed through certain channels, that is, interest expression. Petitions are a relatively direct channel for expressing the interests of the masses in contemporary China. According to Article 2 of the "Regulations on Letters and Calls" promulgated by the State Council in 2005, letters and calls refer to citizens, legal persons or other organizations using letters, emails, faxes, phone calls, visits, etc. to submit work to people's governments at all levels and people's governments at or above the county level. Departments (hereinafter referred to as administrative agencies at all levels) report situations and make suggestions, opinions or complaints, which are handled by relevant administrative agencies in accordance with the law. [1] As for "petitions beyond the next level", judging from the "Regulations on Letters and Calls" promulgated by the State Council in 2005, petitions beyond the level are not prohibited. In other words, it is not illegal to petition beyond the next level.

In recent years, with the advancement of my country’s legalization process and the improvement of citizens’ legal awareness, petitioning at higher levels has gradually become an important weapon for people to resolve disputes over interests and safeguard legitimate rights and interests. It should be said that this is a good thing, both from the perspective of rule of law construction and from the practice of political life. However, in real life, situations where "leapfrogging petitioners" are repeatedly squeezed out, attacked, retaliated against, and even faced with various other unfair treatments are often reported in the media.

Deng Zaisheng, a farmer in Hengyang County, Hunan Province, went to the county to file a complaint with the county magistrate because the taxes levied by his village cadres on farmers were much higher than those stipulated by the central and provincial governments. When we arrived at the village, my wife was pushed down from a building and beaten until she lost consciousness. Later, like Qiu Ju in the movie, he went to the provincial capital Changsha and Beijing to petition, asking for an explanation for the farmers. When the county government launched a crackdown, it offered a reward of 500 yuan for his arrest. Because he could not be found, his house was destroyed. [2] The tragedy cannot be said to be heart-shaking and shocking. Those who "plead for the people" like this eventually become the targets of "severe crackdowns" and "purges" by certain local governments, while rights defenders are treated unfairly and even unconstitutionally by public power holders.

Some local governments even openly posted eye-catching slogans such as "It is a crime to petition beyond one's level!" and "Severely punish the culprits who take the lead in petitioning"[3]. Some places even use economic means to restrict petitions. For example, in order to prevent employees from petitioning, Jiangxi Fengcheng City Power Supply Co., Ltd. issued a written notice threatening wages withholding and fines. "A fine of 200 is fined for one petition, a fine of 400 for two petitions, and wages will be withheld for three petitions." [4]

The 61-year-old woman Ma Jiyun, a resident of Sifangtai District, Shuangyashan City, Heilongjiang Province, was widely reported by the media. She was imprisoned for 75 days for petitioning for a higher level. She was later "released" and returned home because of paralysis. The case handling book actually states: "Ma Jiyun... has been petitioning for eight years beyond his senior level..." [1] In their view, petitioning means "making trouble", "going against" the government, and not "obedient". Petitioners are "troublesome people", and the way to deal with "troublemakers" and "troublesome people" should be to adopt merciless "sanctions" and "punishments". What's more, for petitions beyond the level, there is no doubt that "this can be tolerated and what cannot be tolerated" Tolerate".

The process of reform and opening up for more than 20 years has also been a history of rapid differentiation of various social classes and strata, and the rapid growth and development of various associations and organizations. This historical demand has caused a renewed interest in social interests. In the process of integrating social interests, conflicts and confrontations between various interests will inevitably arise. The increasing number of cross-level petitions is the ultimate expression of this conflict and confrontation of contradictory interests.

As far as the current cross-level petitions are concerned, most of them are not out of hostility to the government or dissatisfaction with the country, but truly to safeguard and defend their own legitimate interests.

However, many of our local administrative agencies and some departments often position cross-level petitions more politically and ideologically. A few local governments and departments even use "conspiracy theories" to deal with cross-level petitioners.

Under such circumstances, it is originally a "conflict" caused by interests and a "struggle" caused by rights protection. It is difficult for both parties to communicate, dialogue and negotiate, because first of all, there is a lack of mutual understanding. The same perspective on the problem and a rational way of solving it. In this way, the political behavior of cross-level petitioning is artificially strengthened and upgraded. For petitioners who leapfrog higher levels, they undoubtedly need to pay a greater price, moral courage and increasingly rising petition costs; for local governments, in order to defend their so-called authority, vested interests and even personal promotion, they have to take various measures A high-pressure method, "killing one to serve as a warning to others", such as personal attacks, destruction of property, and retaliation against the family members of the petitioners who passed the level. These are contrary to Article 3 of the "Regulations on Letters and Calls" of the State Council, "No organization or individual may retaliate against petitioners"[2], and are considered to be "antagonizing" and "confronting" the government.

Article 4 of the "Regulations on Letters and Calls" stipulates that the work of letters and calls should be under the leadership of people's governments at all levels, adhere to local management, hierarchical responsibilities, who is in charge, who is responsible, and solve problems and provide guidance in a timely and local manner in accordance with the law The principle of combining education. If we look at the six prohibited behaviors for petitioners in Article 20 of the "Regulations on Letters and Calls", petitioning beyond the next level is not among these. [3] This means that in terms of general work procedures, our petition work should solve problems according to such a "level" principle. It is true that we do not advocate or overly promote the advantages of petitioning beyond the next level. We just want to start from the most basic fact - leapfrog petitions do exist around us, and such cases account for more than 85% of petitions (2002 data, see below) - how to soberly and rationally - Instead of discussing and taking the pulse of petitioning issues from a specific standpoint. Therefore, the next question is, what is the political legitimacy of petitioning beyond the next level? This is also the main problem to be solved in this article.

2. Analysis of the legitimacy of cross-level petitions

If the essence of political science is an art, then it is also about choosing the most valuable among all feasible policies and systems. The art of policy and institutions. Since we are choosing the most valuable policies and systems, the legitimacy of the policies and systems will inevitably be involved. Regarding the legality of cross-level petitioning, this article intends to discuss it from the following three aspects:

1. Cross-level petitioning is a manifestation of citizens’ legitimate political participation

Political participation refers to civilians or more or Rarely conduct legitimate activities with the direct purpose of influencing the choices of government personnel and/or the actions they take. One motivation for political participation is behavior aimed at influencing government decision-making, or the "authoritative distribution of social value." There are four different modes of political participation: voting; campaigning; citizen-initiated contact; and cooperative activities. The main thing related to cross-level petitioning is citizens’ active contact. Individuals with special problems proactively engage with government officials—either individually to the government, or individually to an agency of the government—to discuss their specific concerns. Only by participating in this model can the people reasonably expect that it will produce special benefits. Because it can choose the "agenda" of participating behaviors, that is, it can decide what to talk about during contact; unlike voting and election campaigns, the agenda is completely controlled by candidates and government officials. [1]

Examine cross-level petitions from the perspective of political participation, mainly because political participation is an important part of modern democratic politics, and cross-level petitions are an important channel for citizens to consciously exercise their democratic rights; political participation It has also become one of the distinctive features of the development of modern politics. Once petitioning beyond the next level obtains "identity" recognition, it will greatly promote the development of democratic politics. From the perspective of 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 cross-level petitions, which mainly take the form of contact with government officials, petitioners mainly want to contact high-level officials or government departments - the law never stipulates that citizens can only Dealing with grassroots officials but not with high-level officials to gain their support and trust to solve their own problems. As far as this form of political participation is concerned, it is not illegal.

Because any citizen has the right to contact high-level officials or government departments (except confidential state departments). That is to say, in most cases, cross-level petitioning is a way for citizens to exercise their legal rights granted by the law and transform their attitudes, opinions, suggestions, etc. into requests for government action, and aims to influence government decision-making or policy formulation process activities.

Judging from the current situation of cross-level petitions, most of them are because the legitimate interests of the petitioners cannot be effectively protected, and the grassroots governments are often indifferent to the problems reported by the petitioners or delay for a long time. In this way, instead of fully meeting their interest requirements, they continue to infringe on their interests. Therefore, they have to communicate, dialogue and negotiate with higher-level administrative agencies and their officials to express their interest requirements. They hope that through this Individual contacts and non-institutional expressions of interests can then influence government decision-making or political processes. For example, higher-level administrative agencies put pressure on lower-level administrative agencies and require lower-level administrative agencies to act more proactively. It is necessary to point out that if it is transmitted step by step through the "hierarchical chain", because the grassroots government implements information blockade or information interception for its own reputation or fear of affecting political performance, the information transmitted step by step cannot be directly transferred to the higher level. controlled by administrative agencies.

From the perspective of the function of political participation, cross-level petitioning has the function of restricting and supervising the government (especially the grassroots government). In a democratic social system, political participation itself is a mechanism for venting interests. It can strive to maintain a dynamic balance between the government and the public, and can buffer, coordinate or correct the relationship between government actions and the will of the citizens. conflicts between. On the other hand, from the perspective of the political system, in order to maintain the normal operation of the existing political system, the government system must continue to obtain a large amount of political information from society, especially negative information with strong public reactions and complaints, so as to Correct and correct its governance strategies and methods of governance. Citizens boldly express their wishes and goal orientations for the distribution of interests and values ??through political participation, which exactly meets this requirement of the government system. Moreover, from the perspective of the relationship between the political participation mechanism and the political operation mechanism, the political participation mechanism is an important part of the political operation mechanism; the soundness of the political participation mechanism is directly related to the degree of function of the political operation mechanism. Thereby trying to establish a consistency between the actions of the government and the wishes of the citizens on the issues involved.

Looking at cross-level petitions from this perspective, we will find that the reason why citizens petition beyond the next level is often because the actions of grassroots administrative agencies cannot meet their wishes and requirements. In order to satisfy their wishes and realize their interests, , must be obtained through other means. Petitioning beyond the next level is not only a very realistic choice, but also a wiser choice. This is because in a unitary country, higher-level administrative agencies often have considerable deterrence and supreme authority over lower-level administrative agencies. For example, if a petitioner who crosses a higher level files a complaint to the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Agriculture will give a reply to the Provincial Agricultural Committee, and then the next level. Continue to approve. Generally speaking, subordinates still need to pay attention to, implement and implement the instructions and instructions of their superiors.

In most cases, subordinates do not dare to "disobey orders." However, in the past years of cross-level petitions, many grassroots government agencies have not properly handled the issue of cross-level petitions in accordance with the instructions and spirit of their superiors. , and even adopt or disguised methods of extremely harsh attacks and retaliation against the petitioners. For example, the process of petitioning by the above-mentioned petitioners is arduous and painful, and the results are often not as "accommodating" and "according to public opinion" as they imagined. It is true that if the upper-level administrative agency and the lower-level administrative agency are colluding, or if the lower level bribes the higher level for its own specific purpose (for example, the leader is afraid of affecting political performance, etc.), and the upper level "positively responds", then it is a different matter, because it needs to bear another responsibility. A greater political risk requires another greater moral price.

In short, when examining cross-level petitions from the perspective of political participation, we can draw the conclusion that cross-level petitions can help to truly solve the problem of petitions, and can also help strengthen supervision of the government and reduce or inhibit Corruption, promote the government's integrity, diligence and efficiency, thereby improving the government's ability to govern and enhance political legitimacy.

2. Cross-level petitions are an evasion of grassroots government failure and inaction

The reason why cross-level petitions are examined from the perspective of government failure and government inaction is because of government failure and government inaction. Government inaction is a "political disease" and two major chronic diseases that modern governments are often prone to. Government failure means that government policy intervention measures cannot achieve the expected effect of regulating the market, and under certain conditions may even lead to worse results than "market failure".

When considering government failure from the perspective of cross-level petitions, the main problems are: (1) The grassroots government lacks a clear responsible subject, which leads to low government efficiency and indifference of government officials; (2) The grassroots government Officials, like ordinary people, make mistakes; (3) grassroots government behavior is disordered or out of control, which leads to vacancy in the punishment of government defaults; (4) grassroots government agencies and administrative officials have incentive mechanism problems; (5) grassroots governments The monopoly leads to inefficiency, rent-seeking behavior and other corruption phenomena; (6) The principles of "majority consent" and "minority decision-making" pursued by grassroots governments often ignore or harm the interests of the minority. In other words, the existence of these problems is also the practical reason for petitioners to petition beyond the next level.

The "Lookout" weekly published on October 6, 2003 pointed out that currently "80% of petitions reflect grassroots issues, 80% of petitions reflect reasonable or reasonable reasons, and 80% of petitions reflect grassroots issues. % of the petitions were caused by the failure of the local government or department to resolve the problem seriously and properly." [1]. An effective way to solve the failure of grassroots governments is to establish and improve democratic expression methods and create and continuously improve new political operation techniques. This can not only directly provide the people with a smooth expression channel and institutional platform, but also reduce the tendency of bureaucratization in society and improve the relationship between cadres and the masses, thereby completing the government's goal of providing survival, stability, and economic and social welfare for all citizens. .

From the perspective of government inaction, the reason why cross-level petitions have become more and more prominent in recent years is mainly due to the following four reasons: First, some grassroots government officials are not Instead of easing and calming conflicts, they are "good at" creating, intensifying, and escalating conflicts; second, the relevant departments lack sense of responsibility and professional ethics, and even artificially block and block petition channels; third, many grassroots government officials are accustomed to using politics and ideology to " "To punish people" lacks basic legal thinking and awareness of the rule of law; fourth, the characteristics of China's power structure system determine that the central and provincial levels have the highest coercion and trust, but at the local level, the lower the grassroots level, the lower the power structure. will become alienated, and there may even be a situation like this: "The sky is clear in the center, dark clouds are rising in the provinces, strong winds are blowing in the counties, and people are drowning in the towns"; or "if one department cannot solve the problem, all other departments cannot solve the problem" , and finally evolved into all problems flowing to Beijing” [2]. Therefore, on the one hand, it is extremely urgent and necessary to clear up access channels and provide the people with a green channel to truthfully reflect problems and a political platform to exercise their democratic rights without any hindrance; on the other hand, it is extremely urgent and necessary to establish strict and standardized political issues. The responsibility system—strengthening the importance of responsibility and self-awareness of “action” and increasing the political risks and moral costs of “inaction”—should also be put on the agenda.

From the actual situation, many local governments are currently "market-oriented", "enterprise-oriented" and "profit-oriented" and local officials are "criminalized", "gangster-oriented" and "gangster". """, on the one hand, the fairness, serviceability, and legitimacy of government actions have been greatly reduced; on the other hand, the most serious consequence is the general "inaction" of grassroots government agencies, which has led to the loss of the government's due functions. There is a huge absence, public service is in decline, power rent-seeking and institutional corruption are serious, and social injustice and instability are intensifying. In this case, whether it is an individual citizen’s petition or a legal person’s or other organization’s petition directly to the grassroots administrative agencies, it seems that it is always difficult to be effective. Therefore, it is natural and reasonable to petition at higher levels. Because this is the most effective weapon against the "inaction" of grassroots governments and the sword of choice for rights defenders. On the one hand, it is the petitioners' "court-style" challenge and resistance to the grassroots government, and on the other hand, it is due to the role of statutory "authority" from superiors to subordinates. It is precisely the existence of these two points that makes it possible to petition at higher levels, allowing petitioners to correct and standardize the "inaction" of grassroots governments while safeguarding their rights.

In short, if we follow the requirements of the state and the current "Petition Regulations", we must petition in accordance with the law, in an orderly manner, and level by level, and there is no problem with this. Even if we do not advocate that everyone go to higher-level petitions, we must not prohibit higher-level petitions. In particular, we are firmly opposed to preventing people from going to higher-level petitions, or even using illegal means to crack down on and retaliate against higher-level petitions. The existence of too many "leap-level petitions" is more because in reality, "level-by-level" and orderly petitioning is often not conducive to solving problems. It is precisely based on this consideration that Wang Yuezong, deputy director of the National Bureau of Letters and Calls, pointed out that we do not advocate leapfrogging, but we do not prohibit leapfrogging. Why do you say that? In 2002, the cases assigned to local governments by the Visitor Reception Department of the National Bureau of Letters and Calls were definitely overstepped, and 85% of the visits were genuine. What is this concept? In other words, if you don’t allow people to petition beyond the higher level, when will 85% of the people’s problems be solved? It's likely to be lost forever. [1] Therefore, from this perspective, cross-level petitioning can not only realize the communication of lower-level sentiments and the transmission of higher-level sentiments, but also a powerful compensation for and a major avoidance of government failure and government inaction.

3. Petitioning beyond the next level is conducive to the construction of political legitimacy in contemporary China

Legitimacy is one of the most important concepts in political science. Its original meaning was that kings had the right to ascend the throne due to their "legitimate" birth. Since the Middle Ages, its connotation has become richer. Legality not only refers to the "legal right to rule", but more importantly, the "psychological right to rule". Legitimacy in the modern sense mainly refers to a rational attitude held by people, which believes that government rule is legal, just and trustworthy. The legitimacy of a government comes through the following four ways: first, the government exists for a long time; second, a government can also gain legitimacy from its good political performance. Ensuring economic growth and full employment, providing security against foreign invasion and civil unrest, and treating all people fairly can help increase the legitimacy of government. Third, the composition and structure of government also have an impact on legitimacy. People are more willing to obey if they feel the government represents them fairly and has a say in selecting officials. Finally, the government manipulates national symbols to support its legitimacy. Flags, historical memorials, patriotic parades, powerful speeches, etc. all make people believe that the government is legitimate and should be obeyed. [2]

Using legitimacy theory to analyze cross-level petitions, we will find that for cross-level petitions, the reasons for petitioning are more related to the source of legitimacy of the third way mentioned above. Whether they are criticisms, suggestions and demands for administrative agencies and their staff, or reports and exposure of illegal and dereliction of duty by administrative agencies and their staff, they all directly affect petitioners' sense of trust, support and identification with the government system. Not to mention that the petitioners are motivated by accusations of infringement of their legitimate rights and interests. In this sense, the reason for the existence of cross-level petitions is that petitioners cannot find this sense of trust, support and identification with the grassroots government system, so they adopt this bottom-up approach as a "last resort". , by directly appealing to higher-level governments and their authority to combat the "violation of the law" by grassroots governments and a few officials. If the rights and interests of leapfrog petitioners are not fundamentally protected, or if this right is not taken seriously at all, it will directly affect the maintenance and change of the "specific belief system." On the contrary, if cross-level petitioning can be effective, the "high satisfaction" of the cross-level petitioners with the results of the petition will be conducive to the strengthening of political rule and political governance authority, which will directly affect the construction of political legitimacy. There is a benign interactive relationship between them.

When examining cross-level petitions from the perspective of legality, we can also examine them from the perspective of political responsibility and legitimacy. As one of the three prerequisites for the existence of legitimacy—the other two being political differentiation and political judgment—political responsibility is closely related to legitimacy. Responsibility expresses a power that accepts the limitations imposed by the right to govern. Regardless of the type of government, as long as it seeks to establish its legitimacy, it will focus on establishing mechanisms to limit its own power. Such restrictions require leaders to think beyond a purely personal perspective—to exist for themselves, to serve their own interests.

For an ambitious political leader who wants to demonstrate his ruling power as much as possible, political responsibility is first to recognize the fair scope of his activities. He must think of ways, must try, and must do his best to satisfy the community. To meet the requirements of members, serve the community and continuously develop public welfare. At the same time, responsible rulers accept the principle of condemnation. Responsibility and punishment are always two sides of the same coin. To emphasize the importance of responsibility, there must be a punishment mechanism. The implementation of this mechanism is to prevent the operation of the entire *** community from being in an unsustainable state or even in an extremely dangerous situation. One thing that needs to be pointed out is that if a political system overprotects its own leaders, it will only make itself more vulnerable and even accelerate its collapse and demise. [3]

In short, when examining cross-level petitions from the perspective of political legitimacy, we are firmly opposed to any grassroots governments and departments using various forms and excuses to block legitimate cross-level petitions. Because what it exchanges for is the realization of political legitimacy. If the petitioner can get a fair and reasonable solution to the problem through a cross-level petition, it will also enhance his awareness of the grassroots government. At the same time, petitioning at higher levels is also conducive to the legitimacy of decision-making. The legitimacy of decision-making often refers to whose interests the decision-making formed after the interest game actually represents and safeguards, what kind of interests it represents and safeguards, as well as the path to realize the interests and the guarantee mechanism. It involves more issues of procedures, rules and institutionalized participation mechanisms. Politicians can use "leap-level petitions" as a form of venting and expressing their interests to more truly listen to the voices of the people themselves, and incorporate them into the decision-making process and political considerations based on the actual situation and operational possibilities, so as to be more fully And maximize the acceptance of "the truth of cross-level petitions" and give a complete and satisfactory answer to cross-level petitioners to enhance the legitimacy of political rule.

To sum up, after demonstrating the legality of cross-level petitions, the next step is to discuss the current phenomenon that cross-level petitions are not recognized by some governments and departments, and are even regarded as "illegal" , how to find an institutionalized expression mechanism, and the supporting system design and arrangements to ensure the benign operation of this standardized and institutionalized interest expression mechanism. These system designs and arrangements should include how to gradually obtain legal identity for cross-level petitions, how to regulate the political behavior of cross-level petitions, how to protect the legitimate rights and interests of cross-level petitioners, how to correct unconstitutional and illegal behaviors of grassroots governments and relevant departments, and how to realize cross-level petitions. The petitioners’ zero cost and high satisfaction with the results...these are major practical issues that cannot be avoided in current Chinese politics and urgently need to be resolved. It is true that solving this problem requires a series of institutional innovations, including the establishment of a standardized and institutionalized interest expression mechanism, as well as the design and arrangement of supporting systems to ensure the healthy operation of the standardized and institutionalized interest expression mechanism.

/print.155114.html

Reference: /question/9178884.html?fr=qrl3