人民政协专门协商机构制度建设的国家治理逻辑

人民政协作为专门协商机构在国家治理体系和治理能力现代化建设中具有重要地位和作用,体现着中国特色社会主义民主政治的优势。国家治理的本质特征、价值理念与运作过程为人民政协专门协商机构制度建设赋予必要前提、基本遵循与现实要求,人民政协专门协商机构制度的功能结构主要包含政治协商、民主监督、决策参与、凝聚共识。基于体系过程与结构功能分析以及主体角色与优势效能分析,人民政协专门协商机构制度建设的关键领域分别是人民政协政治协商更好纳入国家治理决策过程以及人民政协政治协商有效发挥国家治理共识凝聚功能。     

人民政协协商民主制度化的基本依据——基于人民政协职能演变的思考

人民政协协商民主制度化建设要以政治协商、民主监督和参政议政为重点内容,这主要是以人民政协职能历史发展和国家治理现代化现实需求为主要依据。根据人民政协三大职能演变过程,人民政协协商民主制度化经历了四个主要发展阶段:全国政协成立、改革开放后、新世纪新阶段和中国特色社会主义新时代。推进人民政协协商民主制度化就是要把协商民主贯穿政治协商、民主监督和参政议政全过程。     

丰富民主形式扩大政治参与—从协商民主的视角看人民政协的作用

人民政协协商民主是中国共产党和中国人民在长期的革命和建设实践中创造出来的,参加政协的各党派、团体和各族各界人士以政治协商、民主监督、参政议政作为民主协商的基本途径。经过50多年的探索和发展,人民政协已经成为我国社会主义民主的一个     

健全协商民主机制 充分发挥政协作用

我国的人民代表大会制度和政治协商制度（“选举＋协商”的民主形式），是中国共产党和中国人民选择并坚持的政治发展道路的组成部分，是老一辈无产阶级革命家高瞻远瞩的政治设计和制度安排。人民政协制度具有自己的独特优势，在发展中国特色社会主义民主政治进程中发挥了积极而重要的作用。     

发挥参政党在协商民主中的作用

<正>中共十八大强调"加强同民主党派的政治协商",政党民主将成为我国社会主义民主政治建设和政治体制改革的一个关键举措,中国共产党同各民主党派将共同致力于协商民主制度建设,不断推进中国特色社会主义政治发展道路。一、协商民主拓宽了我国多党合作的道路关于政党协商,目前有这样一种理论:协商民主是不同于选举民主的另一种形式,而政党协商民主就是人民政协组织已实行多年的政治协商,就是中国共产党     

新时代人民政协性质定位新探

党的十八大以来,我国社会主义改革开放事业进入新时代,以习近平为核心的党中央高度重视人民政协工作,对新时代人民政协工作提出了一系列新思想、新要求、新任务,相应地人民政协的性质定位也由统一战线的组织、多党合作和政治协商的机构、发扬人民民主的重要形式,发展为统一战线的组织、多党合作和政治协商的机构、人民民主的重要实现形式、社会主义协商民主的重要渠道和专门协商机构,以及国家治理体系的重要组成部分.     

习近平关于协商民主理论中的国际视野

党的十八大以来,习近平总书记提出了关于社会主义协商民主制度的一系列理论。其中,习近平关于协商民主理论中的国际视野体现在他重视和强调人民政协制度形成与发展进程中的国际因素,从国际视野的角度强调人民政协的历史使命;习近平肯定了中国协商民主制度取得的成就,并从民主多样性的角度为中国协商民主制度正名与发声,强调在国际社会中争取制度话语权的重要性;习近平把协商民主制度与国际体系治理相联系,提出了国际体系治理中需要协商民主的观点,指出了人民政协在构建人类命运共同体中应当发挥的作用,其国际治理观中融入了协商民主理念。     

我国人民政协研究的知识图谱可视化探析——基于1998—2019年CSSCI文献的计量分析

人民政协是国家治理体系的重要组成部分,是具有中国特色的制度安排。运用Citespace软件、CNKI可视化分析两种定量方法,以1998—2019年CSSCI上发表的302篇有关人民政协的文献为分析样本,对发文年度、期刊、学科和机构分布、作者共现网络、关键词共现网络、突现词图谱等进行描述。该主题整体的研究热点是人民政协、协商民主、政治协商和民主监督。同时按突现词出现的时间找出不同阶段的研究热点,分别是邓小平理论、人民政协、政治协商、协商民主。其中“协商民主”是当前和接下来的研究热点和趋向。通过把握研究的整体情况,为后续研究提供参考。     

政治协商制度内在民主精神的延伸

政治协商制度是我国的基本政治制度,也是一种特殊的国家形态的民主。建立政治协商制度,是中国共产党人对马克思主义民主政治理论和社会主义民主实践的重大发展。政治协商内在的民主精神,可以而且正在通过新型协商民主普遍化。把政治协商所蕴含的民主精神普遍化,将协商民主进一步推行到人民群众对国家大事和身边事务的管理,是人类走向政治自由的一个阶段性步骤与创新性尝试。     

如何正确认识社会主义协商民主

正社会主义协商民主的基本内涵(一)协商民主的中枢:政治协商第一,中国共产党对于协商民主制度化的认识是一个在实践中不断探索的过程。新中国成立后,是以政治协商为载体进行政权运作的。改革开放后,我国的政治协商逐步走上制度化建设的快车道。一些学者认为,我国的政治协商就是人民政协的政治协商,这本身就是一种误解。我国的政治协商是在两个层面上进行的:一是中国共产党同各民主党派、无党派代表人士的协商,虽有工商联领导人参加,但从其性质上来说是     

基层协商民主的制度优势转化为治理效能的现实路径

我国悠久的协商思想为基层协商民主奠定了政治文化之基,而新时代则赋予了基层协商民主以新的内涵和实质。基层协商民主的演进发展之路,不断凸显出基层协商民主的制度优势。基层协商民主是实现党的领导的重要方式,是实现我国社会主义民主政治的独特形式,是推进基层社会治理现代化的重要力量,体现出我国国家制度和国家治理体系的显著优势。把基层协商民主制度优势转化为治理效能的现实路径有:坚持党对基层协商民主的领导,更好发挥基层协商民主的制度优势;加强基层协商民主制度建设,强化基层协商民主制度执行力;加强基层协商民主制度自信宣传教育,培养人们积极参与基层协商的意识;建设高素质基层协商人才队伍,为把基层协商民主制度优势转化为治理效能提供人才支撑。     

人民政协作为专门协商机构的时代特色与优势

人民政协作为专门协商机构是新时代党和人民赋予人民政协的新方位新使命.基于专门协商机构的制度定位,人民政协协商作为一种全职全程的常态化协商形式,在整个社会主义协商民主体系中占有重要地位,独具特色和优势.人民政协一切工作都基于协商民主而展开,是一种超越自身范围的资政协商,较之于其他的协商形式和渠道,人民政协协商组织性最强、制度化最高、协商主体最为专业.总之,人民政协作为专门协商机构,具有无与伦比的时代意蕴和独特优势,能够有效地将协商民主的制度优势转化为国家治理的效能.     

乡村振兴进程中协商民主嵌入乡村治理的内在机理与路径选择

协商民主作为重要的民主制度设计和治理形式,对于优化乡村治理具有极为重要的意义与价值。将协商民主嵌入乡村治理,实现协商民主与乡村治理的有效融合,契合党和政府推动乡村振兴战略顺利实施的迫切需要。协商民主嵌入乡村治理体系和治理过程,不是单纯的制度吸纳和整合,而是包括制度嵌入、行动嵌入和认知嵌入在内的多维嵌入结构和过程。从全国各地的治理实践来看,民主协商机制尚未真正嵌入乡村治理的各个环节和各个领域,协商民主的制度优势和治理功能未得到充分发挥。为此,必须加快协商民主嵌入乡村治理的进程,将协商民主理念嵌入到广大农村基层干部和群众的认知之中,形成有事好商量的思维方式和行为习惯;不断健全与完善协商民主的各种体制机制,促进协商民主制度优势转化为乡村治理效能。     

Best Laid Plans … The Institutionalisation of Public Deliberation in Scotland

Despite increasing support for participatory and deliberative principles amongst academics, practitioners and parliamentarians alike, efforts to infuse political systems with more inclusive and consensual forms of debate often founder. This article explores this conundrum by examining institutional reforms through the lens of deliberative democracy. More specifically, we scrutinise attempts to institutionalise forms of civic deliberation within the Scottish political system via the Scottish Civic Forum and the Scottish Parliament's committee system. Our analysis tells the story of how these two types of institutional reform, both designed to facilitate the move towards a more participatory and deliberative model of democracy in Scotland, have fared over a ten‐year period. In turn, this analysis allows us to comment on the ways in which deliberative and parliamentary democracy may be integrated.     

Development and Prospects of Deliberative Democracy in China: The Dimensions of Deliberative Capacity Building

Since the landmark volume The Search for Deliberative Democracy in China (Leib and He eds. 2006), a growing number of theoretical and empirical studies in the context of China have advanced our knowledge of deliberative democracy in comparative settings. This paper aims to discuss the recent development and prospects of deliberative democracy in China, with particular focus on the approach of a deliberative system that has not been adequately addressed in the context of China. This paper proposes an analytical framework for the concept of deliberative capacity building in the context of contemporary China. The paper analyses three dimensions of deliberative capacity building: social capacity, institutional capacity; and participatory capacity of a deliberative system. The three dimensions lay particular emphasis on the public sphere, empowered space, and deliberative actors respectively. The multi-dimensional framework considers deliberative capacity building as a process by which the three dimensions synergize and evolve with each other to produce a functional deliberative system incorporating isolated deliberative practices. The multi-dimensional analyses suggest that deliberative capacity building is critical to democratization in China, as it produces a stronger public sphere, more effective government responsiveness and improved participatory competence.     

The discourse of democracy in Canadian nuclear waste management policy

Canadian nuclear waste management policy has taken a deliberative democratic turn. What explains this turn? What is its significance? What lessons does it teach us? I trace a narrative of a powerful discursive coalition that was able to take advantage of institutional and financial opportunities to advance deliberative democratic decision making. I identify limitations in this turn by evaluating the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s subsequent consultation process against the criteria of inclusion, equality, reciprocity, agreement, and integration. Despite impressive deliberative democratic designs, the process falls short of each criterion. This analysis clarifies the relative importance of actors to coalitions and institutions. Even with a strong coalition and favorable institutional context, realizing deliberative democracy is contingent on the will of involved actors. This conclusion has implications for the theory and practice of deliberative democracy.     

On the problems of responsibility and accountability in referendums

Abstract.  Supporters of representative democracy tend to be critical of referendums. They argue that referendums give citizens more responsibility for political decisions than they have either the capacity or the competence to take. Moreover, they argue that referendums may undermine representatives' accountability. In this article, these arguments about responsibility and accountability are analyzed in the light of normative theories of democracy, especially the theory of deliberative democracy. Furthermore, different institutional forms of referendum are analyzed. Particular attention is paid to the following aspects: the extent to which governments control the use of referendums, how referendums interact with parliamentary decision making, and whether referendums are advisory or binding. It is argued that sometimes governments indeed use their control over referendums to avoid taking stands on difficult issues. More importantly, however, current forms of government-initiated referendums tend to weaken the accountability of the representatives, at least when interpreted in terms of liberal and deliberative democracy, and to distort parliamentary deliberations. Since delegation is a necessity in modern democracies, referendums should not undermine the mechanisms of representative democracy. In addition to the issues of citizens' capacity and competence, this viewpoint should be taken into account when designing referendum institutions.     

Rational and Compassionate Information Processing: A Conceptual Framework for Authentic Dialogue

Authentic dialogue is a key component of deliberative democracy. Public administration scholars and practitioners have focused on institutional settings for authentic dialogue, but they have paid less attention to behavioral aspects, especially the emotional component, of authentic dialogue. The author proposes a conceptual framework for authentic dialogue that highlights the three dimensions of its social‐behavioral foundation: epistemic, social, and compassionate information processing motivation. The article reviews the discourse on authentic dialogue in public administration and provides a conceptual framework for authentic dialogue, with a discussion of the three behavioral dimensions, their relationships, and their effects. This framework may be used in empirical analysis of authentic dialogue and the design of institutions for deliberative democracy.     

The House of Lords: A Deliberative Democratic Defence

This article defends the idea of an appointed House of Lords using deliberative democratic theory. The analysis suggests that while one might well think that current appointment procedures leave much to be desired, a reformed but still appointed House of Lords would be better at maximising the deliberative democratic qualities of inclusiveness and the scrutiny of arguments than a fully elected one; indeed, that election might do actual damage. It suggests that the debate thus far has been focused too narrowly on an outdated account of democracy, and too narrowly on the peculiarities of the House of Lords in isolation from its institutional context.     

Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy

In the face of widespread dissatisfaction with contemporary democratic practice, there has been a growing interest in theories of deliberative democracy. However theorists have often failed to sufficiently address the question of institutional design. This paper argues that recent experiments with citizens' juries should be of interest to deliberative democrats. The practice of citizens' juries is considered in light of three deliberative democratic criteria: inclusivity, deliberation and citizenship. It is argued that citizens' juries offer important insights into how democratic deliberation could be institutionalized in contemporary political decision-making processes.