Legitimacy of political participation

The government's guarantee of "political participation" is the need of government legitimacy and the embodiment of zt.

In China, it is considered dangerous to talk about politics.

This fear of being stung by "politics" all the time has completely erased people's basic rights from Chinese real life and even memory. It fundamentally reduces the existence of China people as citizens to animal imprisonment, and outlaws all acts that demand to get rid of slavery and fight for rights. Once China people realize that they have rights and want to fight for them, it is simply "impatient to live". China people's thoughts and wisdom have been changed and distorted everywhere.

"Citizen's participation in politics" is the fundamental reason for the legal existence of all political power. All men are born equal, and people are born with some inalienable (transferable) rights, including the right to life, freedom and the right to pursue happiness. In order to guarantee these rights, mankind has established a government among them. The only legitimate purpose of the government is to defend the right to life, property and freedom of individual citizens. In order to achieve this goal, the government must get the consent of the governed (or through representatives).

Under the democratic system, "political participation" is the summary of citizens' political participation, the embodiment of sovereignty among the people, and enjoys a lofty position protected by the Constitution. The main feature of "political participation" is that citizens directly or indirectly influence the political choice or public welfare distribution of individuals or groups at all levels of the political system. For example, participating in elections or not participating in elections, supporting or opposing a political figure are all "political participation." Because the legitimate government is produced (and supervised) in "political participation", the government must also protect "political participation". In other words, the government's guarantee of "political participation" is the need and embodiment of the government's legitimacy.

Although democracy is not necessarily the best, too many dictatorships have won. The relative superiority of democracy is obviously manifested in the "participation in politics" election. Regular elections can not only continuously select the most capable candidates, but also avoid bloody or bloodless coups under dictatorship and the social unrest caused by them, greatly reducing the cost of social resources. As long as citizens know the political achievements and platforms of candidates and their political parties, they can make choices quickly, and voters can make relatively rational choices without spending huge costs to collect information.

In the election, candidates' good or bad, sincerity and hypocrisy, truth and lies, merits and faults, character and integrity are all subject to the strictest test of voters. This is something that despots dare not think about, let alone try. In the election, winning is not a saint, losing is also a gentleman, and honor and disgrace are * * *. If the winner is tall, then his height is based on the people's votes. If the loser is worthy of respect, with the failure of the loser, the victory of the winner is truly valuable.

Since 1980s, there have been two so-called "political participation" phenomena in China. The first category is the election and voting activities of deputies to people's congresses at or below the county level in university campuses and rural areas. Some scholars classify it as "institutional participation" and "civil empowerment movement". The second type is non-institutional resistance participation, which is manifested as "civil rights protection movement" with specific forms. ......

The first kind of "institutional participation", without a serious attitude, can not really bring the people's wishes into the government and become the government's policy. The emergence of the second large-scale protest movement just shows that the first kind of participation did not meet the requirements of the people's "political participation."

According to Professor Guo of Sun Yat-sen University, there are 26 villages and three types of areas (Pearl River Delta Center; Edge; 1800 sample survey found that the vast majority (64.0%) did not participate in the election of deputies to the National People's Congress, and only a few (3.2%) participated in the election many times. Among the farmers who participated in the election, party member accounted for an absolute majority (63.5%), while non-party member accounted for only a minority (29.7%). In addition, personal political views and work experience (party member, cadres) have the most obvious influence on participating in the election, while economic income has little influence on the election. It is found that the degree of farmers' political participation is closely related to their social and political views and social identity (reflected by their work experience).

Scholars' research also proves that the remarkable feature of farmers' "political participation" in China is the non-economization of goals. Professor Guo's research found that in the orientation of farmers' political participation, the first ones are "fair handling" and "good conduct and no corruption", which shows that farmers have strong demands for fairness and justice; The second place is "literate and sensible" and "dare to speak for the villagers", which shows that farmers attach great importance to knowledge and culture and dare to drum up and blow for the interests of civilians. It is particularly noteworthy that whether party member ranks first from the bottom in farmers' election orientation, less than 20% people choose party member. Yu's investigation in Hunan shows that farmers who take part in the election do not think that voting is very important to their own interests, but pursue "fairness". The survey by He Baogang and Lang Youxing shows that the voting behavior of rural voters is mainly driven by their political rights and civic responsibility, which shows that the civic awareness of rural society is taking shape. Among foreign scholars, Ou Bowen and Li Lianjiang's research on farmers' political culture found that during the transition period, China farmers' political participation activities, such as election participation and legal struggle, are shaping the "submissive" and "unruly" who love and oppose authority into citizens needed by a democratic society.

It is not difficult to see that, on the one hand, China people's awareness of "political participation" is awakening; On the other hand, "political participation" is squeezed in a very narrow space and a very low level, which fundamentally changes its meaning under democracy.

In today's social transformation period, it is very important to get rid of the "original sin" of "participating in politics" shouldered by China people and restore the right of "citizens participating in politics" of China people.

/archiver/？ tid-35438.html

An analysis of the legitimacy of leapfrog petition

Petition by leaps and bounds is a manifestation of citizens' legitimate political participation, an evasion of the failure and inaction of grass-roots governments, and also conducive to the construction of political legitimacy in contemporary China. In order to obtain legal status, leapfrog petition must establish a standardized and institutionalized interest expression mechanism.

Keywords: leapfrog petition legitimacy, interest expression, political participation, government failure

First of all, the questions raised

Any kind of interest structure objectively has certain interest demand, and certain interest demand is always expressed through certain channels, that is, interest expression. Letters and visits are a relatively direct channel to express the interests of the masses in contemporary China. According to Article 2 of the Regulations on Letters and Visits promulgated by the State Council in 2005, letters and visits refer to activities conducted by citizens, legal persons or other organizations by means of letters, emails, faxes, telephone calls and visits. To reflect the situation to the people's governments at all levels and the departments of the people's governments at or above the county level (hereinafter referred to as administrative organs at all levels), and put forward suggestions, opinions or complaints, which shall be handled by the relevant administrative organs according to law. [1] With regard to "leapfrog petition", judging from the Petition Regulations promulgated by the State Council in 2005, leapfrog petition is not prohibited. In other words, it is not illegal to petition.

In recent years, with the promotion of the rule of law in China and the improvement of citizens' legal awareness, leapfrog petition has gradually become an important weapon for people to solve interest disputes and safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. It should be said that this point, whether from the height of the rule of law construction or from the practice of political life, is a good thing. However, in real life, "leapfrog petitioners" are often excluded, attacked, retaliated and even treated unfairly, which is often heard in the media.

Deng Zaisheng, a farmer from Hengyang County, Hunan Province, complained to the county magistrate because the taxes and fees charged by his village cadres were much higher than the standards set by the central government and the province. As a result, when he returned to the village, his wife was pushed down from the upstairs and was beaten unconscious. Later, like Qiu Ju in the movie, she went to Changsha, the provincial capital, and went to Beijing to petition for an explanation for the farmers. When the county government cracked down, it offered a reward of RMB 500 yuan. Who wanted him? Because he couldn't find anyone, he smashed his house. [2] Its horror is thrilling and shocking. Such people who plead for the people eventually become the targets of "strike hard" and "purge" by some local governments, but those who defend their rights are treated unfairly by the holders of public power, even unconstitutional.

Some local governments even publicly posted that "leapfrog petition is a crime!" Eye-catching slogans such as "severely punish the culprit who took the lead in petitioning" [3]. In some places, economic means are used to restrict petitions. For example, in order to prevent employees from petitioning, Jiangxi fengcheng city Power Supply Co., Ltd. even threatened to deduct wages and fines, and issued a written notice, "Petition is fined 200 once, 400 twice and wages are deducted three times" [4].

Ma Jiyun, a 6 1 year-old woman widely reported by the media in Sifangtai District, Shuangyashan City, Heilongjiang Province, was detained for 75 days because of paralysis and was "released" to go home. In the case book about her, it is impressively written: "Ma Jiyun ... has been petitioning for eight years for a long time ..." [1] In their view, petitioning. The way to deal with "trouble" and "unruly people" should be to adopt "sanctions" and "punishment" without mercy, rather than "who can tolerate this and who can't tolerate it" for leapfrog petitions.

The process of reform and opening up for more than 20 years is also a history of rapid division of social classes and classes, and also a history of rapid growth and development of various workshop associations. This historic appeal has caused the re-integration of social interests, and in the process of social interest integration, it will inevitably lead to conflicts and confrontations of various interest contradictions. More and more leapfrog petitions are the ultimate manifestation of this conflict and confrontation of interests.

As far as the current leapfrog petition is concerned, most of them are not out of hostility to the government and dissatisfaction with the country, but really to safeguard and defend their legitimate interests. However, many local administrative organs and some departments often position leapfrog petitions from the political and ideological perspectives, and a few local governments and departments even deal with leapfrog petitions with "conspiracy theories".

In this case, it is difficult for the two sides to communicate, talk and negotiate, because it was originally a "conflict" caused by interests and a "struggle" caused by safeguarding rights, because what they lacked first was the same perspective on the problem and a rational way to solve it. In this way, the political behavior of leapfrog petition has been artificially strengthened and upgraded. For leapfrog petitioners, there is no doubt that what needs to be paid is greater price, moral courage and increasing petition cost; For local governments, in order to defend their so-called authority, vested interests and even personal promotion, they have to take all kinds of high-handed measures, such as personal attacks, property damage, retaliation against the families of leapfrog petitioners, etc. These are just contrary to Article 3 of the State Council's Regulations on Letters and Visits: "No organization or individual may retaliate against the petitioners" [2], which they consider to be "anti-Taiwan" and "anti-government".

Article 4 of the Regulations on Letters and Visits stipulates that letters and visits should be conducted under the leadership of people's governments at all levels, and adhere to the principles of territorial management, graded responsibility, whoever is in charge is responsible, timely solving problems on the spot and guiding education according to law. If we look at the six prohibited behaviors of petitioners in Article 20 of the Regulations on Letters and Visits, leapfrog petition is not one of them. [3] That is to say, in terms of general working procedures, our petition work should be based on such a "hierarchical" principle to solve problems. It is true that we have not advocated or over-publicized the benefits of leapfrog petition. We just want to proceed from the most basic facts-leapfrog petition does exist around us, and such cases account for more than 85% of petitions (see below for the data in 2002)-and how to explore and leapfrog petitions soberly and rationally, rather than from a certain position. So, the next question is, what is the political legitimacy of leapfrog petition? This is also the main problem to be solved in this paper.

Second, the legitimacy analysis of leapfrog petition

If the essence of politics is an art, then it is also the art of choosing the most valuable policy and system among all feasible policies and systems. Since we choose the most valuable policies and systems, it inevitably involves the legitimacy of policies and systems. Regarding the legitimacy of leapfrog petition, this paper intends to discuss it from the following three aspects:

1, leapfrog petition is a manifestation of citizens' legitimate political participation.

Political participation refers to the legitimate activities carried out by civilians with more or less direct purpose of influencing the choice of government personnel and/or the actions they take. One motive of political participation is behavior aimed at influencing government decision-making, or "authoritative distribution of social values". There are four different modes of political participation: voting; Election campaign; Active contact of citizens; Cooperative activities. What is related to leapfrog petition is mainly the active contact of citizens. Individuals with special problems take the initiative to contact government officials-whether individuals go to the government or individuals go to government departments-to discuss specific issues they care about. Only with the participation of this model can people reasonably expect it to produce special benefits. Because it can choose the "agenda" of participation behavior, that is, it can decide what to talk about when it contacts; Unlike voting and campaigning, the agenda is completely controlled by candidates and government officials. [ 1]

Investigating leapfrog petition from the perspective of political participation is mainly because political participation is an important part of modern democratic politics and leapfrog petition is an important channel for citizens to consciously exercise their democratic rights; Political participation has also become one of the prominent features of modern political development, and once leapfrog petition is recognized as "identity", it will greatly promote the development of democratic politics. From the function of political participation, on the one hand, it has the function of restricting and supervising the government; On the other hand, it also helps to enhance the legitimacy of political rule.

Judging from the characteristics of political participation in the contact mode with government officials, petitioners mainly want to contact with high-level officials or government departments-the law will never stipulate that citizens can only deal with grass-roots officials, but not with high-level officials, in order to gain their support and trust and solve their own problems. As far as this mode of political participation is concerned, it is not illegal. Because any citizen has the right to contact senior officials or government departments (except state secrets). That is to say, in most cases, leapfrog petition is an activity that citizens exercise their legal rights endowed by law and turn their attitudes, opinions and suggestions into ways to express their demands for government actions, aiming at influencing the government's decision-making or policy-making process.

Judging from the situation of leapfrog petition at this stage, most of them are because the legitimate interests of petitioners are not effectively protected, and grass-roots governments are often indifferent to the problems reflected by petitioners or drag their feet for a long time. In this way, their interests are not fully satisfied, but they are constantly violated, so they have to communicate, talk and negotiate with higher administrative organs and their officials to express their interests. It is hoped that through this individual contact and non-institutional interest expression, the government's decision-making or political process will be influenced. For example, higher administrative organs will put pressure on lower administrative organs to be more active. It should be pointed out that if the information is transmitted step by step through the "hierarchical chain", the grass-roots government will block or intercept the information for its own reputation or fear of affecting its political achievements, so that the information transmitted step by step cannot be directly grasped by the higher administrative organs.

Judging from the function of political participation, leapfrog petition has the function of restricting and supervising the government (especially the grass-roots government). In a democratic social system, political participation itself is a catharsis mechanism of interests, which can strive to maintain the dynamic balance between the government and the public, and can buffer, coordinate or correct the contradiction between government behavior and public will. On the other hand, from the perspective of the political system, in order to maintain the normal operation of the existing political system, the government system must also constantly obtain a lot of political information from the society, especially the negative information that the people have strongly reflected and complained more, so as to correct and correct its governance strategy and style. Through political participation, citizens boldly express their will and goal orientation in the distribution of interests and values, which just caters to this requirement of the government system. Moreover, from the relationship between political participation mechanism and political operation mechanism, political participation mechanism is an important part of political operation mechanism; Whether the political participation mechanism is sound or not is directly related to the degree of function of the political operation mechanism. So as to establish consistency between government actions and citizens' wishes on the issues involved.

From this point of view, we will find that citizens often go to petition because the behavior of grass-roots administrative organs can not meet their wishes and requirements. In order to satisfy their wishes and realize their interests, they must obtain them through other channels. Petition by leaps and bounds is not only a very realistic choice, but also a wiser choice. This is because in a unitary country, higher administrative organs often have considerable deterrent power and supreme authority over lower administrative organs. For example, the petitioner goes beyond the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Agriculture replies to the Provincial Agriculture Committee, and then replies at the next level. Generally speaking, subordinates should attach importance to, carry out and carry out the instructions and instructions of superiors.

In most cases, subordinates dare not "disobey orders", but in recent years, many grass-roots government agencies have not properly handled the problem of leapfrog petition in accordance with the instructions and spirit of their superiors, and even adopted or disguised a very bad way to deal with petitioners. For example, the above-mentioned petitioners have a hard and painful petition process, and the result is often not "in line with the public opinion" and "in line with the public opinion" as they imagined. It is true that if the superior administrative organ and the subordinate administrative organ collude with each other, or the subordinate bribes the superior for a specific purpose (such as the leader is afraid of affecting his political achievements, etc.). ), the superior also "positive response", that is another matter, because you need to bear another greater political risk and pay another greater moral price.

In short, from the perspective of political participation, we can draw the conclusion that leapfrog petition is helpful to solve the problem of letters and visits, strengthen supervision over the government, reduce or contain corruption, and promote the government to be honest, diligent and efficient, thus improving the government's ruling ability and strengthening the construction of political legitimacy.

2, leapfrog petition is to avoid the failure and inaction of the grass-roots government.

The reason why we examine leapfrog petition from the perspective of government failure and government inaction is that government failure and government inaction are "political diseases" and are two chronic diseases that modern governments are often prone to commit. Government failure means that the government's policy intervention measures can not achieve the expected function of regulating the market, and even lead to worse results than "market failure" under some conditions.

Considering the government failure from the perspective of leapfrog petition, the main problems are: (1) the grass-roots government lacks a clear responsibility subject, which leads to the inefficiency of the government and the indifference of government officials; (2) Grass-roots government officials, like ordinary people, make mistakes; (3) The grass-roots government's behavior is out of order or out of control, which leads to the absence of government default punishment; (4) There are incentive mechanism problems in grass-roots government organs and administrative officials; (5) The monopoly of grass-roots government leads to low efficiency, rent-seeking and other corrupt phenomena; (6) The principles of "majority consent" and "minority decision-making" pursued by grass-roots governments often ignore or harm the interests of the minority. In other words, the existence of these problems is also the realistic reason why leapfrog petitioners want to petition.

65438, Outlook published on June 6, 2003 pointed out that at present, "80% of letters and visits reflect grassroots problems, 80% of letters and visits reflect reasonable or certain reasons, and 80% of letters and visits are caused by local or departmental failure to solve them seriously and properly". [ 1]。 The effective way to solve the failure of grass-roots government is to establish and improve democratic expression, create and constantly improve new political operation technology. This can not only directly provide people with a smooth expression channel and institutional platform, but also reduce the bureaucratic tendency of society and improve the relationship between cadres and the masses, so as to achieve the purpose of the government providing survival, stability and economic and social welfare for all citizens.

From the perspective of government inaction, leapfrog petition has become more and more prominent in recent years, mainly for the following four reasons: First, some grass-roots government officials are "good" at creating, intensifying and escalating conflicts in political conflicts, rather than easing and calming them; Second, the relevant departments lack a sense of responsibility and professional ethics, and even artificially block or block the channels of letters and visits; Third, many grass-roots government officials are used to playing tricks on people with politics and ideology, lacking basic legal thinking and awareness of the rule of law; Fourth, the characteristics of China's power structure system determine the highest prestige and trust at the central and provincial levels, but at the local level, the more grass-roots units, the power structure will be alienated, and even such a situation will occur: "The central government is all sunny, the province is covered with dark clouds, the county is windy, and towns drown people"; Or "one department can't solve the problem, all other departments can't solve the problem, and finally all the problems will flock to Beijing" [2]. Therefore, on the one hand, it is urgent and necessary to unblock the channels of letters and visits, provide the people with a green channel to truthfully reflect problems and a political platform for unimpeded exercise of democratic rights; On the other hand, the establishment of a strict and standardized political accountability system-strengthening the responsibility importance and self-vigilance awareness of "action" and raising the political risk and moral cost of "inaction"-should also be put on the agenda.

Judging from the reality, the marketization, enterprise and profit of many local governments and the criminalization, hooliganism and gangdom of local officials have greatly reduced the publicity, service and legitimacy of government actions. On the other hand, the most serious consequence is the general "inaction" of grass-roots government organs, which leads to the great absence of due functions of the government, the decline of public utilities, serious power rent-seeking and institutional corruption, and the intensification of social injustice and instability. In this case, it always seems difficult for citizens to petition, or for legal persons or other organizations to petition directly to the grass-roots administrative organs. Therefore, it is natural and reasonable to petition again. Because this is the most effective weapon for the grass-roots government's "inaction" and the sword for defenders. On the one hand, it is the challenge and struggle of the complainant to the grass-roots government, on the other hand, it is the legal "authority" of the superior to the subordinate. It is also the existence of these two points that enable leapfrog petitioners to correct and standardize the "inaction" of grassroots governments while safeguarding their rights.

In a word, there is no problem if letters and visits are conducted in accordance with the requirements of the state and the current regulations on letters and visits. Even if everyone is not encouraged to go to leapfrog petition, we must never ban leapfrog petition, especially resolutely oppose preventing people from going to leapfrog petition, or even taking illegal means to crack down on or retaliate against leapfrog petition. Too many "leapfrog petitions" exist more because "step by step" and orderly petitions in reality are often not conducive to solving problems. It is also based on this consideration that Wang Yuezong, deputy director of the State Bureau for Letters and Calls, pointed out that we do not advocate leapfrog, but we do not prohibit leapfrog. Why do you say that? In 2002, the cases assigned by the reception department of the State Bureau of Letters and Calls to local authorities were definitely over-stepped, and 85% of the visits were true. What is this concept? In other words, if people are not allowed to petition, when will these 85% mass problems be solved? This stone is likely to sink into the sea. [1] So, from this perspective, leapfrog petition can not only realize the emotions, but also make up for the failure and inaction of the government and avoid it.

3. Leap-forward letters and visits are beneficial to the construction of political legitimacy in contemporary China.

Legitimacy is one of the most important concepts in politics. It originally meant that kings had the right to ascend to the throne because of their "legal" origins. Since the Middle Ages, its connotation has been more abundant. Legitimacy refers not only to "legal ruling right" but also to "psychological ruling right". Legitimacy in the modern sense mainly refers to a rational attitude that people hold in their hearts and think that the government's rule is legal, just and trustworthy. The legitimacy of the government can be achieved in the following four ways: first, the government exists for a long time; Secondly, a government can also gain legitimacy from its good political achievements. Ensuring economic growth and full employment, providing security to curb foreign invasions and internal disturbances, and treating everyone fairly will all help to improve the legitimacy of the government. Third, the composition of the government also has an impact on legitimacy. If people feel that the government represents them fairly and has a say in choosing officials, they are more willing to obey. Finally, the government supports its legitimacy by manipulating national symbols. National flags, historical monuments, patriotic demonstrations and powerful speeches all make people believe that the government is legal and should be obeyed. [2]

Using the legitimacy theory to analyze leapfrog petition, we will find that, as far as leapfrog petition is concerned, the reasons for petitioning are more related to the legitimacy source of the above-mentioned third way. Criticism, suggestions and demands of administrative organs and their staff, or exposure of illegal and dereliction of duty of administrative organs and their staff, directly affect the complainant's trust, support and identity with the government system. Not to mention the complainant's actions and motives accusing him of violating his legitimate rights and interests. In this sense, leapfrog petition exists because petitioners can't find this sense of trust, support and identity with the grass-roots government system, so they have to "do what they should do" and take this bottom-up approach to appeal directly to the higher-level government and its authority to counter the "bending the law" behavior of the grass-roots government and a few officials. If the rights and interests of leapfrog petitioners are not fundamentally guaranteed, or such rights have never been taken seriously, it will directly affect the maintenance and change of the "specific belief system." On the other hand, if leapfrog petition can be effective, the "high satisfaction" of leapfrog petitioners with the petition results is conducive to the strengthening of political rule and political governance authority, which will directly affect the construction of political legitimacy. There is a positive interaction between them.

Examining leapfrog petition from the perspective of legitimacy can also be examined from the perspective of political responsibility and legitimacy. As one of the three prerequisites for the existence of legitimacy-the other two are political polarization and political judgment-political responsibility is closely related to legitimacy. Responsibility expresses a kind of power and accepts the restrictive measures imposed by the ruling power. No matter what regime, as long as it is trying to establish its legitimacy, it should focus on establishing a mechanism to limit its power. This restriction requires leaders not to think only from a purely private perspective-or to exist for themselves and self-interest. For an ambitious political leader, if he wants to show his ruling ability as much as possible, his political responsibility is to admit his scope of activities first. He must try his best to meet the demands of members of the same body, serve the same body and continuously develop the welfare of the same body. At the same time, responsible rulers accept the principle of condemnation. Responsibility and punishment are always two sides of the same coin. To emphasize the importance of responsibility, there must be a punishment mechanism. The implementation of this mechanism is to prevent the operation of the whole * * * body from being unsustainable and even extremely dangerous. It should be pointed out that if the political system overprotects its leaders, it will only make itself more vulnerable and even accelerate the process of its collapse and demise. [3]

In short, from the perspective of political legitimacy, we resolutely oppose any grass-roots government and department to prevent legal leapfrog petitions in various forms and excuses. Because this is in exchange for the realization of political legitimacy. If petitioners can solve problems fairly and reasonably, they will also improve their sense of identity with grass-roots governments. At the same time, leapfrog petition is also conducive to the legitimacy of decision-making. The legitimacy of decision-making often refers to the decision formed after the interest game, whose interests are represented and maintained in essence, what interests are represented and maintained, and the realization path and guarantee mechanism of interests. It involves more problems of procedures, rules and institutionalized participation mechanism. Politicians can listen to the people's own voices more truly through the form of "leapfrog petition", and incorporate them into the decision-making process and political considerations according to the actual situation and operational possibilities, so as to fully and maximally accept the truth of "leapfrog petition", give petitioners a complete and satisfactory answer and improve the legitimacy of political rule.

To sum up, after demonstrating the legitimacy of leapfrog petition, it is necessary to discuss how to find an institutionalized expression mechanism and the design and arrangement of supporting systems to ensure the benign operation of this standardized institutionalized interest expression mechanism in view of the fact that leapfrog petition is not recognized by some governments and departments, or even regarded as "illegal". The design and arrangement of these systems should include how to make leapfrog petition gain legal status step by step, how to standardize the political behavior of leapfrog petition, how to protect the legitimate rights and interests of leapfrog petitioners, how to correct the unconstitutional and illegal acts of grassroots governments and relevant departments, and how to achieve zero cost and high satisfaction of leapfrog petition results ... These are major practical problems that China politics cannot avoid and need to be solved urgently. It is true that to solve this problem, a series of institutional innovations are needed, including the establishment of a standardized and institutionalized interest expression mechanism and the design and arrangement of supporting systems to ensure the benign operation of the standardized and institutionalized interest expression mechanism.

/print . 155 1 14 . html