Author: December 28, 2016

Last night, I read Professor Weisen's article "China First Needs Budget Democracy" published on the China Elections and Governance Network and Consensus Network, which was very inspiring and I also want to say a few words.

Professor Weisen said, "After reading this, I remember that on the eve of this year's Spring Festival, Professor Deng Zhenglai held an academic united front banquet for various feudal lords, and I happened to have the privilege of sitting next to Professor Weisen. I remember that he did not miss the opportunity to preach his" budget democracy priority "to me at that time. I am deeply impressed by Professor Wei's argument. If I remember correctly, I also questioned his argument at the time, but overall, the exchange of opinions was not enough.

I have the opportunity to carefully read Professor Weisen's masterpiece and am deeply impressed by his ideas on China's public finance, economic growth patterns, and reform strategies. His view on the current hot topic of "three public welfare" is straightforward: "The" three public welfare funds "are just a small issue of this large financial system and government operation system, just one aspect of the entire problem"; Which government can spend money as recklessly as the Chinese government? Look at the beautiful government administrative buildings at all levels and places, and you will know how our government uses money and how to spend it. 'Three public' consumption is just a piece of cake among them. His conclusion in this regard is: "In recent years, tax revenue has grown rapidly, and a large amount of tax revenue has been spent by huge administrative agencies. Professor Wei has analyzed the economic growth mode and the relationship between national wealth and people's wealth particularly insightfully:" Our current economic growth mode is connected to the current political system, especially the government's financial system. Under this government system, there can only be this economic growth mode, To transform it is equivalent to asking tigers not to eat meat, "is it possible; The inevitable result of national wealth is that those who are related to power are rich, while the majority of people are 'poor'. I particularly admire Professor Watson's statement on the need for coordinated development between the economic growth mode and political system reform: "China's economic growth mode must be transformed, and the political and social systems connected to this growth mode must also be transformed. Without transformation, China will have problems; The historical experience of China's reform tells us that we need to constantly liberate our minds, engage in extensive theoretical discussions, break through some theoretical forbidden areas, and conduct experiments and progress in practice in order to gradually improve

However, I have noticed that although Professor Watson's masterpiece has many exciting aspects, what it aims to prove in its entirety is likely not in line with the practical proposition of "China needs budget democracy first". If it is only relative to solving the problem of uncontrolled "three public consumption", it is undoubtedly in line with the actual view that China needs budget democracy first. But Professor Wei clearly goes beyond this scope and discusses this issue within the context of the entire relationship between politics and economy or the political system. More specifically, the "first" in the title of his article mainly refers to electoral democracy, which means that in terms of political system reform, the first thing we need to solve is the budget democracy issue closely related to economic life, followed by electoral democracy and other democratic content. This proposition may be difficult to establish.

On this issue, my viewpoint is exactly the opposite of Professor Wei's. For the sake of convenience, I may refer to my viewpoint as the "priority of electoral democracy". The content of the "Election Democracy Priority Theory" is: whether in China or abroad, whether in the past, present, or foreseeable future, only with election democracy can there be budget democracy. Without election democracy, there can be no budget democracy. Therefore, what contemporary China needs first is election democracy. Below, I will briefly state the reasons behind this viewpoint and some of my views on related issues, for the reference of Professor Wei and readers.

（1） In history, no country has had budget democracy before election democracy. Instead, representatives elected or elected by stakeholders were appointed to review and control taxes and budgets. In Britain, the constitutional development history from the 13th century Magna Carta of Liberty and the No Promise Tax Law to the 17th century Petitions of Rights and the Bill of Rights is a history where nobles first negotiate taxation issues with the king themselves, and then are represented by members of parliament elected by nobles and other wealthier classes to negotiate taxes and budgets with the king. After the appearance of parliament, members of parliament are elected or elected by the represented, not appointed by the king or in disguised form. Just pay attention to this point, as it already indicates that there was election democracy before budget democracy.

In the United States, in order to achieve budget democracy, we first strive for electoral democracy, and the situation where electoral democracy leads to budget democracy is clearer. Before the War of Independence, the slogan of the residents of North American colonies was "no representation, no taxation". This was actually a slogan for political rights such as electoral democracy, which aimed at the undemocratic phenomenon of North American colonies being unrepresented in the British Parliament but having to pay taxes in accordance with laws such as the Stamp Act enacted by the British Parliament. In history, the United States never had the fact of budget democracy before achieving electoral democracy. The fact of budget democracy only emerged after the victory of the War of Independence and the implementation of so-called electoral democracy in the United States.

In French history, before the Revolution of 1789, the king had already recognized that taxation and budget control were in the hands of representatives of the hierarchical council. The hierarchical conference that sparked the French Revolution was convened by Louis XVI to raise funds and hope that the hierarchical conference would approve the financial budget. At that time, the representatives of the hierarchical council that held the budget power were democratically elected, although this democracy differed in one way or another from the democracy that served as a national constitutional system after the revolution. The preparation and conduct of the elections for the 1000 representatives of the third level council and the other 1000 representatives of the first and second level council in France at that time, as well as the situation where "various parties were engaged in activities to make their own people act as representatives and draft love letters according to their own intentions", are detailed in the introduction section of the book "History of the French Revolution" translated and published by the Commercial Press, This book is written by French scholar Minet.

I don't think we need to continue listing the historical situations of more countries.

（2） If we avoid or cannot to some extent solve the issue of democratic elections for deputies to the National People's Congress, discussing the implementation of budget democracy can only be empty talk or a good wish that goes against political logic. Modern nation-states are different from city-state states. In terms of democratic forms, they cannot escape the framework of representative democracy in today's and foreseeable future, especially in large countries like China. It can be said that the democracy in today's world is generally and fundamentally representative democracy. All other so-called "democracy", including budget democracy, direct democracy, and so on, are either manifestations of representative democracy, or its implementation process, or its subsidiary or supplementary forms, or even just a comparative term, such as "consultative democracy". The first issue that representative democracy needs to solve is the election of representatives of the National Representative Office. The core issue and all functions of the representative system depend on who has the right to vote and be elected, and what principles, rules, and procedures are followed for elections. Budget democracy is only a part of representative democracy, just like "three public expenses" are a part of budget democracy. More precisely, budget democracy is only the result or consequence of certain forms of electoral democracy.

So, in our country, without a proportionate system for electing deputies to the National People's Congress, there would be no budget democracy. Moreover, despite the system of universal suffrage for deputies to the National People's Congress, if its mechanism is not sound and its content is not truthful, and the elected representatives do not have true representativeness, budget democracy will not be formed. The relationship between electoral democracy and budget democracy has a nature of political behavior and consequences. In a less rigorous and specific sense, we can compare the relationship between election democracy and budget democracy to the relationship between flowers and fruits in nature. If the flowers of election democracy do not bloom, there will be no fruits of budget democracy. However, although fruits are the result of civilization and there are no real figs, not all flowers can bear fruit. Only a portion of the flowers of electoral democracy can bear the fruit of budget democracy. Some election democratic flowers are very beautiful and lively, accompanied by flags, gongs and drums, applause, and speeches, but they cannot bear the fruits of democracy, including budget democracy. If the flower of electoral democracy blooms but cannot bear the fruit of budget democracy, it indicates that the former is abnormal and flawed. For them, unless everyone is content to only appreciate them during the flowering season, to nourish the eyes, and not to achieve tangible results, they should be abandoned or improved or reformed.

Representatives of representative organs are the cells and subjects of representative democracy, without a group of active and representative representatives of the National People's Congress. The so-called budget democracy is nothing but water without a source or a tree without roots. Any attempt to strive for budget democracy without reforming the representative election process is unlikely to achieve substantial results. There seems to be no precedent worldwide for achieving substantial results in building budget democracy under the same circumstances.

（3） The fundamental problems that need to be solved in China, as listed by Professor Wei within his scope, are the same as the problems of budget democracy itself, which are caused by the serious lack of directness, competitiveness, and other factors in China's electoral system. Only by reforming the electoral system can we solve them. Professor Wei said, In the Western democratic system, opposition parties look at what you do and find fault everywhere. In this situation, government officials are corrupt and it is relatively difficult, and every major budget expenditure usually needs to be debated and voted through by parliament, so there is no need to specifically disclose the 'three public funds' like we do. China does not have a budget democracy system, and there is no one and cannot supervise and restrict the government's spending and expenditure from the financial system Today's government department's' three public 'consumption problem has arisen. Here, Professor Wei clearly states that the lack of budget democracy in China is a result rather than a cause, and the cause lies in the electoral system. Professor Wei also said: A system of layer by layer rent-seeking using its almost unrestricted power and enormous resources is being formed and constantly self strengthening, which is the core and key to China's various economic and social problems. It will take us many years and generations to transform this vast administrative 'Leviathan', which is almost unconstrained, into a modern political 'limited government', A modern political system where administrative and resource allocation power is subject to substantive constraints and checks and balances? This is the fundamental question that our political system reform and social transformation will ultimately answer and solve I think Professor Wei's view is very reasonable. After raising the question, He himself prescribed a prescription to solve the problem: to From the perspective of budget democracy, limiting the government's taxation power requires an institution to review and balance the government's budget. In today's China, it should be and can only be the National People's Congress. Therefore, the current issue is to 'strengthen the functions of the National People's Congress' first. National People's Congress representatives cannot only vote in favor like some people do, but only raise their hands in favor of any government bills and proposals, In fact, Professor Wei himself has already seen that in the final analysis, it is who gave the seats of deputies to the National People's Congress at all levels, whether it was a disguised planned arrangement from above, or whether he competed in the election. The logic of political life and countless facts have already been laid out there. Without reform of the electoral system, how can we solve the problem of NPC deputies only voting in favor of the government's budget proposal and raising their hands in favor!

To put it bluntly, Professor Wei's views on the relationship between electoral democracy and budget democracy are somewhat contradictory, and he himself shows a lack of confidence in the proposition of "China needs budget democracy first". Professor Wei finally admitted at the end of the article: "The true functioning of budget democracy, of course, ultimately cannot do without democratic elections. Without representatives truly elected by taxpayers, how can they truly benefit taxpayers? How can they truly represent taxpayers' interests?" "Without representatives democratically elected, democratic budgeting cannot be achieved in the end." That's right! It seems that Professor Wei's previous discussions were not about "truly operational budget democracy". When he talked about this issue in a "real" sense, he finally fundamentally denied his argument that "China needs budget democracy first" and admitted that without electoral democracy, budget democracy "ultimately" cannot be achieved.

（4） The representative or parliamentary election system is a traditional and fundamental topic in the construction of representative democracy. For countries that have not solved the issue of electoral democracy well, this topic will never be outdated and will always be new content. Fundamentally and as a whole, representative or parliamentary elections are the foundation of all contemporary democratic systems, and without addressing this issue, all other issues within the scope of democracy cannot be truly resolved. There are some Chinese scholars abroad who jokingly refer to elections as the "electors" from the perspective of Western countries that have already basically solved the issue of electoral democratization. This is not surprising, as they do not speak from the perspective of Chinese citizens and do not need to be more serious. But scholars in China cannot adopt that attitude. From a developmental perspective, electoral issues can be divided into pre modern, modern, and post modern. Scholars from countries that have solved the problem of electoral modernization can even naturally deny "modernity" and advocate and pursue postmodern sentiment and style. For example, they can paint modern mainstream electoral democracy as comical and ugly. For them, there is no need to know what is good at all. The key is for them to say what they feel is not good, and even one day they suddenly worship personal authoritarianism, because they have lived in that environment for too long and are tired of it. Scholars living in China today, as Chinese citizens, also have the right to learn from the Western postmodern style, but based on morality and professional responsibility, I oppose doing so. Because our country or society is still in the pre modern stage of the electoral system, what we need is modernity rather than criticizing postmodernism. In today's China, all statements that deny modernity and advocate postmodernism will only have a practical effect on maintaining China's situation in pre modernity.

Professor Wei also has a "core theory of budget democracy", which may be applicable to Western countries that have solved the issue of electoral democracy, but for China, it is somewhat detached from the actual situation and may not be able to stand firm. Professor Wei repeatedly emphasized that the core and fundamental issue of modern democratic politics is budget democracy; Budget democracy is the core of modern democracy. But Professor Wei seems to have forgotten that China's election system for National People's Congress representatives is still in a "pre modern" era. How can we always talk to readers about "modern" budget democracy? He didn't seem to think about who would promote and implement "modern" budget democracy if there were no "modern" level NPC representatives like China! Can "modern" members of Western parliaments promote and implement China's budget democracy? That's obviously not realistic.

In addition, academic research emphasizes innovation and transcendence, but political and legal life should focus on the specific situation and actual needs of the country. The construction of political and legal systems can draw on the experiences and lessons of predecessors and adopt specific forms that are different from those of predecessors, but fundamentally, there is not much room for innovation and transcendence for the later generations compared to the predecessors.

（5） In China, the shortest path to budget democracy is to cross the barrier of electoral democracy, and there is no other path that is more convenient than this. Professor Wei said, If our future political system reform does not have a clear constitutional goal, and only imagines our future political democratization process as only adopting some Western countries' popular 'universal suffrage' in form, this will not only fail to maintain our country's social stability and long-term economic growth, but may also lead to a 'great democracy' like the 'Cultural Revolution', and even the majority of people may have a 'great democracy'‘ Democratic violence or tyranny. The universal suffrage system is not so terrifying. The current electoral law in China stipulates that the election system for National People's Congress representatives is a form of universal suffrage. I estimate that Professor Wei refers to a universal, direct, and competitive electoral system (hereinafter referred to as the competitive universal suffrage system). In fact, the competitive universal suffrage system is not that scary. Vietnam is also a socialist country, and they have already implemented the competitive universal suffrage system. I don't think there has been any earthquake. In addition, there are many and more countries in the world that implement competitive universal suffrage, and their societies are either very stable or relatively stable. I don't know why Professor Wei associated universal suffrage with the Cultural Revolution, the Great Revolution, the Great Democracy, democratic violence, and tyranny when he mentioned it? Perhaps this is a bit exaggerated. Professor Wei yearns for a state of budget democracy, but he dare not even glance at the only path to budget democracy. His caution is also a bit excessive. Here, Professor Wei has a clear constitutional goal, which is to promote budget democracy, but he himself has blocked the only path to this constitutional goal, which is regrettable.

The market economy itself is competitive, and implementing competitive elections is an inevitable requirement for the application of economic principles to political and legal life under the socialist market economy system. From a medium to long term perspective, no one can stop it. However, carrying out political system reform with a competitive election system as its orientation does not necessarily mean a radical, revolutionary political upheaval. It can be carried out in a planned, step-by-step and controlled manner under the leadership of the Communist Party of China. Gradually achieving competitive elections through reform is not only the only path to budget democracy in China, but also the necessary way to fundamentally improve social instability and achieve long-term peace and stability.

（6） Only by reforming the election system for deputies to the National People's Congress as a breakthrough, can we truly achieve results in promoting budget democracy. Professor Wei said, "The construction of budget democracy is a logical starting point and breakthrough point for future political system reform in China." Budget democracy can only be said to be the result or implementation effect of an election system, or rather, it is only a function determined by structural elements such as election rules and procedures. I am concerned that completely rejecting the reform of the structural elements of the electoral system and only discussing functions would greatly waste Professor Bai Bailang and his followers' valuable time and energy. Of course, my statement does not negate the possibility of making some improvements in the democratization of the budget under the current system for electing deputies to the National People's Congress at all levels. However, if we want to make substantial progress in budget democracy and truly reach or approach a "modern" level, it is estimated that we can only start with the reform of the election system for deputies to the National People's Congress.

Whether based on the logic of political and economic relations or referring to historical experience, the issue of budget democratization, like the transformation of Chinese society and economic growth mode, fundamentally depends on the extent to which political resources are monopolized and distributed according to plans by public power organizations, and to what extent they are allocated through free and equal competition in the political market. I advocate the implementation of a socialist market political system, and adding the modifier "socialism" indicates that I am not opposed to the centralized control and planned allocation of key political resources. I only advocate the coexistence of planned and market allocation of political resources, and gradually expand the proportion of political markets and political resources allocated through this market in the total political resources of the country.