信访机制的民主化——协商民主的视角
|
摘要
当下中国在强调信访法制化的同时,对信访民主化的重视也应得到加强。协商民主作为社会冲突的协调机制具有其他治理机制无法比拟的优势,信访民主化可以成为解决"信访悖论"的主要路径。中国基层三个典型的信访协商民主个案表明,信访协商民主具有明显的优势,在实践中也存在一些问题。信访民主化路径的关键在于创新性地整合各种协商民主方法,将信访的正式协商与非正式协商有机结合起来,在已有的实践经验的基础上不断完善,构建出一套符合中国国情的信访民主机制和制度,包括信访协商的包容与中立机制、专职化和社会化机制及相关衔接机制等。
China has experienced rapid economic growth and a sharp rise in social conflicts and mass incidents since the launch of its reforms in the late 1970 s.The petitioning institution of″letters and visits″,which was designed to deal with ordinary citizens' complaints and petitions,has been caught in a paradox.The more power the institution gains,the more petitions it attracts.The draft law on″letters and visits″and the debates on how to reform this institution have centered on as well as divided on the two extreme positions of″expanding″and″weakening″the body.These debates have largely ignored the democratization of the petitioning institution of letters and visits.This paper argues that local deliberative democracy,such as citizen juries,has the advantage of addressing and managing petitions and complaints and it should become the main resolution to the″paradox revolving around the petitions process″.China started public hearings on petitions more than 10 years ago,and the local deliberative democratic mechanism has been introduced.Such a process reflects the transformation of the petitioning institution of letters and visits from government affairs to public affairs,and from the secrecy of the state to the transparency of public concern and participation.Through a comparative study of the three cases of how local deliberative democracy addresses petitions at the grass-roots level in China,this paper finds that the cases share some common features — equal dialogues with petitioners,fair and reasonable decisions through public deliberation,and simplified and transparent procedures.These features have greatly improved the legality of the petitioning institution of letters and visits.However,such practices of local deliberative democracy also suffer from some shortcomings:they are time and labor-intensive,they produce a trade-off between the representativeness of public consultation and the quality of deliberation,and they create tensions between authority and control.To improve the practice of deliberative democracy at the local level,it is critical to innovatively integrate various methods of deliberative democracy,to combine formal deliberation and informal consultation,to set up a set of standards that are applicable to China,to ensure inclusiveness and neutrality,and to professionalize the function of citizen juries.Two core issues still need to be considered in the future.First,how to construct a consultative mechanism to deal with claims,and second,how to construct an independent third-party mechanism to handle complaints.
China has experienced rapid economic growth and a sharp rise in social conflicts and mass incidents since the launch of its reforms in the late 1970 s.The petitioning institution of″letters and visits″,which was designed to deal with ordinary citizens' complaints and petitions,has been caught in a paradox.The more power the institution gains,the more petitions it attracts.The draft law on″letters and visits″and the debates on how to reform this institution have centered on as well as divided on the two extreme positions of″expanding″and″weakening″the body.These debates have largely ignored the democratization of the petitioning institution of letters and visits.This paper argues that local deliberative democracy,such as citizen juries,has the advantage of addressing and managing petitions and complaints and it should become the main resolution to the″paradox revolving around the petitions process″.China started public hearings on petitions more than 10 years ago,and the local deliberative democratic mechanism has been introduced.Such a process reflects the transformation of the petitioning institution of letters and visits from government affairs to public affairs,and from the secrecy of the state to the transparency of public concern and participation.Through a comparative study of the three cases of how local deliberative democracy addresses petitions at the grass-roots level in China,this paper finds that the cases share some common features — equal dialogues with petitioners,fair and reasonable decisions through public deliberation,and simplified and transparent procedures.These features have greatly improved the legality of the petitioning institution of letters and visits.However,such practices of local deliberative democracy also suffer from some shortcomings:they are time and labor-intensive,they produce a trade-off between the representativeness of public consultation and the quality of deliberation,and they create tensions between authority and control.To improve the practice of deliberative democracy at the local level,it is critical to innovatively integrate various methods of deliberative democracy,to combine formal deliberation and informal consultation,to set up a set of standards that are applicable to China,to ensure inclusiveness and neutrality,and to professionalize the function of citizen juries.Two core issues still need to be considered in the future.First,how to construct a consultative mechanism to deal with claims,and second,how to construct an independent third-party mechanism to handle complaints.
引文
[1]于建嵘:《“信访悖论”及其出路》,《南风窗》2009年第8期,第42-43页。[Yu Jianrong,″′The Paradox of Letters and Visits′and its Solution,″South Reviews,No.8(2009),pp.42-43.]
[2]何包钢:《协商民主与协商治理:建构一个理性且成熟的公民社会》,《开放时代》2012年第4期,第23-36页。[He Baogang,″Deliberative Democracy and Deliberative Governance:Building a Rational and Mature Civil Society,″Open Times,No.4(2012),pp.23-36.]
[3]李靖、钟哲:《从扩权到扩容:社会管理创新视角下信访制度改革的思路转向——以吉林省安图县为例》,《长白学刊》2013年第1期,第59-65页。[Li Jing&Zhong Zhe,″From Power Expansion to Capacity Expansion:The Shift Thinking of the Reform on the System of Letters and Visits from the Perspective of Social Management Innovation:A Case Study of Antu County,Jilin Province,″Changbai Journal,No.1(2013),pp.59-65.]
[4]匿名:《安图县:搭建诉求服务平台创新社会治理模式》,2014年7月31日,http://leaders.people.com.cn/n/2014/0731/c382918-25378471.html,2017年6月9日。[Anon.,″Antu County:Set up a Service Platform for Innovation and Social Governance Model,″2014-07-31,http://leaders.people.com.cn/n/2014/0731/c382918-25378471.html,2017-06-09.]
[5]地方治理创新调研组:《党在基层社会治理中的领导方式创新——关于吉林省安图县群众诉求服务中心的调研报告》,《中国党政干部论坛》2016年第2期,第97-101页。[Local Governance Innovation Research Group,″The Party’s Innovation in Leadership in Grass-roots Social Governance:A Survey on the Mass Appeal Service Center in Antu County,Jilin Province,″Chinese Cadres Tribune,No.2(2016),pp.97-101.]
[6]沈吟、沈烨婷:《引入第三方力量创新社会治理:海宁百人“评议团”助推矛盾化解》,《浙江日报》2017年3月1日,第7版。[Shen Yin&Shen Yeting,″The Introduction of Third-party Power Innovation and Social Governance:A Panel with Hundred Judges to Promote Contradictions to Resolve in Haining City,″Zhejiang Daily,2017-03-01,p.7.]
[7][南非]毛里西奥·帕瑟林·登特里维斯主编:《作为公共协商的民主:新的视角》,王英津等译,北京:中央编译出版社,2006年。[D’Entrèves M.P.(ed.),Democracy as a Public Negotiation:NewPerspective,trans.by Wang Yingjin et al.,Beijing:Central Compilation and Translation Press,2006.]
[8]何包钢:《协商民主:理论、方法和实践》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2008年。[He Baogang,Deliberative Democracy:Theory,Methods and Practice,Beijing:China Social Sciences Press,2008.]
[9][美]詹姆斯·博曼:《公共协商:多元主义、复杂性和民主》,黄相怀译,北京:中央编译出版社,2006年。[Borman J.,Public Consultation:Pluralism,Complexity and Democracy,trans.by Huang Xianghuai,Beijing:Central Compilation and Translation Press,2006.]
[10]Carson L.,″Improving Public Deliberative Practice:A Comparative Analysis of Two Italian Citizens’Jury Projects in 2006,″Journal of Public Deliberation,Vol.2,No.1(2006),pp.1-18.
[11]Lenaghan J.,″Involving the Public in Rationing Decisions:The Experience of Citizens Juries,″Health Policy,Vol.49,No.1-2(1999),pp.45-61.
[12]Ward H.,Norval A.&Landman T.et al.,″Open Citizens’Juries and the Politics of Sustainability,″Political Study,Vol.51,No.2(2003),pp.282-299.
[13]Gastil J.,Deess E.P.&Weiser P.J.et al.,The Jury and Democracy:How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation,New York:Oxford University Press,2010.
[14][美]卡斯·桑斯坦:《团体极化法则》,见[美]詹姆斯·菲什金、[英]彼得·拉斯莱特主编:《协商民主论争》,张晓敏译,北京:中央编译出版社,2009年,第84-106页。[Sunstein C.R.,″The Law of Group Polarization,″in Fishkin J.&Laslett P.(eds.),Debating Deliberative Democracy,trans.by Zhang Xiaomin,Beijing:Central Compilation and Translation Press,2009,pp.84-106.]
[15]Local Government Management Board,Citizens’Juries in Local Government,London:LGMB,1997.
(1)有关信访改革的三种争论可见陈朝兵《化解我国信访制度困境的理性路径论析---基于信访制度改革争论的反思》,载《云南社会科学》2013年第4期,第24-27页。
(2)协商民意测验是一种基于信息对等和充分协商基础上的民意调查,旨在克服传统民意调查的局限性。
(1)资料来源为《安图县群众诉求服务中心手册》,2013年。
(1)有关合意机制的详细阐述,可参见刘国乾《行政信访诉求的合意解决机制》,载《思想战线》2015年第5期,第145-150页。
[2]何包钢:《协商民主与协商治理:建构一个理性且成熟的公民社会》,《开放时代》2012年第4期,第23-36页。[He Baogang,″Deliberative Democracy and Deliberative Governance:Building a Rational and Mature Civil Society,″Open Times,No.4(2012),pp.23-36.]
[3]李靖、钟哲:《从扩权到扩容:社会管理创新视角下信访制度改革的思路转向——以吉林省安图县为例》,《长白学刊》2013年第1期,第59-65页。[Li Jing&Zhong Zhe,″From Power Expansion to Capacity Expansion:The Shift Thinking of the Reform on the System of Letters and Visits from the Perspective of Social Management Innovation:A Case Study of Antu County,Jilin Province,″Changbai Journal,No.1(2013),pp.59-65.]
[4]匿名:《安图县:搭建诉求服务平台创新社会治理模式》,2014年7月31日,http://leaders.people.com.cn/n/2014/0731/c382918-25378471.html,2017年6月9日。[Anon.,″Antu County:Set up a Service Platform for Innovation and Social Governance Model,″2014-07-31,http://leaders.people.com.cn/n/2014/0731/c382918-25378471.html,2017-06-09.]
[5]地方治理创新调研组:《党在基层社会治理中的领导方式创新——关于吉林省安图县群众诉求服务中心的调研报告》,《中国党政干部论坛》2016年第2期,第97-101页。[Local Governance Innovation Research Group,″The Party’s Innovation in Leadership in Grass-roots Social Governance:A Survey on the Mass Appeal Service Center in Antu County,Jilin Province,″Chinese Cadres Tribune,No.2(2016),pp.97-101.]
[6]沈吟、沈烨婷:《引入第三方力量创新社会治理:海宁百人“评议团”助推矛盾化解》,《浙江日报》2017年3月1日,第7版。[Shen Yin&Shen Yeting,″The Introduction of Third-party Power Innovation and Social Governance:A Panel with Hundred Judges to Promote Contradictions to Resolve in Haining City,″Zhejiang Daily,2017-03-01,p.7.]
[7][南非]毛里西奥·帕瑟林·登特里维斯主编:《作为公共协商的民主:新的视角》,王英津等译,北京:中央编译出版社,2006年。[D’Entrèves M.P.(ed.),Democracy as a Public Negotiation:NewPerspective,trans.by Wang Yingjin et al.,Beijing:Central Compilation and Translation Press,2006.]
[8]何包钢:《协商民主:理论、方法和实践》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2008年。[He Baogang,Deliberative Democracy:Theory,Methods and Practice,Beijing:China Social Sciences Press,2008.]
[9][美]詹姆斯·博曼:《公共协商:多元主义、复杂性和民主》,黄相怀译,北京:中央编译出版社,2006年。[Borman J.,Public Consultation:Pluralism,Complexity and Democracy,trans.by Huang Xianghuai,Beijing:Central Compilation and Translation Press,2006.]
[10]Carson L.,″Improving Public Deliberative Practice:A Comparative Analysis of Two Italian Citizens’Jury Projects in 2006,″Journal of Public Deliberation,Vol.2,No.1(2006),pp.1-18.
[11]Lenaghan J.,″Involving the Public in Rationing Decisions:The Experience of Citizens Juries,″Health Policy,Vol.49,No.1-2(1999),pp.45-61.
[12]Ward H.,Norval A.&Landman T.et al.,″Open Citizens’Juries and the Politics of Sustainability,″Political Study,Vol.51,No.2(2003),pp.282-299.
[13]Gastil J.,Deess E.P.&Weiser P.J.et al.,The Jury and Democracy:How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation,New York:Oxford University Press,2010.
[14][美]卡斯·桑斯坦:《团体极化法则》,见[美]詹姆斯·菲什金、[英]彼得·拉斯莱特主编:《协商民主论争》,张晓敏译,北京:中央编译出版社,2009年,第84-106页。[Sunstein C.R.,″The Law of Group Polarization,″in Fishkin J.&Laslett P.(eds.),Debating Deliberative Democracy,trans.by Zhang Xiaomin,Beijing:Central Compilation and Translation Press,2009,pp.84-106.]
[15]Local Government Management Board,Citizens’Juries in Local Government,London:LGMB,1997.
(1)有关信访改革的三种争论可见陈朝兵《化解我国信访制度困境的理性路径论析---基于信访制度改革争论的反思》,载《云南社会科学》2013年第4期,第24-27页。
(2)协商民意测验是一种基于信息对等和充分协商基础上的民意调查,旨在克服传统民意调查的局限性。
(1)资料来源为《安图县群众诉求服务中心手册》,2013年。
(1)有关合意机制的详细阐述,可参见刘国乾《行政信访诉求的合意解决机制》,载《思想战线》2015年第5期,第145-150页。