全国人大官员:竞选会把选举变成有钱人的事

一句话点评：该人的问答充分暴露了共产党操作和控制人大代表选举的部分细节和思路。

 

2010-03-1902:34:00　来源:新京报(北京)

核心提示：日前，十一届全国人大三次会议表决通过了修改选举法的决定。全国人大常委会法工委副主任李飞日前受访时表示选举制度应由人们达成共识，西方国家的竞选会把选举变成有钱人的事。李飞说，我们注重实质民主，实质民主和形式民主应当高度统一。

新京报3月19日报道3月14日，十一届全国人大三次会议表决通过了修改选举法的决定。此次修改，中国实现了选举的普遍、平等、直接与间接相结合以及秘密四个选举基本原则。

放眼世界，中外选举有何区别?各国又是如何实现四个原则的?全程参与此次选举法修改的全国人大代表、全国人大法律委员会委员、全国人大常委会法工委副主任李飞曾多次赴国外考察选举制度，他认为，选举制度对于不同的国家，都是依据各自的国情制定的，而不同国家之间的选举制度，难以有完全相同的模式。

选举制度应由人们达成共识

就国家一定的社会发展阶段来说，大家达成共识、能够接受的，并认为是进步的，就是适合他们国家的选举制度和政治体制

新京报：你怎么看待世界各国不同的选举制度?

李飞：大体上看，即便社会性质相同，价值理念相同、意识形态相同的国家，但由于政治体制不一样，选举制度也是有区别的。

很多国家实行的是议会内阁制，先选出议会，占议会席位多数的党来组阁，英国、日本都是这样。另一种就是美国的总统制，总统既是国家元首，也是政府首脑。第三种就是法国的半总统半议会内阁制。国家的政体不同，选举制度的内容和选举办法也就不同。

实行两院制的国家，在选举参、众两院议员(上、下两院)时，选举制度既有按选民或人口分配名额全部直选的，也有按地区分配名额非直选的。美国51个州，不管大州小州人口多少，一个州就是2个参议员名额，这是民选的。而像英国的上院到现在里面还有一大批议员是世袭的，实际很多人也不去开会，现在英国也在改革，认为都到现在了，怎么还能世袭。

还有一批国家是一院制的，像英国原来五十多个海外殖民地，后来大部分都独立了，英国人走的时候也想仿照英国的传统实行两院制，但事后，这些国家自己行使主权后根据本国情况有一些又改成一院制。

每个国家有自己的国情、历史、文化，要形成一个合法的、稳定的政治体制，一定要把自己国家的国民安抚好，他们有相应的政治权利，表达他们的诉求。就国家一定的社会发展阶段来说，大家达成共识、能够接受的，认为是进步的，就是适合他们国家的选举制度和政治体制。

新京报：你们到国外是否考察了他们的选举制度和具体办法?

李飞：我们考察是多方面的，包括他们的选举办法是如何设计的。2000年，我们考察英国的宪政制度改革，当时他们要改革上议院的构成及扩大选举成分，过去上议院是世袭的，现在也想民选，而民选就要设计怎么选。

我们也是大开眼界，它有很多民间的选举制度设计事务所。我们看的两家事务所都有几十年的历史，从学生会的选举、人民团体的选举、社会组织的选举到国家的公职选举，都可以委托他们来设计。

总之，这些选举办法的制度设计，都要服从其国家体制和选举制度的基本原则，同时还要能够被社会各界所接受。

竞选会把选举变成有钱人的事

西方国家搞竞选，一个基本的条件是必须有资金支撑选举经费，社会上的多数人没有这方面的资源和实力

新京报：我国在人大代表选举中为什么不采用竞选的方式?

李飞：我们注重实质民主，实质民主和形式民主应当高度统一。但一个社会从公正、公平角度要更注重实质民主。我们的实质民主是什么呢?就是要保证各个方面、各个地区和各个民族都有一定的代表进入到国家权力机关里来，不是采用西方国家简单的那种竞选。

西方国家搞竞选，一个基本的条件是必须有资金支撑选举经费，社会上的多数人没有这方面的资源和实力。

1986年，我去日本枥木县考察众议院大选，自民党的一位后起之秀本来没有被自民党列为候选人，但他想试试竞选，光竞选事务所就1000平米。当时日本有个说法叫"三上两下"，意思是投入三亿日元还有可能选上，两亿日元肯定选不上，那次他仅试试竞选，就花去了两亿日元。

所以选举能不能保证实质民主，关系到这个国家能不能和谐稳定，我们国家一开始就很注意这点。

新京报：当年为什么把直接选举限定在乡镇人大代表选举呢?

李飞：1953年中国在普遍平等原则下确立了直接选举和间接选举相结合的选举制度，乡镇人大代表实行直接选举，上级人大代表间接选举。这是因为当时全国有6亿人口，交通不便、文盲率较高，不可能组织全国的直选，即便是省和较大的市直选也做不到。1979年选举法把直接选举的范围扩大到县一级，由于我国人口众多，一个县的人口也是不少的，通过在县以下的选区范围内由选民直接选举人大代表，选民更熟悉候选人。这次选举法修改，也完善了县乡人大代表的直接选举。

从各国情况看，直接选举、间接选举，都是根据本国具体国情、社会结构、民族、宗教群体等多种情况考虑的，只要符合选举的基本原则，是可以不同的。

新京报：这次修改，增加了一个规定，各政党、各人民团体联合或者单独推荐的代表候选人的人数，每一选民或者代表参加联名推荐的代表候选人的人数，均不得超过本选区或者选举单位应选代表的名额。怎么理解这个修改。

李飞：1979年修订选举法为了扩大选举民主，引入了差额选举制度。但后来施行中发现，政党或人民团体联合提名候选人，有时一下把候选人数量提足到差额数，致使选民或者代表联名推荐的候选人难以进入候选人名单，为了解决这个问题，作出了这个修改。

比如一个选区应选代表3人，候选人为5人方可组织选举，政党或人民团体联合提名的候选人不能超过3人，剩下的2名候选人就只能由选民或者代表联名提出，这可以更好的保证选民或者代表联名提出候选人权利的实现。

人大代表始终要接受选民监督

在任职期间，选民或原选举单位按照法定程序可以罢免其选出的代表，这是我国选举制度与西方选举制度的一个重要区别

新京报：这次修改，很重要的变化是城乡按相同人口比例选举人大代表。

李飞：我们国家是以全体人口作为基数来选举代表的。直到现在，城镇化已经将近47%，有条件真正达到城乡按相同人口比例来选。

以后户籍制度改革了，你住在哪，就是哪的居民，只有居民身份证、居民户口，城乡差别就更小了。你在哪个地方长期工作、生活，和当地有密切的经济联系、社会联系，就可以在当地参与社会文化事业和国家事务的管理，高级社会应该是这样的。但是我们毕竟还需要一个过程。

新京报：在基层选举中，怎样保证选民的参选热情?

李飞：不少选民希望自己推选出的代表更多地来代表自己，如果不能使自己推选的代表进入到各级人民代表大会中，他就会认为我选不选和自己没有直接关系。

为此，修正案提出要完善差额选举的提名，要应选民的要求由选举委员会安排候选人与选民见面，介绍本人情况，回答选民关切的问题，以便选民根据自己的意愿作出投票选择。

这也有个过程，需要根据变化了的情况来进一步发挥我们选举制度的优势和作用，能让选民选出的代表在不同的层次代表自己发出声音，行使人民赋予的权力。

新京报：对代表履职的不满意，是不是也影响选举的积极性?

李飞：人大代表本应更好地履职，但有的代表把当选代表变成了荣誉职务。除了人大代表自己应具备履职意识外，也看该级人大常委会日常组织代表活动的工作开展得怎么样。

新京报：目前好像还没有因为代表履职不力被选民罢免的先例。

李飞：有，南方有个城市出现过基层人大代表被选民罢免的事例。这是因为一个社区选代表时，某个代表承诺了可以代表社区履职，但其后选民认为他没有这样做，所以就罢免了他。

我国的人大代表必须向选民或原选举单位负责。在任职期间，选民或原选举单位按照法定程序可以罢免其选出的代表，这是我国选举制度与西方选举制度的一个重要区别。西方选举出议员，选民是无法在任期内罢免他的。表明我国的人大代表始终要接受其选民和选举单位的监督。当选民有了这个意识，就会对代表提出更高的要求，选民对代表的监督也必然会加强。

(本文来源：新京报作者：杨华云)

关于修订《村民委员会组织法》的十点认识和建议

文章来源：维权网

 

全国人大常委会：

 

国家立法机关开放言论，就修订《村民委会组织法》广征国事意见，可喜可贺。我们是河南、陕西、四川、甘肃四省的十七位农村公民，有的现任村委主任、有的曾任村委主任、有的多次竞选过村委主任，多年来在推动农村自治方面都作出过在地方上有影响的努力。现在我们把自己多年形成的对乡村自治的感受、认识和建议拣最紧要的提出来，一则供立法参考，二则为农村公民尽忠国事作一存证。

 

一、建议立法时一定要把如何落实法律作为核心内容之一写进去。《村委会组织法》确实存在根本性、原则性的缺陷，但多年面对的最普遍最严重的问题是现有法律得不到落实，得不到政府权威的支持，得不到司法权威的支持。

 

二、没有对农民主要民生权利的法律确定，再好的《村委会组织法》也会被架空。农民的民生权利要么在《村委会组织法》中确定，要么必须同时通过修改其他法律确定。农民的民生权利主要包括四个方面的内容。1是农民的土地权利，应当立法确立和保护农民对土地的所有权，至少也应当确立和保护农民永久的土地经营权。此项权利任何机构任何势力都不得干预侵夺。经常被欺世盗名的"公共利益"、"公益事业"必须有严格的定义和民意批准程序。现在的农村土地制度没有明确和保护农民的此项土地权利，多年来侵夺与反侵夺的斗争狼烟滚滚。2是农民的创业权。应当立法保护农民自主创业、自办医疗、自办教育、自办金融、自建房屋、自行整治土地等等的基本权利，取消公权力对这些事项的垄断特权。3是农民为自我服务、自我发展、自我保障 而建立各类自治组织的权利，应当立法保护。如经济合作组织、教育组织、医疗组织、土地管理组织、民团自卫组织。4是应当立法建立和保护国家对农民的基本社会保障的制度。

 

三、建议立法确定乡村自治组织的主要职能，就是改造我国乡村长期普遍存在的"愚"、"弱"、"贫"、"私"问题。立法推动自治组织对农民进行权利意识的教育，进行选举、罢免、创制、复决等民主程序的训练，组织安排国家提供的各类社会保障，支持农民广开门路发展经济，通过组织农民进行公共服务、公共建设工作培养农民的社区团队精神。再好的制度，再好的法律如果没有农民共同信仰的支持，如果没有乡村精英通过服务公众建功立业的使命感的支持，都是难以支撑的。传统的农民要成长为现代的乡村公民，有权利意识、公共责任意识、创造创业意识、服务他人服务社区服务国家意识，有"勇于公战、怯于私斗"的良好公民品质。

 

四、乡村自治组织的主要当选人，应立法确定他们的"组阁"权利，参与"组阁"的成员资格同时可以规定由乡村议事机构审查。应立法确定参选人进行有组织地开展竞选的权利。对竞选资金的筹措也应当有适当的法律规定。

 

五、建议立法保护乡村人才的流动。每个乡村的领袖人才是有限的，户籍制度完全限制了领袖人才在乡村的交流，导致乡村普遍存在几十年由个别豪强把持的严重情况。大家族欺压小家族、豪权势力欺压大多数村民。华西村、大邱庄等众多经济发展起来的村庄，其治理都普遍出现了"土皇帝"、"家天下"的情况，中央都无可奈何。这种状况是无法通过村内选举改变的。废除现有的户籍制度，并通过确定适当的法律程序保护农民有权在更大的范围内选择代言人和领导者，是推动乡村民主进步的重要制度。

 

六、建议立法取消农村党支部管理村务的职能。现在农村自治的首要矛盾就是村党支部和村委会双头行政。至少也应当立法确定2002年中共中央14号文件的办法，把当选的村委会主任发展成村党支部书记以缓解矛盾。也建议立法排除乡村自治组织承担的部分政府性质的职能。中国几千年的皇权时代大都是只管到县一级。政治要清明，农村要人尽其才、地尽其利、货畅其流，政权就不要离农民太近。

 

七、建议对农村乡镇一级政权进行改革。一则必须要通过民主选举组成政权，二则乡镇政权的职能必须限定为支持农民的法定权利，支持农村的经济发展，为农民提供各项法定社会保障，依法组织乡村城镇公共建设。乡镇政权不进行根本改革，乡村自治就很难推行，法律对乡村自治的保护就很难得到落实。政府不干好事就会干坏事，多年来乡镇政权在乡村自治建设方面基本上是没干好事的。

 

八、以上农民的基本权利得到法律保护后，政府干部在农村的各项特权就消除了，农村自治组织的特权也就消除了。任何再成立的农村自治组织，如村委会的职能就只是想法设法为农民服务了。这样那些真正有公心、有才干的乡村领袖人物就会涌现出来，承担管理乡村的责任。乡村选举就从争夺利益、争夺势力转变成了围绕服务农民，竞争民望、竞争才干、竞争业绩了。原来选举中经常出现的各种问题稍加规范就很容易解决了，乡村的管理就变成了非常简单的事了。到底是按照历史上的乡绅管理办法，还是按照许多国家的农会管理办法、社区管理办法、公司管理办法，还是台湾的由民选乡镇政府派员管理的办法，还是村委会管理办法，完全听凭各个地方的农民自愿选择。

 

九、我们认为，人大常委会提出的修订草案从基本精神上仍然是错误的，还是在想方设法牢笼农民而不是解放农民。《村民委员会组织法》实施以来，堂而皇之的规定都没有能够得到认真执行，而限制农民权利的规定却大大地激活了乡村的豪强恶势力，乡村中有公心、有才干的健康力量长期受到压制。近年来政府实施的一系列惠农政策，在本质上还是"惠而不政"的，无法永久性地解决乡村民主建设和乡村发展问题。

 

十、我们呼吁，全国人大在修订《村民委员会组织法》时，最关键是要诚心正意。参考上述意见，从根本上解放农民、解放乡村，支持农民、支持乡村在自我管理上勇于探索勇于创造。真正适合农民安居乐业、适合乡村和谐发展的路子，都会在不断的探索和创造中浮现出来。到那个时候，全国人大再进一步立法规范，就是水到渠成顺理成章的事了。三十年来中国乡村真正有意义的改革，不都是这么走过来的吗？现在最现实、最有效的就是立法支持农民去探索去创造，支持志在乡村的各界人士去探索去创造。甚至中央可以划出一定区域，放手让地方在乡村改革上杀出一条血路来，就像当年办特区一样。

 

只要乡村的创业天地是自由的，许多乡村精英是愿意重新回到乡村的，成千万的大学生是愿意到乡村寻求发展的，成千万的各界人士是愿意到乡村建功立业的。中国乡村的前途是光明的。

 

"村组法"立法调研组

 

二零一零年二月四日

comments of Democracy in action一文的评论

http://www.economist.com/node/15580832/comments

 

Law@HK wrote:

Feb 25th 2010 5:09 GMT

I am very interested to see what the Economist has said regarding regarding the US mistreatment of Martin Luther King in the 70s and whether they are equally critical to the US government.

Recommend (12)

Permalink

Report abuse

---------------------------------------------

haldenrn wrote:

Feb 25th 2010 11:48 GMT

LAW@HK's comments are the usual fare of the politically inept. If you go to Haretz (Jewish newspaper) you will find some comments that the situation in Gaza is not perfect. The next comment will be a Law@HK clone saying "what about Afganistan' " what about Katrina" etc, etc. It adds nothing to the discussion and avoids answering the questions raised by the original article.

Recommend (6)

Permalink

Report abuse

---------------------------------------------

 

Bardamu wrote:

Feb 26th 2010 12:41 GMT

The Economist is often highly critical of the US government and system, as anyone who reads the magazine regularly will know. This sometimes enrages people on the US far right, who accuse the Economist of being anti-American (though not so much recently, with a Democrat in the White House). Ring any bells with anyone? I certainly see a parallel in many of the reactions to the Economist's articles about China.

Recommend (3)

Permalink

Report abuse

---------------------------------------------

 

Daveycool wrote:

Feb 26th 2010 1:16 GMT

haldenrn,

on the face of it, Law@HK's comment may seem pointless but it's actually a concise way of saying:

It's easy to complain. I, too, can find problems and poke holes in just about anything. It's a lot harder to figure out a solution. What's your solution? What's anybody else's solution to a similar problem? If no one has yet come up with a good solution, 1. why are we being held to an impossible standard, 2. perhaps a satisfactory solution doesn't exist after all.

Recommend (6)

Permalink

Report abuse

---------------------------------------------

Daveycool wrote:

Feb 26th 2010 1:25 GMT

haldenrn,

I forogt to add:

3. We're unhappy for being scolded when you can't even live up to the standard you hold us to.

Recommend (3)

Permalink

Report abuse

---------------------------------------------

Amir Akeel wrote:

Feb 26th 2010 10:35 GMT

Oh God, here we go again...

The Economist points out (rightly) that China has a sufferage deficit and everyone comes out and either blames America or claims that the US has worse problems.

The Economist rightly takes America to task often for its socio-political deficiencies, and yet you don't see Americans blaming shadowy Chinese Communists for gerrymandering.

Recommend (4)

Permalink

Report abuse

---------------------------------------------

nkab wrote:

Feb 27th 2010 6:19 GMT

This article is superfacial and distorted at best.

Interestingly, a comment by "canadianchinaman" wrote: Feb 27th 2010 5:51 GMT on another currently running Economist article "What are they afraid of" fits the bill far better in my view. I am taking the liberty to post his comment below to share:

Quote---: canadianchinaman wrote: Feb 27th 2010 5:51 GMT

[@bismark111: Firstly I know that corruption exist in China. But unless you are a member of the Politburo, how do you what is required to become a member. The system is done through closed doors, we don't know what deals are made. The Chinese political system is closed oligarchy, whereas the West is a more open oligarchy. That is the main difference. There are factions that fight for power, just like there is between faction in a Western political party.]

Widespread and blatant corruption by officials. No doubt about it. But at the highest level China has been very blessed in that these leaders have been free of scandal. For this we have to thank the fates that Deng Xiaoping lived just long enough to set the ship of state right. (read my earlier comment on China's leadership succession.)

DXP set by example what good stewardship of the state is. His example is more powerful than any law can confer. DXP selected his successors. So will the current leaders select their successors. Who one's chosen successor is will impact on one's legacy in history. This is no small decision. Thus in China's succession protocol a disaster like George W Bush would never have gone higher than a county headman.

Obama would need twenty more years working through the ranks and prove himself before he can reach the highest office. China does not need charismatic leaders. What she needs is good honest managers who can keep the peace and manage the public purse. The people can do the rest to make China prosperous.

In China's system there is a strange process called Internal Struggle. Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew gave the best explanation. In this process The CPC cadre can discuss anything and take any position in a debate and there will be no repercussions.

But once a decision is arrived at all must accept the decision and there must be no dissent. The decision is passed up to the next level where the whole process of internal struggle is done again. And so it goes up and up until it reaches the highest level responsible for the final decision and its implementation.

By that time everyone is aware of the pros and cons of the issue and voting on the final decision is a matter of formality. A politburo member cannot just throw in a dissenting at the last minute view without providing compelling arguments. No filibusters allowed.

The Peoples Congress is no rubber stamp.

---Unquote.

 

The Economist: Democracy in action

Making sure that China’s supreme legislative body is toothless

Feb 25th 2010 | BEIJING | From The Economist print edition

 

YAO LIFA, a primary schoolteacher who in 1998 became one of the first legislators in China to be elected without the backing of the Communist Party, is wearily resigned to frequent summons by the police. As China’s rubber-stamp parliament, the National People’s Congress (NPC), prepares for its annual session from March 5th, jittery authorities are stepping up surveillance of Mr Yao and others they fear might use the occasion to air grievances about the party’s grip.

The cautious experiment with grassroots democracy that saw Mr Yao elected to his town’s legislature in the province of Hubei was all too brief. By the next poll in 2003, Mr Yao—by then lionised as a daring independent political voice even by some official newspapers—had no chance of winning again. A handful of other independent candidates did manage to gain seats that year in county and township “people’s congresses”. But in the following elections in 2006 and 2007, the authorities did all they could to stop them winning, from gerrymandering and vote-rigging to intimidation. Mr Yao says he was detained five times last year to keep him quiet during politically sensitive occasions, including the NPC session last March.

As usual, China is preparing for the upcoming parliamentary meeting with a propaganda blitz about the session’s importance as a conduit for public opinion. Online opinion polls seek votes on the topics of most interest at the meeting. Corruption, income disparities and soaring house prices rate highly. But internal directives suggest that in recent years the party has been keeping tight control on the legislature in an effort to minimise embarrassment to the party leadership.

That the party should worry at all may seem odd. Communist Party members account for fewer than 6% of China’s people, but more than 70% of the 2,987 delegates appointed in 2008 for a five-year term to the NPC. In lower-level congresses, estimates one party researcher, the ratio is normally 60-70%, with more than half of the seats usually taken by “leading officials”. Nearly 9% of national legislators are members of the armed forces. A similar share are senior party and government officials and senior academics. Almost all delegates at every level, though nominally elected (either by lower-level congresses or by the public in the case of the lowest tiers), are in fact selected by the party. Voting is almost always a formality.

But the party does not leave it at that. It gives its hand-picked representatives a bit of leeway to moan about house prices, or even corruption. But it goes to extra lengths to make sure that important laws or leadership appointments are passed with a minimum of dissent. The national legislature is made up of 35 delegations. Two represent Hong Kong and Macau, where the party keeps its head down. But the rest have their own party cells whose job it is to ensure that members toe the line.

In 2008 leaders met party officials in the NPC to stress the importance of securing resounding endorsements for the party’s choices for top national posts. This included the re-election of President Hu Jintao and the prime minister, Wen Jiabao. Apparently to prevent critical comments from leaking to the press, the internal bulletins circulated among the delegations to keep them informed of each others’ discussions were banned from mentioning what delegates said about official appointments. Such comments were to be relayed directly to the party leadership. Until the voting, even the names of the officials up for election were to be kept secret. Since 2007 each delegation has had to name a secrecy officer to enforce such rules. That year foreign journalists were barred from any meeting taking place next to a room being visited by a senior leader. The party did not want leaders buttonholed.

Displays of discontent outside the Great Hall of the People where the NPC convenes are another cause for concern. The NPC received 227,000 petitions by aggrieved citizens in 2006, up from 100,000 in 2004. This prompted officials to order more strenuous efforts to keep petitioners from flocking to Beijing, and certainly well away from the meetings. Activists such as Mr Yao are targets. He says he was detained by police for more than an hour this month when he tried to visit the American embassy in Beijing. His travails as a would-be legislator, the authorities clearly believe, are an internal affair, not for foreign ears.