论中国传统官僚政治中的官僚与政客

官僚政治是中国传统政治制度最突出的特征之一,对世界政治的影响尤其深远。西方在资本主义出现以前,没有真正意义上的官僚与政客的划分,中国早在秦朝就划分了官僚与政客两种政治角色,就存在完整意义上的官僚政治。然而,西方的官僚政治是近代政党政治的产物,而中国传统的官僚政治则是君主专制和中央集权制度的产物。与西方政治结构中官僚与政客的二元角色划分不同,传统中国的政治结构似乎可以作政客、官僚、胥吏的三元角色划分。     

论唐代三省制的形成与消解

通常认为,唐代的三省制是中国封建社会政治制度成熟的标志。本文在分析唐代三省制的建立、破坏和消解过程的基础上,认为唐代三省制之所以失败,主要原因在于:在君主专制和中央集权制度下,任何行政分权都是不可能的;在任人唯亲的人事制度下,三省制无法保证行政决策的科学性;三省之间互相制约导致政治系统内部的严重内耗,造成行政效率的低下;中央决策的"人治原则"造成决策和执行的脱节。     

转变观念是实行党政分开的重要前提

党的十三大报告指出:“政治体制改革的关键是党政分开。”我国的政治制度脱胎于革命战争年代。当时为适应武装夺取政权的需要,建立了党政合一的高度集权的“一元化”领导体制。建国后,这一体制不但没有随着客观形势的变化而相应改变,相反,在高度集中     

不同类型组织的领导方式对决策成本的影响

官僚制体系组织与学习型组织在领导方式方面存在很大的差别:前者采取相对集权的领导方式,后者采取分权的领导方式,而不同的组织在不同的环境条件下采取不同的领导方式会导致不同的决策成本.     

由分权制衡的宪政原则看分权政府的构建

分权制衡是近现代民主法治国家的宪政原则。分权制衡思想萌芽于古希腊古罗马时代,在近代社会之后,其思想体系才得以确立。作为一种政治理论,分权制衡思想确有其局限性,作为一种管理理论,它具有普遍意义。鉴于集权制政府的消极作用和影响,分权政府已成为现代政府构建的目标模式。分权政府包括非政府组织同政府的分权;政府内部的分权;中央政府与地方政府的分权。     

郑永年、翁翠芬:为什么中国的改革动力来自地方?

改革开放以来,中国在高度集权的基础上进行政府间的分权,建立了一种更具灵活性的体制。各级政府间相对制度化的分权,使得各级政府在一定范围内都有最终决定权,在其辖区内成为经济社会事务和一部分政治事务的主要责任     

“三权分立与制衡”的理论和实践

搞资产阶级自由化的人,对资本主义国家的“三权分立与制衡”制推崇备至,极力主张在中国也实行这种制度,其实质是反对党的领导,改变我国的根本政治制度—人民代表大会制度。从而破坏人民民主专政。他们拾起资产阶级巳讲了二百多年的分权与制衡制的理论原则,却忽视或掩盖了分权制与制衡制在现代资本主义国家实施的真相,因而是有一定影响力和迷惑力的。为了说明人民民主专政决不能采用“三权分立与制衡”制,就必须对资产阶级的分权与制衡的理论和实践作一番历史的和现实的考察。     

中央集权的国家结构消解自治立法的自治属性——自治立法非自治的一个分析视角

民族自治地方立法自治权的充分行使,是民族区域自治制度的良好运行的基础和前提,然而在现实的政治实践中,自治立法权行使得不尽人意.导致这种状况的根本原因是现实宪政体制下集权的政治理念和行政化的分权体制.因此,必须将行政化的中央与地方权力划分模式转变为立法化的中央与地方分权模式,进一步明确中央与民族自治地方权限,完善中央与民族自治地方畅通的利益表达机制,健全中央与地方权限争议的解决机制.     

僵化的思想固化的体制--勃列日涅夫时期苏共党建问题探析

勃列日涅夫在掌管苏共的十八年间,推行的是一套维护集权制的党建思想和求稳抑变的党建实践.由此使苏共的思想理论日趋僵化,高度集权的体制固化,致使苏共党建模式的积弊暴露无遗,延误了改革的时机,为苏共的败亡埋下了伏笔.     

试论官僚政治体制下的贵族制遗存

官僚制与贵族制是两种不同的政治体制.官僚制的建立是对贵族制的否定,但官僚制的建立并不意味着贵族制的灭亡.由于贵族制得以滋生的经济土壤仍有深厚基础,它在一定条件下有助于加强皇权统治,加上官僚贵族化和贵族官僚化的趋势等,决定了贵族制在新的历史发展阶段依然会有存在的空间,并与官僚制结合在一起,成为维护皇权统治的重要工具.战国以后的贵族制有不同表现形式,它的存在与分封制联系在一起,不同时期的分封制会使贵族制显示出不同的阶段性特点.     

Politics and the State

Political theorists disagree about whether 'politics' and 'the political' should bedefined narrowly or broadly. Defenders of broad conceptions argue that narrow definitions exclude phenomena that ought to be included and lead us to misunderstand the relationship between different forces in society. Defenders of narrow conceptions argue that broad definitions collapse the distinction between the social and the political, and deprive politics of any distinctive identity. I shall argue that neither of these arguments is successful and that disputes over whether we should adopt a narrow or a broad view of politics are, for the most part, merely verbal.     

Politics and the Turkish military

As NATO prepares to expand into Eastern Europe, the military of one its longest-standing members, Turkey, is openly at odds with the country’s democratically elected government. Turkish Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan, under pressure from his generals for months, has been forced to concede political power. The military’s successful challenge to civilian authority, in keeping with Turkey’s praetorian traditions, could have dangerous consequences. The very threat that it now struggles against – radical Islam – could deepen its hold on Turkish society as a result of the armed forces’ challenge to the political order.     

Politics as Theory and Politics as Practice

In 1962, the late Professor Sir Bernard Crick published his seminal work In Defence of Politics. Fifty years on, formal political processes have never been in greater need of defending. In this article, former Home Secretary David Blunkett MP argues that in order to defend politics we need to change the way in which we ‘do’ our politics. In a 21st century response to Professor Crick's challenge to defend the role of politics in providing a counterweight to the financial markets and economic imperialism, Blunkett considers how it is possible to renew political democracy as a force for progressive change. The last five years of political and financial turmoil have seen politics smeared and even, in the case of Greece and Italy, elected governments removed and replaced by technocrats. With the power of government behind the people, it would be possible to foster a whole new spirit of seeing the political process as a way of organising, advising and yes funding a demand for something better from big institutions both public and private.     

The Politics of Recognition versus the Politics of Hatred

Hatred of America expressed in the 11 September attack is more than matched by the hatred by Americans for Islamists expressed in the war on Afghanistan, the War against Terror and the threatened wars against the 'Axis of Evil'. It is argued here that there is a pattern of self-reinforcing hatred operating in the world set in motion by the actions of the United States, particularly by George Bush Snr, and embraced and used by George Bush Jr to reinforce and further develop this pattern. To oppose this it is necessary to understand how hatred is generated, how this system operates and how Bush is exploiting it, and then to provide an alternative. It is argued this requires a new story of civilisation as the quest for justice understood as true recognition to oppose to the myths based on hatred promulgated by Bush. In terms of this story, the extreme economic, social, political and military policies of Bush and the myths used to justify them should be recognised for what they are, the challenge of barbarism to civilisation.