| Public power can be divided into two: government administrative power and the power to ask government for accountability of negative responsibility. The negative responsibility of government administrative power (simplified as administrative power in this paper) is the consequent and secondary duties a government must undertake for failure in fulfilling its primary duties, namely the"negative consequences"a government should suffer because of bad performance in its"legitimate duties".The administrative power should be institutionalized and ruled by law, otherwise, the passive social rights of the ruled are not well protected and active ones not well promoted. The legitimization of administrative power is inseparable from the development of accountability power, for, the"legitimate duties"of administrative power refer to that when administrative power abuses accountability power shall force the administrative power to take the corresponding"negative consequences". At the same time, when"legitimate duties"are made clear, chances are that rights of the ruled are institutionalized and protected. Hence, power to ask for accountability is of critical importance to a society's evolution towards"rule by law".Yet, accountability power is no angel. As administrative power, it may not fulfill its duties lawfully, i.e. accountability power may cause the abuse of administrative power because of its omission of duties, or, violate administrative power because of its misdeeds.Hence, setting a secondary duty for accountability power is necessary. The secondary duty of accountability power refers to that when accountability power abuses, namely does not persecute administrative power under the rule of law, itself should be persecuted for its negative responsibilities, namely suffer the"negative consequences"according to laws. In other words, the accountability power should also be asked for accountability. When accountability power is asked for accountability, it should only be cross-accountability. A system of network-like cross-accountability should be established, because one-way accountability power system will bring the last (and supreme) accountability under no control.A cross-accountability power system not only makes the juridification of accountability power (mutual restraint) self-proved, it also makes the accountability power a nation's power nucleus and HUB of power, hence providing values for juridification of accountability power. In other words, if the above-mentioned network-like system of accountability power is established, accountability power is secured to be ruled by law and administrative power is provided with permanent dynamics. Viewed from another aspect, the juridification of accountability power is self-done, but lawfulness of administrative power shall be pushed by the juridification of accountability power. So, to put accountability power under the rule of law, esp. to establish a network of accountability power system is the key and hardcore of establishing a society ruled by law. It's also true the other way around: the breakdown of a society ruled by law begins from the breakdown of its accountability power system.The network-like cross-accountability power system also predicts a democratic vision. The accountability of the ruled is a critical pole in accountability power system. Only when accountability activities of the ruled prevail can the network of cross-accountability survive. On the other hand, the decaying of accountability power from the ruled will soon announce the bankruptcy of such an accountability system. The consequences are clear: the accountability from the ruling political party (which belongs to self-accountability) will expand as a supreme power and displays the evil of all uncontrolled power. On many occasions, it will be the accomplice of administrative power and release the monster of administrative power from the cage. On fewer occasions, it may, under the drive of morality and traditional parole-centered thoughts, point its supervision power to the administrative power. Yet such blessings cannot be counted on.For the above-mentioned reasons, this thesis paper is a research conducted on the juridification of accountability powers. As a whole, this study is divided into two parts: First, accountability power are put in normative research, that is based on the interpretation of the rule of law paradigm to describe the ideal legitimization of accountability power model or desirable government power situation in the rule of law of vision (the contemporary Chinese society as the background). Here "legitimization" should be understood as "realization." Second, there's a following empirical research on the practice of government accountability power in contemporary Chinese society, namely, research on government accountability power in the ideal model, based on the excavation in contemporary China government accountability power in multi-dimensional obstruction to actively explore the removal of these obstructions the real path. Here "legitimization" should be understood as "efforts to promote the positive evolution."Specifically, this paper is divided into six parts according to the process of induction:Introduction part: mainly the discussion of the reasons and theoretical origins for the juridification of accountability power.Chapter I: the contemporary understanding of the rule of law paradigm. Mainly it interpreted the meaning from the two levels of the rule of law paradigm: "good law governance" and the "universal law-abiding". "Good law governance" means the rule of law through comprehensive, that private power are respected and protected, and the public authority to be regulated. Private rights include the passive and active social rights. In modern democratic society, ontological sense of the public power includes abstract and concrete idea of the"people". People's sovereignty to be effectively regulated is also very important. "Universal law-abiding" means that all private power and public authority should comply with "good law" requirement. It includes internal and external law-abiding and external law-abiding. Internal law-abiding is more profound and external law-abiding.Chapter II : a desirable vision of the legitimization of accountability power. Mainly through the rule of law paradigm this part forges accountability power, it analyzes two aspects of constraints from the aspects of regulation and interference. Accountability power refers to the clarity of the provisions of the right of accountability, "obligatory duties" and "obligatory administrative power.""Obligatory duties"refer to the legitimate"duties"of government accountability power, and"obligatory administrative power"refers to the legitimate"power"of government. Only when the two are clear, government accountability power exercise will practice right. Regulation of government accountability power refers to the use of external constraints, internal control, making government the right to strict accountability of duty and dare not deviate. Obviously, government accountability power and the "good laws and governance" are linked; government accountability power constraints and the "general law" are also linked.Chapter III: the multi-dimensional obstruction of government accountability power . This chapter is mainly based on government accountability and the requirements and constraints analysis of two aspects of contemporary Chinese government accountability power towards a multi-dimensional obstruction. First, there is existence of contemporary Chinese government accountability power "provisions" that has many defects. (1) People's accountability power are vague, correspondingly, representative bodies, the ruling party and the accountability of the executive power are also presented vaguely; (2) The power of people's government accountability power are weakening; (3) The power of representative institutions also lack government accountability power. Secondly, the existence of contemporary Chinese Government Accountability power "conditionality" has defects. (1) Due to a lack of civic spirit, the people's government accountability power within the constraints are insufficient; (2) Since the power of the people's accountability power and representative institutions'accountability authority "lacks power," making the party and government branches short of external accountability constraints. At the same time, the lack of internal law-abiding spirit of the ruling party and government branches makes accountability inadequate. Among these issues, the most important is that the people's right of government accountability power and representative institutions'right of accountability "lack competence", leading to that accountability and cross-accountability activities did not really set up a circulatory system.Chapter IV: the construction and realization of accountability power. This chapter discusses mainly from three levels of accountability: political, economic, cultural level, to explore the establishment of circulatory network-like accountability power system. First of all, to improve the people's congress system is the key to the establishment of the desirable accountability system. To improve the people's representative system is to achieve the basic direction of the mirror on the representative with the commission on behalf of the representative in a theoretically organic unity . Second, the development of the socialist market economy is built on accountability and the basis for cross accountability circulatory system. The economic base determines the political superstructure. Democratic accountability activities can only be built on the "political emancipation" basis, while the latter can only be built in a full developed market economy and civil society. Well-developed civil society makes the social contract replace the identity society, allowing power to replace obligations, and the abstract sovereignty can only be combined with the negative social power, specifically the power of the people's sovereignty and positive social integration. Third, the development of a rational regulative political culture is the key to establish the circulatory cross-accountability system. Culture as an ideological superstructure, develops with relative independence, and its political superstructure, plays a profound influence on it. Specifically, to develop a healthy regulative culture benefits the cultivation of the modern civic spirit (the unity of power consciousness and public awareness), and also helps people's accountability prosperity, hence beneficial to the establishment of a circulatory cross accountability system.Conclusions and reflection section : this part summarized the three main conclusions and provided new methodology to the issue.
|
PDF Full Text Request