(Zhiwei Tong, PIX (c) Larry Catá Backer)
For 2012, this site introduced the thought of Zhiwei Tong (童之伟), one of the most innovative scholars of constitutional law in China. Professor Tong has been developing his thought in part in a essay site that was started in 2010. See, Larry Catá Backer, Introducing a New Essay Site on Chinese Law by Zhiwei Tong, Law at the End of the Day, Oct. 16, 2010. Professor Tong is on the faculty of law at East China University of Political Science and Law. He is the Chairman of the Constitution Branch of the Shanghai Law Society and the Vice Chairman of the Constitution Branch of the China Law Society. The Series continues.
The Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series focuses on translating some of Professor Tong's work on issues of criminal law and justice in China, matters that touch on core constitutional issues. Each of the posting will include an English translation from the original Chinese, the Chinese original and a link to the original essay site. Many of the essays will include annotations that may also be of interest. I hope those of you who are interested in Chinese legal issues will find these materials, hard to get in English, of use. I am grateful to my research assistants, YiYang Cao, Bo Wang, and Zhichao Yi for their able work in translating these essays.
For this contribution to the Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series /(Part XXIX) we translate: Five Theoretical Issues Should Be Addressed to Restart Political Reforms
Part XXIX—Zhiwei Tong (童之伟) Series: Five Theoretical Issues Should Be Addressed to Restart Political Reforms
(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)
Five Theoretical Issues Should Be Addressed to Restart Political Reforms
April 11, 2013
Tong, Zhwei
Notes: this article is a revised version of my speech in “Strategy and Forecast in 2013”, Annual Conference of Caijing dating back to Nov. 29, 2012. After revision, it was published on IBTIMES, available on http://cn.ibtimes.com/articles/25685/20130410/43346.htm. In the last 10 years, the political reform is essentially in stagnation, and here my wording is “restart” rather than further political reform. Comprehensive reform involves many areas, but the mainly it refers to furthering economic reform and restarting political reform. To restart political reform, there are many complicated issues. However just raise five fundamental points in theory, namely presenting my basic relevant viewpoints in political reforms.
Firstly, it should face that primary contradictions in the society have changed.
In addition to Cultural Revolution time, the estimate of principal contradiction in the society has not been changed. In 1981, Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China has asserted that the 8th National Congress of the Communist Party of China had positioned that “the primary social contradiction is the current economy and culture cannot satisfy people’s needs of economic and cultural growth.” Later on in 1987, the 13th National Congress of the Communist Party of China has made it clear again that “the primary social contradiction is the growing material and cultural needs of the people and the backwardness of production.” The report of 18th National Congress of the CPC reiterates this primary social contradiction. I think it is acceptable to define the primary contradiction in our society, but it is not acceptable to say there is no change happening to the primary social contradiction, which is not in line with the truth.
Through more than thirty years, the economic development in China, which is a tremendous achievement, has greatly alleviated social contradiction. Official statistics has showcased that the average actual GDP growth in China was 9.8%; in the next five years to 2012, the average growth was also around 9%. In 1987, the GNP of China doubled that of 1980 and in 1995 the GNP doubled that of 1987. It is predicable that in seven years, namely 2020, our country can achieve the goal of moderately well off society. So why so huge economic development cannot alleviate the contradiction between the growing material and cultural needs of the people and the backwardness of production? Common sense, rationale and life experience all have told us these economic developments have alleviated our social primary contradiction to a large degree.
Also, it should be noted that the contradiction between people’s growing needs of fundamental rights and freedom and the limited space and insufficient ways of protection, is historically generated and become increasing sharp in our society. In the last decade or so, petitions, forced house-removing, mass disturbance and others, the numbers and scales have demonstrated the realities; and Weibo (Microblog) has directly reflected the social needs that our citizens are supposed to expand their fundamental rights as well as protections.
To be practical and realistic in the evaluation of social development, also for breaking a path in theory of political reform, I suggest making an adjustment on the definition of our social primary contradiction. Namely, throughout more than thirty years’ fast economic growth, the contradiction between people’s material and cultural needs and the backwardness of social production has greatly been alleviated; simultaneously, the contradiction between people’s needs of guaranteed fundamental rights and the limited space and insufficient ways of protection under current political system is becoming increasingly sharp. The later contradiction has been more severe in some of China and possibly it might turn out to be the primary social contradiction nationwide. In layman’s terms, we are not supposed to put emphasis on “eating food” while ignoring protection of people’s fundamental rights, democracy, and rule of laws.
Secondly, eliminate the conflict between the statements of state form and core values of laws.
It is necessary to theoretically incorporate and solve the problems with conflicts between constitutional statements of state form and law values such as democracy, civilization, harmony, freedom, equality, fairness, rule of law. Theoretically and constitutionally, there are two aspects which should be taken into consideration. The first is that the theoretical constitution identifies that China is a socialist country under the people’s democratic dictatorship; on the other hand, the 18th National Congress of Communist Party of China has addressed core values, such as democracy, civilization, harmony, freedom, equality, fairness, and rule of laws, which obviously includes the respect and protection of human rights under the constitution.
However, there is a prerequisite under the wording of people’s democratic dictatorship, namely that the Chinese are divided into “people” and “enemy” and the “enemy” is excluded from the body of democratic dictatorship. On this premise, the nature of this country is actually defined under “dictatorship” and it is translated into explanation of dictatorship. Therefore, there is intrinsic conflict in the elements of the wording. It is noted that the positioning, wording and explanation of this country’s nature have intrinsic conflicts with declaration of values, such as democracy, civilization, harmony, freedom, equality, fairness, rule of law, and human rights protection.
How to deal with this? I believe, theoretically and constitutionally China should be positioned as a socialist democratic country. If so, domestically it is helpful for the implementation of values of democracy, civilization, harmony, freedom, equality, fairness, rule of law, human rights protection; internationally the image of China will be more friendly and positive to others. To solve this problem, it is necessary to emancipate our minds and use more political wisdom.
Thirdly, democracy should be interpreted and translated based on its intrinsic meaning.
There are two forms of democracy. One is direct democracy; the other is indirect democracy. Direct democracy is that citizens participate into institutional creation, referendum, and voting to make decision on public affairs; indirect democracy is that citizens implement the exercise of rights by election of representatives which constitute the related institution. As regard to direct democracy, there is no stipulation or description. Therefore, our country is representative democracy, which means citizens participate into decision making on public affairs through different levels of people’s congress.
Democracies are totally different under different constitutions. The democracy under Chinese Constitution is revealed in the system of People’s Congresses. Different administrative regions or units elect their People’s Congress members, who constitute the Congress of different levels, and these members as well as their affiliated congresses exercise their functions and official powers. This is the fundamental content of China’s democracy. In addition to the people’s congress system, all the rest are extended and affiliated sense of this system, including the Political Consultative Conference which belongs to consultative democracy. Democracy in any means which bypasses the vote of People’s Congress as well as its members is not real Chinese constitutional democracy. The democracy our government talked about often digresses from the keys of democracy.
The situations above are abnormal. The core for Chinese development of democratic politics is to enhance the competitiveness and directness of election of People’s Congress members, which is helpful to practice citizens’ rights to vote and be elected. This is also the key of political reform. Only with the change of this political part, can the core reform be enforced. Other reforms are necessary too but they can be considered the periphery part of the political system.
In addition, the meaning of democracy should be differentiated with populism. The citizens here in democracy refer to overall mass people. When making decision on public affairs, it is majority rule; at the meantime, the minority should be protected as well. The way to enforce protection of minority is ensure their rights of criticism and objections on the decision making and implementation process. From the root of democracy, if the minority’s rights of criticism and objection cannot be ensured in the system, there is no democracy in fact. The citizens in populism in theory and practice are in the abstract of “most people” and it emphasizes the minority’s compliance to majority, while there is no institutional guarantee of minority’s rights of criticism and objection.
Related laws based on the constitution protect citizens’ freedom of speech, press and association. This is the fundamentally institutional guarantee of democracy and the implementation protects democracy from shifting to populism. There is much lesson in China that democracy has degenerated into populism, including Cultural Revolution and reverse flow in Chongqing led by Bo Xilai is another example illustration of same nature.
Fourthly, there should be good relation management between rule of law and social stability.
Some think that the rule of law and social stability are mutually exclusive, which is quite wrong. In fact, to achieve sustainable social stability, the rule of law is the only way. The premise of social stability is that individual citizens can get protection of their rights. No protection of citizens’ fundamental rights leads to unstable society. The historical experience has demonstrated that rule of man cannot ensure citizens’ individual rights protection and only rule of law can achieve this to the largest extent. The most difficult part of rule of law is to restrain the power, and guarantee the effectiveness of the constitution and other laws in ruling. There is a constantly prominent issue in Chinese politics, namely the lack of power restraints. The main causes are from two aspects. One is that there is no separation of function between the Party’s agencies and government agencies and the power is centralized in the party’s committee and secretary where there is no supervision or restriction among each other. The problem that there is no distinction between party agencies and government agencies can only be solved through political reform. However, the restrictive relation among government agencies can be made and achieved as long as the government agencies function well within the purview that the constitution and related laws stipulate.
Some mistakenly think only the courts, protectorates, and public security agencies need constraints while other government agencies may not need constraints. Actually, this understanding is not reasonable. There is no specific constitutional article that specifies constraints of these agencies, but it doesn’t mean constraints are not necessary. As a matter of fact, the separation of power under the constitution itself is meaning the necessity of mutual constraint. Furthermore, as long as different functional governmental agencies perform based on their function and power, there should be an effective system with mutual constraints.
There is a close relation between rule of law and democracy, but the base of rule of law should be formed on certain democratic facts. Different social classes have different interests. The main ways of institutionalized democracy are that different interest groups elect their representatives to discuss, argue, fight for their groups’ interest and the voted decision will become the rules. There is conflict of interest in every society and one great function of rule of law is resolve conflict within certain established rules and orders, including through the coordination and negotiation within representative organizations, which could prevent street fights or other unrest. This requires that different groups of interest have more or less representative members in the democratic institutions maintaining and maximizing their interest.
Therefore, if there is heated dispute or fierce conflict in a representative institution, it shows this institution is functioning well. If the social contradiction is very sharp, but the representative institutions have no dispute and live peacefully, actually this generally indicates that certain social classes don’t have representatives in this institution or this representative institution dysfunction. There is a general rule in the relationship between representative institutions and external society: the intensity of dispute in the representative institution is in direct proportion to the degree of harmony in the society and in inverse proportion to the intensity of conflict among different social classes. Taking China for example, if there are no representatives from different social classes in People’s National Congress and its standing committee, there should not be sufficiently substantial disputes, conflicts, negotiations and compromises. However, these conflicts may turn out to be show up on streets or squares, which are not willing to be seen.
In addition, disputes also should be coordinated and resolved by independent judicial departments. Ensuring the judicial adjudication to be the end of social disputes is another basic requirement by rule of law. Therefore, judicial independence is absolutely necessary for the social stability. The rationale between rule of law and social stability can be applied to relation between rule of law and social harmony too.
Fifthly, confirm the legitimacy and justification of constitutionalism
Some people in our political leadership do have a fear of constitutionalism, but actually constitutionalism is not that dreadful. The practice of constitutionalism is simply to strictly implement the constitution. I never heard about any constitutionalism without implementing the constitution. As long as there is no objection to implementation of the constitution, there should be no reason to oppose constitutionalism. The implementation of constitutionalism actually brings no more benefits to the constitutionalism advocates. Therefore, constitutional phobia should be eliminated for better understanding of constitutionalism.
More specifically, there are a few things to mention here in politics and laws to better implement constitutionalism.
1. Constitutional supremacy is critically important and others words by anyone or other powers are second to the constitution. Historically in our country, there were too many cases that some people’s words and powers have had superiority to the constitution. Basically, the pattern of manifestation is that when there is conflict between the constitution or laws, and superiors’ words, instructions, or official documents, the constitution and laws are often disregarded in reality.
2. The public power should be restricted within the constitution; to take command of public power should be based on the constitutional grounds and the operation of public power must not go beyond what the constitution stipulates. The constitutional grounds refers to that the command of public power has corresponding support from the constitution. Simply put, the public can find the public power organizations’ responsibility and function from the constitution correspondingly. If no corresponding stipulations can be found under the constitution, the powers should not be exercised. Ultra vires is not effective and the public power organizations or agencies are supposed to bear responsibility for any harm caused by their behaviors that are not conformed to laws. .
3. The ruling party should strictly abide by the constitution and take power within the legal boundaries. Now the ruling party’s governing to a large extent, there is no legal base. Although it is claimed that our socialism law system has been built up, the legal base for the ruling party’s governing is so limited. Not just requiring the enactment of laws of press, publication, association and other laws that protect citizens’ fundamental rights, governing by law should cover issues that how to specify the relations between ruling party and government agencies. However, there is nothing about this area yet, and more needs to be done.
4. It is very necessary to eliminate the mismatch and confusion of state agencies and ruling party’s institutions. If the relation between the party and government agencies cannot be made in line with laws, it is very difficult to implement governing by law strictly. The fundamental way to separate and streamline the two is separate their assets. The party committees of different levels should use their independent accounts and full-time party cadres should not be financed by public.
5. Establish an effective system of constitutional supervision. Constitutional supervision means investigation of violation of the constitution. If the legislation doesn’t function well, or situations that laws and regulations violate the constitution cannot be stopped, the implementation of constitutionalism will be weakened severely. The constitutional supervision system which stipulated by our constitution should be activated and enforced by political reform.
These basic points should be satisfied to fulfill the implementation of constitutionalism. Unfortunately, the word constitutionalism doesn’t have too much legitimacy or justification in our official discourse system. Hopefully, the Chinese government and people from different social classes can realize that strict implementation of the constitution will inevitably make constitutionalism take root and the future of China lies in the establishment of constitutionalism.
I look forward to discussion of the five points.
重启政改须解决五大理论难题
童之伟 2013-04-11
【按:这原是作者2012年11月29日在“《财经》年会，2013年：战略与预测”上的演讲,经修订昨在IBTIMES发表,http://cn.ibtimes.com/articles/25685/20130410/43346.htm】
过去十多年，政治体制改革基本上停滞了，所以我谈问题用了重启政改这个词组，没有说深化政改。全面改革涉及诸多领域，但主要是深化经济体制改革,重启政治体制改革。重启政改面对的课题复杂多样，我今天只提出五个理论方面的基础性课题，也可以说是表达五个相关的基本观点。
（一） 应正视社会主要矛盾已发生的变化
除文革时期外，我国官方对社会主要矛盾的估计半个多世纪以来没有变化。1981年中共中央《关于建国以来党的若干历史问题的决议》认定，1956年的中共八大就已把我国社会主要矛盾定位于“人民对于经济文化迅速发展的需要同当前经济文化不能满足人民需要的状况之间的矛盾”。稍后，1987年的中共十三大又明确提出，我国社会的主要矛盾是“人民日益增长的物质文化需要同落后的社会生产之间的矛盾”。中共十八大报告再次一字不变地重述了中共十三大对于我国社会主要矛盾的表述。说我国社会主要矛盾总体没变应该是可以的，但完全不提这个矛盾已经发生变化的一面，恐怕不符合实事求是精神。
改革开放三十多年来巨大的经济建设成就不可能不极大地缓和我国社会的主要矛盾。官方统计资料表明，1979-2007年，中国GDP年均实际增长9.8%，此后到2012年的5年间,年均每年也有9%以上的增长。我国1987年实现GNP比1980年翻一番，1995年实现GNP再翻一番，预计到7年后即2020年我国就会全面建成小康社会。如此巨大的经济建设成就难道不能缓和国民日益增长的物质文化需要同落后的社会生产之间的矛盾？常识、理性和生活体验都告诉我们，这些经济建设成就已在很大程度上缓和了我国社会一直以来的主要矛盾。
还应该看到，国民日益增长的对权利和自由的需要，同政治体制能够提供的保障空间过于狭小、保障方式不够有效之间的矛盾，早已历史性的产生并且日益尖锐起来。十多年来，信访、强拆、各种群体性事件的数量、规模十分直观地展
为实事求是地评估社会发展水平，也为了理论能为政治体制改革开辟道路，我主张将我国社会基本矛盾的估计调整为：经过改革开放三十多年来的高速经济成长，人民日益增长的物质文化需要同落后的社会生产之间的矛盾已经大幅度缓和；与此同时，公民对基本权利保障日益增长的需要，同现行政治体制能够提供的保障空间过于狭小、保障方式不够丰富有效之间的矛盾却逐渐尖锐起来。后一种矛盾在中国局部已成为社会主要矛盾，在全国范围内可能即将上升为社会主要矛盾。通俗地说，这表明我们不能老是强调搞饭吃而忽视基本权利保障和民主、法治建设。
（二） 消除国家性质表述与政治法律核心价值间的抵牾
要在理论上解决好宪法里国家性质的提法同民主、文明、和谐、自由、平等、公正、法治等政法核心价值并存带来的相互关系问题。在理论上和宪法上,有两方面内容值得注意:一方面，理论上宪法上认定中国是一个人民民主专政的社会主义国家；另一方面，十八大在政治法律方面又倡导以民主、文明、和谐、自由、平等、公正、法治为核心的政法核心价值，这里无疑也包括了宪法规定的尊重和保障人权的内容。
但是，人民民主的提法之逻辑前提，是把全体中国人分为“人民”与“敌人”两部分，并把“敌人”排斥在民主主体和权利主体之外。在这个前提下，再把国家性质定义为一种“专政”，而我们又将专政解说和对外翻译为独裁（dictatorship），如此，前后两组话语要素间存在的内在冲突相当激烈。可见，我们现在关于国家性质的定位与民主、文明、和谐、自由、平等、公正、法治和尊重、保障人权的宣示有内在抵牾。
怎么办？我以为，中国在理论和宪法上最好定位为社会主义民主国家。若能如此，对内有利于落实民主、文明、和谐、自由、平等、公正、法治、人权保障等核心价值，对外则国际形象也会显得更友善、正面一些。解决这个问题，需要进一步解放思想，运用政治智慧。
（三）按民主本身的宪法含义解说民主
民主的实现形式有两种：一种是直接民主，一种是间接民主。直接民主指公民通过直接参与创制、复决和公投决定公共事务，间接民主则是通过行使选举权与被选举权代表组成代议机构来落实自己参与社会事务管理的权利。至于直接民主形式，中国宪法还没有规定。所以，我国实行的是代议制民主，即公民通过各级人大来参与国家和社会事务的管理。
民主在不同宪法下面，内容是不完全一样的。民主在中国宪法里的内容，都包含在人大制度中。各级行政区域或选举单位选举人大代表、组成各级人大和依宪法法律行使职权或权限，是中国民主之根本内容。人大制度之外的东西，都是民主附属的、引申意义上的内容，只能算敲边鼓，其中包括与政协话题相联系的“协商民主”。撇开人大代表选举和人大集体运用职权谈民主，都不是在宪法本身的意义上谈民主。而我国朝野谈论民主，恰恰是在民主的本义上谈得少，在与之不怎么沾边的话题上谈得多。
上述状况不甚正常。中国发展民主政治，最核心的内容应当是提升各级人大代表选举的竞争性和直接性，落实公民的选举权、被选举权。这也是政治体制改革的核心内容。只有改这一块，才算触及政治体制的核心，改其它的方面虽然有必要，但毕竟只能算政治体制的外围。
另外，民主在其本义上一定是与民粹区分开来的。民主之“民”，指的是全民：议事时按多数人意见决定问题，但保护少数人。保护少数人的方式是在议事、做决定和执行决定的过程中，始终从制度上保证少数人的批评权或表达反对意见之权。在民主的本义看，如果少数人批评或表达反对意见之权利无制度保证，那就没有民主。而民粹之“民”，理论和实践上都只是指全体国民中抽象的“多数人”，只强调少数服从多数，不从制度上保障少数人批评或表达反对意见的权利。
根据宪法制定法律保障言论出版自由和结社自由并有效实施这些法律，是民主真正成其为民主而不会蜕变为民粹的基本制度保证。在民主蜕变为民粹方面，中国有太多的教训，“文革”是这方面的例证，薄熙来主导的重庆逆流也是性质相同的例证。
（三） 把握好法治与社会稳定的关系
现在有些人把实行法治与社会稳定对立起来，这非常错误。实际上，只有走法治的路，才能实现社会稳定。社会稳定以公民个人权利获得有效保障为基础。公民基本权利得不到有效保障，谈不上社会稳定。历史经验表明，人治不可能有效保障个人基本权利，只有法治能最大限度做到这一点。
实行法治，最困难的是制约权力，保证宪法、法律的最高、次高的规范效力。中国政治生活中历来的突出问题，是公共权力缺乏制约。究其原因，主要有两个：一是党的机构与国家机构职能不分，且各地权力高度集中于党委和党委书记，没有其它任何机构足以对其形成有效制约；二是各级各类国家机关不能严守职权或权限分际，相互间无法正常制约。党的机构与国家机构职能不分的问题只能靠政治体制改革解决，但国家机构内部形成正常的制约关系，只要各国家机关严守宪法规定的职权范围、不越权不失职就能做到。
有人错误地以为只有法院、检察院和公安部门在办理刑事案件过程中有制约，其它情况下国家机构内部没有也不需要讲制约。这种理解不合理。宪法没规定制约，只是没强调制约，事实上通过宪法划分职权或权限这种做法本身就意味着相互制约的必要性。而且，只要不同国家机关各自按宪法规定严守职权或权限分际，相互间就能形成较有效制约。
法治是与民主相联系的，只有或多或少存在一些民主事实，形成法治秩序才有基础。不同的社会阶层有不同的利益，民主制度化的主要方式由利益要求各不相同的选民选出自己的代表，到代议机构就利益分配规则进行讨论、争论、摆事实讲道理，最后投票形成确定的规则。任何社会都有利益冲突，法治的功能之一，是把这些冲突的解决控制在既定的秩序下，包括在代议机构内协调、争论和谈判，防止街头或广场冲突。这就要求社会中利益互不相同的各个阶层都或多或少在代议机构中有自己的代表来代表他们维护应得的利益和争取更大的份额。
所以，一国的代议机关内部有争议甚至激烈争议，正好表明它在正常发挥代议功能。如果社会矛盾很尖锐，而代议机关议事却没有争议、气氛平静如水，那一般只能表明，一些重要阶层在其中并无真正代表，其本身严重缺乏代议功能。代议机关与外部社会之关系的一般规律是：一国代议机关议事时争议的激烈程度，与议会外各阶层公民之间的和谐程度成正比，而与议会外各阶层之间的对立程度成反比。以我国为例，如果各级人大或其常委会内部没有各社会阶层的代表，不能就利益分配进行实质性争论、冲突和谈判、妥协，冲突就可能反映在街头或广场。这是人们都不愿意看到的。
此外，由独立的司法来定纷止争，保证司法裁判在解决社会纠纷方面的终局性，是法治的另一项基本要求。因此，落实司法独立，也是社会稳定不可或缺的条件。法治与社会稳定之间关系的原理,适用于法治与社会和谐的关系。
（五）确认宪政正当性
我国领导阶层中有些人士对宪政似乎有一种恐惧感，实际上宪政并不可怕，因为，严格实施宪法，就是事实上实行宪政。还未闻真正实施宪法却没有宪政的情况。只要不反对严格实施本国宪法，就没有理由反对实行宪政。实行宪政不可能给其主张者带来比严格实施宪法更多的东西。所以，理解了这一点，宪政恐惧症应该就能够消除。
具体地说，要求实行宪政无外乎希望本国政治法律生活做到这样几点：
1.宪法至上，不搞以言代法、以权压法。我国历来以言代法、以权压法的情况太多了，其基本表现是在宪法、法律的规定与领导指示、讲话、内部发文不一致时，往往置宪法、法律的规定于不顾，按上级指示、讲话、内部发文等办事。
2.公共权力受宪法限制，掌握公共权力须有宪法依据，行使公共权力不可超越宪定职权范围。掌握公共权力有宪法依据，就是掌握、行使公权力的组织及其职权或权限在宪法里有规定。简单地说，公众在宪法文本中必须能够找到这些主体的具体名称和相对应的职权。宪法法律没有规定的权力，国家机关是不得行使的，越权行使无效，造成损害应承担违宪或违法责任。
3.执政党严格遵守宪法，依宪法法律执政。现在执政党要依法执政，很大程度上还无法可依。因为，我国虽然宣布社会主义法律体系已经基本建成，但是能够作为执政党执政依据的法律还很少。依法执政不仅要求制定新闻法、出版法、结社法等保障公民基本权利的法律，还应该有规范执政党与国家机关之间关系的法律，可目前这类法律还有待制定。
4. 消除执政党的机构与国家机构的地位、职混淆不清的弊端。这两种法律性质不同的机构之间的关系若不能纳入法治轨道，很难谈得上严格实施宪法。将他们分开的最基本路径是党产与国产分开，各级党委要有自己独立的账号，专职党干不吃公共财政。
5.建立行之有效的宪法监督制度。宪法监督即违宪审查，宪法实施要靠宪法监督制度提供保障。在中国这样实行制定法制度的国家，如果立法不作为，或法律、行政法规等违反宪法的情况得不到遏止，宪法实施必然打很大折扣。我国宪法规定了宪法监督制度，需要靠政改来激活、运作。
实行宪政必须满足这些基本条件。但遗憾的是，宪政这个词语在我国官方话语体系中还缺乏正当性。希望中国朝野和各阶层人士能够及早认识到，严格实施宪法的结果必然是宪政，中国的前途在于实行宪政。
期盼以上五个方面的观点能够引起讨论。
No comments:
Post a Comment