requestId:6852da289947e9.22520647.
New perspectives on political evaluation: Responsible government
Author: Li Linjie, Ja Lihao
Source: Author’s draft of Confucianism. Originally published on Taiwan’s “Science and Technology Integration Monthly” 8 volumes and 4 issues
Abstract: Since ancient Greek, the classification of political institutions has become the main content of political research. The current political classification is the dual paradigm of “gold-authority” but there are the disadvantages of “gold-dominated” and “gold-dominated truth”. The reason lies in the pure emotions of the previous political classification. We need to focus on the misunderstanding of the concept of quantity of the political party and move towards the concept of ethnicity and three-dimensional levels. Through the perspective of expanding the effectiveness of the political system and the extraction of ethnic elements, this article proposes the concept of “responsibility” as the standard for the classification of the new policy. By deriveing the “responsibility” elements from time axes and space axes, and implementing the concreteness of the elements in the political level, the standard of “responsible government” is derived, and China is used as an example to describe and restore it. At the end of the article, this article proposes two approaches to increase the responsibility of the government: one theory, multiple ways; one political party, multiple policies, for the academic community to judge and think. The current political classification affairs have excessive focus on the binary paradigm of “gold authority”. The “responsible regime” proposed in this article is a new political classification concept, which helps to determine the positioning of Chinese political under the new paradigm.
Keywords: politicians, responsible government, political classification, new angles, China
Author profile: Li Linjie, doctoral student at Sichuan International Studies University, Ja Lihao, cadet student at Sichuan International Studies University
1 A Brief Description of Political Classification
The discussion of political issues has begun in the works of Herodotus (around 430 BC/2005), a historian of the ancient Greek era. Ancient Greeks had many city-states and a single political category. Among the ancient Greek ancestors, Plato (missed/1986) used the number of people and the quality of rulers as the two standards for the political plan, and passed Aristotle (326 BC/大官网1965) Integration, by planning the government by dividing the number of rulings and the goal of rulings, the government is divided into six categories: monarchy, noble clan system, republican system, tyrant system, and leniency system. The first three types are also called authentic political institutions.The last three types are called changing regimes. Aristotle’s political plan division standard was also recognized by later thinkers, Polybius in the Oriental Classical Age (missed/2021), Cicero (51 BC/2006), Aquinas in the medieval period (missed/1963), Mendes’s Bird in the Imperial PeriodBaocai[Montesquieu] (1748/2012), Rousseau (1762/2003), etc., they all plan to divide administrative systems according to this standard, and divide several rulers into monarchy, noble family system, civil system, and various changes. This kind of plot division is called the three-part method.
At the time of Machiavelli, the traditional three-part method was gradually replaced by the dichotomy. More thinkingists divided the political plan into the monarchy and the republican government, especially after Bodin (1576/2003), many thinkingists regarded the number of people in power as one of the standards of the political plan. Starting from Locke (1689/2022), the legislative relationship of legislative power is regarded as the standard of the political plan, and the government is divided into monarchy, null and politicians based on the number of people who have legislative power. The fantasy or mixed political system that the thoughtists before the Mongolian era valued is important to plan the division based on the principle of morality, and divide the political system into a legitimate or an incorrect political system. For those who thought about the period after the invasion, the term “fantasy or mixed politics” has gradually disappeared to meaning, and the moral principle of the traditional political planning method has gradually shifted to the principle of unrestrainedness, namely “the problem of how to govern and the personal good principles of judging the superiority of the system of sanctions” (Liu Training, 2017, page 24). This is also the basis of political planning. The dichotomy of the monarchy and the republican government, but this is the dichotomy of the late modern era. With the exploration of the concepts of unrestrained, equal, and civilians, the connotation of the civilian government is very different from that of the classical era, and this government is gradually recognized as acceptable. The dichotomy of the civilian government and the non-civilian government has also become the mainstream of political classification discussions.
American scholar Huntington (1991/2013) believes that the first wave of civilian dominance began from the early 19th century to the early 20th century, and the world has experienced three waves of civilian dominance, and the government of civilian dominance has been protected by more and more countries. With each retreat of the tide of civil servants, the tide of civil servants will revive, that is, toward the back of civil servants and become a non-civilian servant. In Huntington’s works, in order to prevent the confusion of language, it is called a regime of authority. Huntington’s definition of the authority, which affects the understanding of authority in the broad academic community, and classifies political institutions as a dichotomy. At the same time, due to the confusion in the definition of authority or authority, the academic community has continuously set restrictive terms on authority, such as “the right to authority”, “the ultimate authority”, “the right to negotiate authority”, “the right to improper authority”, etc., the works of Guillermo O’Donnell (1973/2008), Juan Jose Linz (2000) and others. Since the 70th century, the academic community has entered the binary planning division of political corporations. In recent years, domestic and foreign scholars have never broken through the dichotomy of political classification theory. Even though they proposed that the new political classification should be carried out, the angle is still whether the political system can develop civilian corporations.
But the term “King” is overly ideological and morphological, including the value priority of “King” for “authority”, which leads to the problem of “King’s use of “King’s”; at the same time, its plan is standardized over emotion, and there is the problem of “King’s loss of truth”. First, “the genitals” as a historical form of consciousness, and in history, it has become a unique political correct approach that the authorities comply with the legal system. This leads to “the genitals’ use”. All modern society signs and discusses its own political situation with the “genitals’ dominance” and defines and judges the system of competing with society by “specialization” or “authority”. The “genitals-authority” dichotomy has been used and is used as a hand to implement real political goals. Secondly, the “gold-authority” approach is based on the emotionalization and has a single definition of ability. Any verbal power can rely on its own verbal logic. For the reason that “power comes from the people” in terms of its own political situation, the “gold-authority” dichotomy depends on the sound of verbal power at a very large level. In fact, the “gold-authority” dichotomy also falls to the fairness that the standard should have. Moreover, “the use of the ruling master” has an internal connection with “the loss of the ruling master”. It is precisely because of the “the loss of the ruling master” that the definition of the ruling government has a single definition ability, and the ruling master is a politically correct state that complies with the legal system, which has led to the “use” and “generalization” of the ruling master, which in turn has deepened the “reality” of the ruling government.
Ji From the political party to the common people: Get out of Guangbao.comThe misunderstanding of existing political categories
The existing mainstream political categories are standardized in the dichotomy of “authority-administer”, which is the one-and-dual division, and the influence of civility on the existence of political power and whether the continuous can have the most basic nature becomes the difference between the two. This is the basis for “common intention” as a response, value-desire possessed in the political organization’s organizational situation, and the elements of political planning and even evaluation are used to balance the elements. This actually forms a TC: