1, the connotation of democratization of decision-making. Democratization of administrative decision-making means that the subject of administrative decision-making keeps close contact with the public in the decision-making process, allowing the people to participate in the decision-making to the maximum extent, allowing the people to fully express their opinions and suggestions on various administrative decision-making schemes through various effective information channels, so as to realize the administrative behavior that the decision-making system conforms to the people's wishes, the decision-making objectives conform to the people's feelings, the decision-making method considers the people's power, the decision-making process respects the people's opinions, and the decision-making results conform to the people's hearts, thus finally realizing the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people.
In short, the so-called democratization of administrative decision-making refers to the administrative behavior of fully maintaining the participation of the broad masses of people in the process of administrative decision-making, striving to integrate decision-making into the people's power, and finally realizing the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of people.
2. The connotation of scientific decision-making. Scientific administrative decision-making or scientific decision-making refers to administrative decision-making under the guidance of scientific decision-making theory, in accordance with scientific decision-making procedures and by using scientific decision-making methods. Including scientific decision-making system, scientific decision-making procedure and scientific decision-making mode. The essential connotation of scientific administrative decision-making is that the decision-making content must conform to the inherent laws of economic and social development and the basic requirements of things development, which is conducive to the liberation and development of social productive forces and is recognized and supported by the people. It is a concept corresponding to the randomness, human factors and waste of decision-making. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a set of decision-making procedures, systems and methods to ensure the scientific nature of decision-making.
In short, the so-called scientific administrative decision-making refers to whether the correct attribute of decision-making can best fit the environment at that time. It emphasizes whether the decision-making takes into account not only the cost reduction, but also the interest distribution among stakeholders, or whether the relationship between all social strata is properly handled and the interest pattern of all parties is coordinated.
3. The contradiction and exclusion between them. Generally speaking, the democratic nature of administrative decision-making is incompatible with the scientific nature of administrative decision-making. On the contrary, the scientific nature of administrative decision-making is not completely compatible with its democracy, and there are contradictions and exclusions between them in administrative decision-making practice. Democratic decision-making emphasizes public opinion, while scientific decision-making emphasizes regularity. Sometimes, the democratization of administrative decision-making is at the cost of losing the scientific nature of decision-making, or the scientific nature of administrative decision-making is at the cost of losing the democratic nature of decision-making.
With the deepening of reform, the social structure and interest pattern are increasingly diversified, especially in the period of social transformation, with the acceleration of urbanization and industrialization, the government has issued an administrative decision, which involves not only people's livelihood issues, but also ecological issues and development issues. It is not only the distribution of interests between two stakeholders, but also the integration of interests among more stakeholders in a wider range. Not only economic issues, but also social and cultural issues. Therefore, in such an environment, higher requirements are put forward for the democracy and scientificity of decision-making. A little carelessness will bring huge costs and bad social impact, such as the PX incident in Xiamen. Therefore, scientific decision-making and democratic decision-making are more urgent in the new era.
In decision-making practice, there are many phenomena in government decision-making, such as hasty decision-making, arbitrary decision-making, economic orientation and performance orientation, and a large number of performance projects and image projects have appeared. To sum up, the scientific nature of decision-making and the democratic nature of decision-making are not unified, and public opinion and science are combined to make overall plans. Either a decision is biased towards science or a decision is biased towards democracy. In most cases, it tends to pay attention to the scientific nature of administrative decision-making and ignore the democratic nature of administrative decision-making. The introduction of administrative decision-making mainly adopts the way of expert consultation. Without considering the participation of people's power.
In fact, the scientificity and democracy of decision-making can be unified, and correct and appropriate decision-making can put science in democracy and build democracy on the basis of science. We should not only seek science in the process of democracy, but also pursue democracy on the basis of following the law. Such a decision-making model may be what we urgently need now. In this mode, public opinion can be fully reflected, the legitimacy of decision-making can be reflected, the quality of decision-making can be guaranteed, the cost of decision-making can be reduced, and the administrative efficiency and management level can be improved.
Two, democracy as the basis of decision-making, to ensure the legitimacy of administrative decision-making.
1, democratic decision-making should be people-oriented. Establishing people-oriented rational authority reflects real respect and awe for people, rather than taking people-oriented as a slogan. In government practice, the ultimate value of humanism is regarded as the highest and ultimate standard to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of all systems and norms and policies and measures. In administrative practice, Chongqing pays attention to the close relationship between the party and the masses, which illustrates this point well. We should treat all people as human beings, face up to and respect the differences in their needs, interests, hobbies, religious beliefs and levels of consciousness, and cannot adopt a single high standard to demand all people.
Follow Pareto optimality and Pareto improvement principle. Pareto Optimality
They are called Pareto efficiency, Pareto improvement and Pareto optimal distribution, which are important concepts in game theory and widely used in economics, engineering and social sciences. Pareto optimality refers to an ideal state of resource allocation, that is, assuming an inherent population and distributable resources, it is impossible to make some people's situation better without making anyone's situation worse. In other words, it is impossible to improve the situation of some people without hurting others. Pareto improvement is to improve the fairness and efficiency of society through continuous improvement, so that the development of society and things can reach the "ideal kingdom". In short, the beneficial thing or institutional arrangement agreed by all parties must be Pareto improvement. Specifically, the government should improve and increase people's welfare to the maximum extent.
2. Expand the ways of public participation in administrative decision-making. At present, the main way for China people to participate in administrative decision-making is to attend hearings. To a great extent, the hearing provided a good platform for people to participate in and discuss state affairs. However, there are many disadvantages in the current hearing system. For example, the selection procedures, standards and number of hearing representatives are opaque; Lack of information feedback system to listen to the opinions of representatives; Lack of standardized hearing procedures and asymmetric information in the hearing process; The record of the hearing is not binding on the administrative organ; Lack of relief for the right to hearing. It is precisely because there are many drawbacks in the hearing system that it cannot meet the needs of the people to participate in and discuss state affairs. Therefore, expanding the ways of administrative decision-making participation has become an urgent problem. We should actively develop and improve other ways of public participation with the establishment of a hearing system as the core, so that the public can have more choices. For example, develop and improve the system of reflecting social conditions and public opinions, the expert consultation system, and the publicity system of major issues.
3. The decision-making effect is evaluated by the public. The initiative of democracy is largely in the hands of the government composed of government officials. Therefore, government officials have the initiative to decide whether democracy is possible or not. If officials want to promote democracy, no matter how much money they spend, democracy can proceed smoothly. If officials have no democratic consciousness, zero-cost democracy cannot be put into practice. Therefore, the subjective consciousness of officials is the key to promote the democratization of decision-making. First of all, of course, it is necessary to help officials establish a correct concept of democracy.
First of all, let cadres truly understand that their power comes from the people, and the people, as the owners of power, of course have to participate in the exercise of power. Secondly, we should establish the public as the evaluation subject of decision-making. This must be created by the system, and publicity alone will not play much role. Chongqing has set a good example in this respect, such as "three systems", "three-dimensional assessment" [1] and "three systems" have narrowed the distance between cadres and the masses, and "three-dimensional assessment" has made the assessment of cadres real, and the government's political achievements are actually evaluated by ordinary people.
In the past, the effect of decision-making was evaluated by the superior leader, and the superior said that the decision had achieved good results, so you had the possibility of promotion. Such a decision-making evaluation mechanism makes officials especially cater to the wishes of superiors, regardless of the opinions of the masses. The people's evaluation of your political achievements has changed the subject and orientation of administrative decision-making evaluation, and your government can only get a good evaluation if it conforms to the interests of the people. The practice in Chongqing vividly illustrates this problem.
4. There should be public participation in the decision-making process. In the decision-making process, if you deviate from the original decision-making plan. It not only makes the decision-making fail to achieve the expected results, but also dampens the enthusiasm of the people to participate in the decision-making. Therefore, in the process of decision-making, there must be people's supervision in order to correct the deviation in decision-making in time. True democracy is not paying people to sit in empty houses and talk loudly, and then the staff will record the people's conversations. We should put what we have recorded into practice.
To realize the democratization of decision-making, we should start with changing ideas and perfecting the system. First, we should start with changing ideas, advocate democratic spirit, get rid of all kinds of old decision-making ideas that are not suitable for the new situation of reform, opening up and market economy development, and establish decision-making ideas that attach importance to mass participation, expert consultation, collective decision-making, decentralization of decision-making power, investigation and study, seeking truth from facts, and paying attention to decision-making tracking and evaluation. At the same time, create a democratic, equal and consultative public policy environment, form a situation in which everyone speaks freely, fully expresses their opinions and actively puts forward policy suggestions, and promote the optimal choice of various public policy programs. The second is to straighten out the relationship between the decision-makers in the decision-making subsystem. It is necessary to ensure the party's leadership over public policy work, and to ensure the decision-making power of the people's congress and the government, and give full play to its position and role as the main body of public policy. The third is to improve the public policy research institutions within the system, legally guarantee their due status, and give these research institutions relative independence, initiative and flexibility in their work, so that they can actively follow up public policy issues and actively make suggestions, rather than passively conduct policy research and argumentation, thus improving their authority. Fourth, vigorously develop non-institutional or non-governmental policy research organizations, so that they can fully participate in the whole process of public policy formulation and form a strong backing of decision makers.
Third, take science as the goal of decision-making and ensure the correctness of decision-making.
Scientific decision-making cannot be based on scientism. Scientism is a philosophical viewpoint, which advocates taking natural science and technology as the foundation of the whole philosophy and is convinced that it can solve all problems. Popular in the modern west, natural science is regarded as the standard of philosophy, and the methodology and research results of natural science are consciously or unconsciously inferred into social life. For example, American neo-realists ask philosophers to imitate scientists. American philosopher W Quinn said that epistemology is the application of biology to itself. Scientism is a derogatory term abroad, and it is a derogatory term for the view that natural science is regarded as the most valuable part of culture. However, some scientists in China hold that it is a good name.
Scientific decision-making should pay attention to the policy process and ensure the scientificity of decision-making methods and procedures, that is, interest expression-interest synthesis-policy formulation-policy implementation-evaluation and correction. Grasp the standard of scientific decision-making: effectiveness standard; Efficiency; Adequacy standard; Equity standard; Response standard; Appropriateness standard.
1, expert consultation is the guarantee to ensure the correct decision. The decision-making problems faced by modern society are quite different from those faced by traditional society. At present, with the acceleration of economic globalization and informatization, various new situations and problems emerge one after another, and various social relations and interest contradictions are very complex, and their relevance is increasing day by day, which will affect the whole body. In the new media era, the Internet and Weibo have greatly accelerated the speed of information dissemination, and the rapid changes in society and environment require public decision makers to respond in time. In this case, it is not enough to rely only on the knowledge and experience of a few management elites. We must rely on "think tanks", "think tanks" and other "external brains" to widely concentrate "people's wisdom" and pay attention to integrating the wisdom of experts and scholars in various departments and fields to ensure the correctness and scientificity of decision-making and reduce the risk of decision-making. Really and effectively solve the contradiction between effective decision-making ability and asymmetric responsibility. At the same time, expert consultation also embodies the democratization of decision-making. Although expert consultation embodies the elite decision-making model to a certain extent, the thinking angle of consulting institutions and consultants tends to be socialized and public. In addition, experts come from different scientific and professional fields, have diverse value orientations and embody different policy objectives, so they may have different decision-making schemes for the same public problem. The process of expert consultation is a process of brainstorming and democratic concentration. The decisions that the government needs to make involve all aspects of society, and it is difficult for government managers to strive for perfection in every field, which makes expert consultation necessary and necessary.
2. Give full play to the role of NGOs. NGO is a profession, such as teachers, lawyers, financiers and bankers, or it is organized for the same purpose, such as environment, peace and human rights. These organizations can basically reflect the interests of their groups. However, due to the universality and professionalism of such organizations, the government should actively encourage non-governmental organizations to participate in the administrative decision-making process. For example, if the government wants to launch an education policy, it should invite non-governmental organizations in this field to participate. These organizations not only cover valuable voices from the people, but also often bring scientific and reasonable opinions to government organizations because of their professionalism.
3. Collect as much information as possible. Complete information is a necessary condition for scientific decision-making. Any major decision is actually a process of information input, processing conversion and output, especially in the information age. The scientificity of decision-making is basically proportional to the authenticity and reliability of information. President Mao Zedong once said: No investigation, no right to speak. With the diversification of social interests, how many people may be involved in a decision? No one can say for sure. So the importance of information is even more important. Therefore, before making a decision, the government must collect enough information to understand the interests of all the objects. Then choose a satisfactory decision from various alternatives. Try to balance the interests of the objects. Specifically, the correct means and methods should be adopted in information collection; In the process of collection, avoid generalizations, ensure the integrity of information and prevent information distortion; Actively strive to do a good job before information collection; Data or information should be fully considered and analyzed, and information should be analyzed and processed from all comprehensive environmental fields of facts.
4. Establishing a scientific and reasonable decision-making accountability mechanism is the institutional guarantee to ensure scientific decision-making. A clear accountability mechanism for decision-making is a good system to restrain the arbitrariness of administrative decision-making. Without the decision-making accountability mechanism, "three-beat decision-making" will inevitably occur. Therefore, when constructing the imputation mechanism of decision-making, we should adhere to the principle of "who makes the decision, who is responsible" and truly achieve the unity of responsibility, power and benefit. For decision-making mistakes, the person responsible for the decision-making mistakes must be investigated. The necessary condition of decision-making accountability is that there must be a strict decision-making accountability system and a rigid system that makes decision-makers responsible for their own decisions, and this rigid system should penetrate into the law. Decision-makers should bear economic responsibility for economic losses and political responsibility for political damage. At the same time, the accountability of decision-making should not follow the principle of "no duplication of laws" and hold the decision-makers accountable indefinitely. If a major mistake is found in decision-making, no matter where the decision-maker is promoted or transferred, he should be held accountable. No decision-maker should take risks. More importantly, it is necessary to establish a corresponding compensation system for decision-making mistakes. A few simple reviews can never be done. Decision-making mistakes are not only a waste of national and collective financial and material resources, but also a loss of government image and credibility, which is of great responsibility.
In a word, the scientific and democratic nature of decision-making is the basic index to show the quality of decision-making, and the democratic and scientific nature of decision-making must be promoted simultaneously. To realize scientific decision-making, we should start with organizational design and decision-making procedures. First, realize scientific organizational design. It is necessary to accurately locate the functions of the government. The decision-making function and executive function of the government should be properly separated, and some executive functions should be undertaken by social and economic organizations and intermediary organizations. The government undertakes too many functions and tasks, which will inevitably affect the efficiency of policy decision-making. As a result, many social problems that should be solved by government policies cannot enter the government's policy agenda, resulting in policy blind spots. Therefore, the institutional reform of the central government should follow the principle of simplification, unification and high efficiency, reduce unnecessary intermediate links, and improve the sensitivity and accuracy of the government's response to social problems. It is necessary to redefine the power boundary between the central government and local governments, so that the policy-making tasks can be properly diverted. Second, promote scientific decision-making procedures. Improve and establish policy agenda procedures; Improve the procedure of policy planning; Improve the policy legalization procedure. Third, improve the scientific degree of decision-making. It is necessary to establish and improve the policy decision-making system, take the decision-making system as the core, and give full play to the role of information system, consulting system and supervision system. At the same time, we should optimize the quality of decision makers and executors.
Only by integrating the interests of the masses with the scientific spirit and taking scientific decision-making as the basis can we maximize the interests of the masses.
As guides, we can try our best to achieve the unity of democracy and science.
Quote from the network