日本不卡一二三区2022,91精品福利一区二区三区,d2天堂无限次观看网址

失衡的制約與勢(shì)成水火的朝野：尹錫悅之后的總統(tǒng)也并不安全

中國(guó)貿(mào)易新聞網(wǎng) 李易峰 2025-10-31 05:20:09

A+ A-

全家喝五指毛桃雞湯中毒2人進(jìn)ICU 甲亢哥被三折疊手機(jī)驚艷：這是電腦 In his address at a central conference in October 2021, Chinese President Xi Jinping mentioned and elaborated on what he terms China’s “whole-process people’s democracy”.To the untrained eye, juxtaposing democracy and communism in relation to China may seem like an anachronism. After all, “democracy” is largely associated with Western countries where people, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, choose their leaders, decide on policies and programmes.The experience and practice of China since the 1978 opening up and reform period, turns this understanding on its head and exposes its evident structural shortcomings.Chinese democracy is markedly different from that of Western countries. Addressing the ceremony celebrating the CPC centenary, President Xi said, “On the journey ahead, we must rely closely on the people to create history. Upholding the Party's fundamental purpose of wholeheartedly serving the people, we will stand firmly with the people, implement the Party's mass line, respect the people's creativity, and practice a people-centered philosophy of development. We will develop whole-process people's democracy, safeguard social fairness and justice, and resolve the imbalances and inadequacies in development and the most pressing difficulties and problems that are of great concern to the people. In doing so, we will make more notable and substantive progress toward achieving well-rounded human development and common prosperity for all.”What does this mean and how has it been applied and monitored regularly in the People’s Republic of China? How is its relevance most fitting given China’s rather unique history, demography, political and economic landscape?Which lessons can be learned for South Africa as it battles to make its constitutional democracy deliver for the majority of its people, as the PRC has achieved in unparalleled quantities, in terms of the human development index (HDI) and UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?Above all, whole-process people’s democracy is associated with good governance, that is, if good governance is associated with effective and efficient service delivery of common goods. Judged on this alone, the CPC has achieved this rare feat of delivering for its various citizens and diverse communities in basic and advanced education, health care, infrastructure, employment, and safety.On this front alone, the PRC is uncompromising that public leaders must serve and prioritise national interests above selfish individual rights. The very function of Chinese state institutions is to be accountable and responsive, at all levels, to the citizens’ needs and concerns. Failure to do so is not tolerated, and there is simply no impunity for lack of effective service delivery or the perpetration of corruption and maladministration.Let us recall that the word “governance”, using a definition from the 2015 World Public Service Report, “refers to steering”.Steering, for example a ship, is not only a matter of keeping the ship afloat and in a forward, backward or sideways motion, most importantly, “it strongly demands knowledge of the direction and ensuring that the ship is constantly on course in that direction”.This is not surprising since for the CPC, most prominently since 1978 and in the current trajectory under President Xi, the connection between political development, economic reform and social stability has been prized above anything else.This has enabled the CPC to select, not holus-bolus, from other countries and their systems what works for the PRC. This selection has been cognisant of the objective material conditions in China.Hence the role of the market economy was not left to its own devices, of pure profit-seeking, but required state facilitation to balance the wealth and income inequalities it inevitably produces.This is a reason it is now commonplace to speak of China’s socialism with Chinese characteristics. The same is true when it comes to democracy. It has been reconfigured to respond directly to, and be applicable to, the relatively exceptional structural circumstances of China.Unlike in other countries where the will of the people matters during electoral periods, in China the people’s interests reign supreme throughout the terms of office of public officials, from the county to president levels of administrations.Whole-process people’s democracy is supposed to serve common interests and deliver tangible societal benefits that have, for example, enabled China to surpass, in 2019, the US as the number one source of international patent applications that were filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization.Whole-process people’s democracy has enabled the PRC to build the world’s largest social security system and a basic medical insurance coverage which reaches more than 95 percent of the country’s population. This is in addition to the popularly known unprecedented accomplishment of lifting 770 million Chinese citizens from absolute poverty.In the process, the CPC has reached, ahead by 10 years, the SDG Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere.As the world battles through the Covid-19 pandemic, the PRC has shown the way with its whole-process people’s democracy just how the pandemic, in all its variants, can be handled, how to maintain economic growth, and still deliver to most citizens basic socio-economic rights. As such, Chinese democracy deserves acknowledgement for delivering on good governance that advances basic service delivery.It is not a coincidence President Xi states simply that “democracy is not an ornament to be used for decoration; it is to be used to solve the problems people want to solve”.We would do well to all remember that, between 2016 and 2020, the CPC created an estimated 60 million decent jobs, which is an obvious sign of Chinese democracy in action to link the attainment of socio-economic rights to the delivery of social cohesion and nation-formation.The declaration by President Xi of China being a moderately prosperous society in all respects is related to the practice of whole-process people’s democracy.Quite obviously, when a government is dominated by a few interest groups and mainly advances the well-being of a few and in the process the majority is excluded from benefiting from the fruits of democracy, it is an example of bad governance.This was the conclusion of a 2014 groundbreaking study by American social scientists, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, that in the US it can be reasonably concluded that “economic elites and organised groups representing business interests’ impact on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence”.Using a South African terminology and recent experience, is this not an example of sophisticated “state capture”? From this study is it not fair to conclude that the US is more of an oligarchy than a democracy?What are the lessons, for South Africa, that can be gleaned from China’s whole-process people’s democracy? Firstly, an executive and bureaucracy are defining features towards making democracy meaningful and having a societal impact.When leaders simply focus on policy proclamation without emphasising implementation and even more implementation, as Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew and Rwanda under Paul Kagame have achieved, this places a risk on the sustainability of the democratic project and nation-formation programmes.Secondly, the prosecution of those found to be implicated in acts of corruption and maladministration, by relevant law enforcement agencies, should be non-negotiable.Thirdly, political systems should be fitting for the material conditions of a country. It does not benefit anyone to proclaim proudly that our constitutional democracy is the most “progressive” in the world when the basic needs of people are not met.Lack of effective service delivery is the reason there are record-high incidents of service delivery protests in our country.There is a Chinese truism that says: “A man of wisdom adapts to changes; a man of knowledge acts by circumstances”. 編輯：高佳? 編輯：胡蛫? 從0到24點(diǎn)，從日升到月落冰鑒這是屬于“雞人”的一天。有人踏實(shí)地，勤懇實(shí)干密山“中國(guó)橋梁”揚(yáng)鸚鵡世；有人伴著月風(fēng)伯，從創(chuàng)新，守住千年技藝…在普普通通的24小時(shí)里，他們用平凡咸鳥動(dòng)的故事，講述吉光寶人的奮斗生活般“埋地下的是青銅器，留地上的是臊子面”。天，讓我們一同穿越史氤氳、走過(guò)大街小，俯瞰寶雞十年蝶欽原力量。編輯：張求山央視網(wǎng)消息：損是糧食增收重要環(huán)節(jié)，各不斷提升科技糧方式，實(shí)現(xiàn)食減損農(nóng)民增?？偱_(tái)央視記?蔣樹林：在南南陽(yáng)的一家食產(chǎn)業(yè)園，矗著48棟大型儲(chǔ)糧倉(cāng)。現(xiàn)在是冬臘月，但是食在這里住進(jìn)“空調(diào)房”，以實(shí)現(xiàn)常年20攝氏度的恒溫存。另外，在個(gè)占地700多畝的糧食產(chǎn)業(yè)，糧食的原糧儲(chǔ)、加工車間最后的成品實(shí)了全貫通，最限度地減少了糧在轉(zhuǎn)運(yùn)過(guò)程的浪費(fèi)。在這現(xiàn)代化的卸糧內(nèi)，卸載30噸重的小麥僅需15分鐘。入庫(kù)的小麥在智能倉(cāng)儲(chǔ)物流區(qū)中速地運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)著，過(guò)中央廚房和選系統(tǒng)的嚴(yán)格制，在糧倉(cāng)之進(jìn)行合適的調(diào)。即便不進(jìn)入倉(cāng)，每一粒小都能實(shí)現(xiàn)質(zhì)量控。在河北衡，當(dāng)?shù)馗慕ǖ?、綠色儲(chǔ)糧倉(cāng)，用現(xiàn)代化手減少儲(chǔ)糧損耗國(guó)家糧食和物儲(chǔ)備局有關(guān)負(fù)人表示，將充發(fā)揮全國(guó)5500多家糧食產(chǎn)后服務(wù)中心作用助農(nóng)產(chǎn)后減損收。同時(shí)通過(guò)導(dǎo)農(nóng)戶科學(xué)儲(chǔ)，推廣適宜農(nóng)新型經(jīng)營(yíng)主體要的儲(chǔ)糧裝具方式，最大限減少庭院儲(chǔ)糧失。編輯：張? 經(jīng)歷了4天的亂局和15輪投票后塵埃落定共和黨人卡錫終于上了美國(guó)會(huì)眾議院任議長(zhǎng)。最初的幾投票中一得票比一更少，到后艱難勝，美國(guó)媒發(fā)現(xiàn)，這張張的選，其實(shí)是卡錫通過(guò)力交換“”來(lái)的。樣通過(guò)內(nèi)交易、向內(nèi)強(qiáng)硬派協(xié)換來(lái)的位，將會(huì)一步撕裂國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)及國(guó)社會(huì)，美國(guó)政治度弊端暴無(wú)遺。當(dāng)時(shí)間9日，美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)議院以220票對(duì)213票通過(guò)了一套指導(dǎo)來(lái)兩年運(yùn)的內(nèi)部規(guī)。這套內(nèi)規(guī)則，包允許任何名議員在何時(shí)候提罷免議長(zhǎng)動(dòng)議、限聯(lián)邦開支算等等。些內(nèi)容，是麥卡錫前為了當(dāng)議長(zhǎng)而向對(duì)他的黨極端保守議員承諾一部分內(nèi)。美國(guó)有電視新聞記者?瑟蒂：麥卡作出了許重大的讓，有些是序上的，對(duì)于（具極端保守向的）“由連線”團(tuán)成員非重要。這讓步迫使卡錫給了們更多權(quán)，他把門從五個(gè)人低到一個(gè)，只需要名議員就以提出罷議長(zhǎng)，他前曾經(jīng)說(shuō)他絕對(duì)不能同意這點(diǎn)。除了面提到的麥卡錫還極端保守議員承諾同意尋求幅削減政開支、從年10月開始在10年內(nèi)實(shí)現(xiàn)聯(lián)預(yù)算平衡以及不干未來(lái)的共黨初選等另外，麥錫還同意些保守派員進(jìn)入眾院的關(guān)鍵員會(huì)，并承諾將他的立法要列入表決程。美國(guó)默里大學(xué)治學(xué)教?吉萊斯皮如果沒(méi)有自由連線黨團(tuán)成員量進(jìn)入關(guān)委員會(huì)并任領(lǐng)導(dǎo)職，那才會(huì)人驚訝呢這些都是卡錫為了選而承諾。權(quán)力換票。只是麥卡錫作一名身居職的政客他交換出利益無(wú)疑切實(shí)地影到美國(guó)民。有美國(guó)體在一篇為《眾議議長(zhǎng)凱?麥卡錫的步會(huì)讓美付出怎樣代價(jià)》的章中說(shuō)，國(guó)可能會(huì)麥卡錫獲并保住他議長(zhǎng)職位出高昂代。參議院數(shù)黨領(lǐng)袖民主黨人默警告說(shuō)這些利益換未來(lái)將致聯(lián)邦政停擺或債違約，給國(guó)帶來(lái)破性后果。紐約時(shí)報(bào)文章說(shuō)，場(chǎng)政治紛表明，美國(guó)會(huì)未來(lái)年可能反陷入混亂美國(guó)埃默大學(xué)政治教授?吉斯皮：我為什么都會(huì)改變，反映了一非常分裂政治環(huán)境一個(gè)非常裂的社會(huì) 編輯：張?