【摘要】： 在世界各國政治制度由封建專制邁向近代憲政的過程中,執(zhí)掌國家公權力的官員也從凌駕在人民之上的官僚特權階層成為為社會提供公共服務的公務人員,從“官吏”到“公務員”的轉(zhuǎn)變不僅僅是一個詞匯的變化,也蘊含了近代憲政確立的人權法制理念,對官吏的考績不再是君主控制官吏的手段,而成為了人民對政府服務社會效果的評判。 近代以來,資產(chǎn)階級民主政治取代了封建專制,世界各國普遍以立憲的形式來保障公民的民主權利。然而“徒法不足以自行”,民主制度的運行公民權利的保障都需要國家機關行使管理社會的職能。國家機關作為組織是沒有行為能力的,只能依靠自然人來行使職權,這些從事社會公共事務管理的人員就是公務員。東西方各主要資本主義國家在從封建君主專制國家向近代化的憲政國家轉(zhuǎn)變過程中,各國的“官吏”也在從封建君主的私人仆從轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)閷倚е业墓珓諉T。憲法主導下的法治國家為了確保官僚集團服務人民,各國代議機關都用法律的強制性規(guī)定規(guī)范國家對公務員的管理,因此公務員的身份取得、職責范圍、權利保障和人員范圍都是由國家法律制度的直接規(guī)定而確定的。公務員的工作成績直接關系到公務員的職責履行狀況,它不單單是公務員職務升降、獲獎受罰的依據(jù),也直接反映了國家機關服務社會的能力與效果。因此,國家對其公務員的考績也就成為民主國家公務員法律制度的重要內(nèi)容。公務員考績法能夠起到對公務員的監(jiān)督與激勵的雙重作用,其主要內(nèi)容應該是以下三個方面組成,首先是設定公務員的工作業(yè)績目標,通過定期或不定期的考核來確定每個公務員的個人工作成績,最后根據(jù)成績來對公務員實施獎懲,以便達到提高國家機關工作能力的效果。 第二次工業(yè)革命極大地促進了生產(chǎn)力的發(fā)展和社會進步,世界各國都不約而同地選擇了官僚制來組織國家機關。根據(jù)馬克斯·韋伯的研究,官僚制下的公務員集團具有高度的專業(yè)化程度,內(nèi)部的控制方式是“上級命令——下級服從”方式,因此官僚制擁有極高的社會管理能力。上級通過對下級的考績評估下級的個人素質(zhì)與職務之間的關系,以此來決定公務員在等級官僚體系內(nèi)的地位,公務員的考績能夠強化上級對下級的控制力度,能夠提高公務員的專業(yè)性。因此,考績手段是官僚制常用的管理手段。 正是因為公務員的考績制度對于官僚制的運行如此重要,民主國家必須對公務員的考績制度立法規(guī)范,使官僚集團能夠為保障公民權利高效地服務。因此,公務員的考績規(guī)則必須法制化。一方面,近現(xiàn)代國家的官僚制不同于封建時代的官僚制,在一個民主法制化的憲政國家中,人民擁有主權,國家機關應該服務于該國社會,保障公民權利。組成國家機關的公務員是一個社會階層,他們在國家機關中形成的身份等級使得他們更加容易服從其長官的命令而不是人民的訴求。特別是二十世紀以來,工業(yè)文明的極大發(fā)展導致了社會結構的劇變,個人本位讓位于社會本位,國家權力中心從議會轉(zhuǎn)移到了政府,行政權的擴張加劇了官僚集團的失控傾向,服務于人民的“公仆”也是人,有可能為自己私欲而濫用職權。因此各民主國家紛紛采用頒布公務員考績法的方式控制官僚集團,使其在具有強大的社會管理功能的同時,也能受到人民的控制為人民服務。另一方面,公務員考績規(guī)則的法制化有利于官僚制的穩(wěn)定,韋伯認為,官僚制的統(tǒng)治意味著“沒有憎恨和激情,因此也沒有‘愛’和‘狂熱’,處于一般的義務概念的壓力下；‘不因人而異’,形式上對‘人人’都一樣”。①因此官僚制的內(nèi)部控制規(guī)則必須要以法律的形式出現(xiàn),保證不受到長官的情緒影響。因此二戰(zhàn)后,世界各國普遍采用了考績法制的方式控制官僚制,也維護官僚集團的穩(wěn)定性。 我國是一個專制主義中央集權制度統(tǒng)治了二千多年的國家,而封建君主專制統(tǒng)治的工具恰恰是官僚制。兩千年的政治實踐使得我國古代的官吏考績制度十分完備和發(fā)達,單就官吏考績的標準、程序和方法等技術性指標而言,我國古代的官吏考績與西方的近代公務員管理法制有許多相似之處。但是封建君主時代的官吏考績與近現(xiàn)代的公務員考績法制的根本區(qū)別在于國家主權的所有者發(fā)生了根本性變化。我國的政治法律制度的近代化肇始于二十世紀初的清末法制變革,對于我國這樣一個“后發(fā)外生型現(xiàn)代化國家”,上層建筑的民主化并不意味著人民主權原則的落實,雖然封建官吏改變了稱呼,被稱為“文官”或“公務員”,但是官僚集團只是獨裁領袖的附庸,考績法制也淪為獨裁領袖控制官僚集團奴役人民的工具。由于民族資產(chǎn)階級的弱小,代表帝國主義和封建大地主利益的袁世凱建立了北洋軍閥政府,辛亥革命后,資產(chǎn)階級建立民主政治的訴求仍然是鏡花水月。雖然如此,作為清末的改革者,袁世凱和后來的北洋政府領導人繼續(xù)了文官考績法制現(xiàn)代化的進程。北洋政府移植德日的文官考績法制取得了一定的成果,但是在法律制定上缺乏規(guī)劃,使文官考績制度既沒有統(tǒng)一的法制,也沒有統(tǒng)一的機關落實該法制,考績法多以臨時性的規(guī)范性文件出現(xiàn),雜亂無章。加之北洋政府自身就是按照湘軍淮軍宗法關系組織起來的軍閥政權,極為腐朽,在文官考績上更是任用私人,賣官鬻爵,考績法制被虛置,幾成具文。 北伐戰(zhàn)爭勝利后,南京國民政府按照孫中山先生的五權憲法理論建立了下轄五院的“萬能政府”。為了規(guī)范公務員行為,南京國民政府不但頒布了《公務員考績法》以及與之配套的大量法制文件,而且專設考試院行使公務員的考績權,落實考績法和其他公務員的管理法。這種理論設想本身就違背了官僚制的科層理論,上級主管不能對下級考績將會導致官僚集團的工作效率大打折扣。因此,五權憲法制度下的考績權從一開始就無法落實,不但在立法上考績法與基本法的權屬規(guī)定相抵觸,在權力運行上,銓敘部也是有職無權。更為糟糕的是,五權合一的萬能政府與國民黨的黨治理論相結合,導致了政府萬能而人民無權的結果,國民黨不但沒能領導人民走向三民主義的大道,反而成為了凌駕在人民頭上的三座大山,官僚集團完全脫離了服務人民的初衷,成為了人民的對立面。公務員考績法制也遭到了專制的一步步破壞,先是因為不切實際而喪失了權威性,后又成為蔣介石個人獨裁的障礙,被虛置了起來,我國近現(xiàn)代考績法制的第二次實施也失敗了。 新中國的公務員考績法制可上溯到十年內(nèi)戰(zhàn)時期,它隨著人民政權發(fā)展而逐漸完備。紅色根據(jù)地時期的干部考察辦法較為強調(diào)對干部的監(jiān)督,蘇維埃政府的組織部門對干部的考績還沒有與獎懲相結合�？箲�(zhàn)時期的特殊環(huán)境極大地完善了黨的干部管理制度,干部的考績制度也逐漸完備起來。建國后的干部考核工作由粗到細,逐漸條理化、經(jīng)�；�、制度化,與當時黨的工作重心政治建設相結合,干部考績側重政治素質(zhì)。改革開放后,干部考核逐漸正規(guī)化、法制化。以經(jīng)濟建設為中心的公務員考績體系,對于國計民生的改善起到了促進作用。2005年《公務員法》的頒布更加速了公務員考績制度法制化的進程。但是在公務員考績過程中,唯GDP數(shù)據(jù)的形式主義不利于我國的發(fā)展與穩(wěn)定,這要求我國在制定公務員考績相關法律制度的同時,要注重公務員績效目標的制定也要不斷地借鑒先進的考績法制理論,并加以實踐。針對當前我國考績法制的問題,我國應當強化人民民主參與,公務員考績的法定程序中應該包含民主制定公務員績效目標和民主參與考績過程,以法制保障公務員權利的同時,依法保障人民的民主權利,將人民當家作主與公務員的工作效率結合起來,這樣做不僅是建立服務型政府的時代要求,也是落實我國依法治國的憲法規(guī)定的必由之路。
[Abstract]:In the process of political system from feudal autocracy to modern constitutionalism in all countries of the world, officials in charge of state power also changed from bureaucratic privileged stratum above the people to civil servants who provided public services. The change from "official" to "civil servant" is not only a change of vocabulary, but also contains the modern constitution. The concept of human rights and legal system established by the government is no longer a means for the monarch to control the officials, but a way for the people to judge the effect of the government's service to the society.
Since modern times, bourgeois democratic politics has replaced feudal autocracy, and constitutions have been generally adopted to protect citizens'democratic rights all over the world. However, the practice of law is not enough for self-reliance. The protection of citizens' rights in the operation of democratic systems requires state organs to exercise the functions of managing society. In the process of transformation from feudal monarchy to modern constitutional state, the "officials" of various countries also changed from private servants of feudal monarchy to loyal government. In order to ensure that the bureaucratic group serves the people, the representative organs of all countries regulate the management of civil servants with the mandatory provisions of the law. Therefore, the identity acquisition, the scope of duties, the protection of rights and the scope of personnel of civil servants are determined by the direct provisions of the national legal system. Achievements have a direct bearing on the performance of civil servants'duties. It is not only the basis for the rise and fall of civil servants' posts, but also the basis for awards and punishments. It directly reflects the ability and effect of state organs to serve society. Therefore, the state's performance appraisal of civil servants has become an important part of the legal system of civil servants in democratic countries. To the dual role of supervision and incentive to civil servants, its main content should be composed of the following three aspects: first, set the performance objectives of civil servants, through regular or irregular assessment to determine the individual performance of each civil servant, and finally according to the results of the civil servants to implement rewards and punishments, in order to improve the state organs The effect of working ability.
The Second Industrial Revolution greatly promoted the development of productive forces and social progress, and all countries in the world chose bureaucracy to organize state organs by coincidence. The superior determines the position of the civil servant in the hierarchical bureaucracy by evaluating the relationship between the personal qualities of the subordinates and their positions. The performance of the civil servant can strengthen the control of the superior over the subordinates and improve the professionalism of the civil servant. Performance appraisal is a common management tool in bureaucracy.
It is precisely because the performance appraisal system of civil servants is so important for the functioning of bureaucracy that democratic countries must legislate and standardize the performance appraisal system of civil servants so as to enable bureaucratic groups to effectively serve the protection of civil rights. Therefore, the performance appraisal rules of civil servants must be legalized. Bureaucracy, in a democratic and legalized constitutional state, the people have sovereignty, and the state organs should serve the society and safeguard the rights of citizens. Especially since the 20th century, the great development of industrial civilization has led to drastic changes in the social structure. The individual standard has given way to the social standard. The center of state power has shifted from parliament to the government. The expansion of administrative power has aggravated the runaway tendency of bureaucratic groups. The "public servant" serving the people is also a human being, and may be abused for his own selfish desires. Authority. Therefore, democratic countries have adopted the promulgation of civil service performance appraisal law to control bureaucratic groups, so that it has a strong social management function, but also can be controlled by the people to serve the people. With "no hatred and passion, and therefore no love and fanaticism," under the pressure of the general concept of obligation; "no one is different" and "everyone is the same in form." (1) Therefore, the internal control rules of bureaucracy must be in the form of law to ensure that they are not influenced by the emotions of the senior officials. Countries generally adopt the performance appraisal system to control bureaucracy and maintain the stability of bureaucratic groups.
China is a country ruled by autocratic centralization system for more than 2000 years, and the tool of feudal autocratic monarchy is just bureaucracy. Two thousand years of political practice made the ancient official performance appraisal system of our country very complete and developed. There are many similarities between the official performance appraisal system and the modern civil service management system in the West. But the fundamental difference between the official performance appraisal system in the feudal monarchy era and the modern civil service performance appraisal system lies in the fundamental change of the owner of the state sovereignty. The democratization of superstructure does not mean the implementation of the principle of people's sovereignty in such a "late-developing and exogenous modernized country". Although the feudal officials changed their appellations and were called "civil servants" or "civil servants", the bureaucratic group was only a vassal of the dictatorial leader, and the performance appraisal system was reduced to the control of the bureaucrat by the dictatorial leader. Because of the weakness of the national bourgeoisie, Yuan Shikai, who represented the interests of imperialism and feudal landlords, established the Northern Warlord Government. After the Revolution of 1911, the bourgeoisie's demand for democratic politics was still a mirror in the mirror. However, as a reformer in the late Qing Dynasty, Yuan Shikai and the later Northern Warlord Government led him. Beiyang government transplanted the civil service performance appraisal system of Germany and Japan and made some achievements, but it lacked planning in the legal formulation, which made the civil service performance appraisal system neither unified legal system nor unified organs to implement the legal system. The performance appraisal method appeared mostly in temporary normative documents and was in disorder. In addition, the Beiyang government itself is a warlord regime organized in accordance with the patriarchal clan system of the Hunan Army and the Huaihe Army. It is extremely decadent. It appoints private officers and sells official titles. The performance appraisal system is virtually empty and written.
After the victory of the Northern Expedition, the Nanjing National Government established the "omnipotent government" under the five courts under the jurisdiction of Dr. Sun Yat-sen according to the theory of the Five-Power Constitution. In order to regulate the behavior of civil servants, the Nanjing National Government not only promulgated the "Civil Servant Performance Appraisal Law" and a large number of supporting legal documents, but also set up an examination center to exercise the civil servants'right of performance appraisal. Actual Performance Appraisal Law and other civil servant management laws. This theoretical assumption itself violates the bureaucratic hierarchical theory, and the superior supervisor's failure to evaluate the performance of the subordinate will lead to a great reduction in the efficiency of the bureaucratic group. Therefore, the performance appraisal right under the Five-Power Constitution system can not be implemented from the beginning, not only in the legislative performance appraisal law and the basic law. What is worse, the combination of the omnipotent government with the Kuomintang's theory of Party governance leads to the result that the government is omnipotent and the people are powerless. The Kuomintang has not led the people to the Three People's Principles, but has become overwhelming over the people. In the three mountains, the bureaucratic group completely broke away from the original intention of serving the people and became the opposite of the people. Shi failed.
The performance appraisal system of civil servants in New China can be traced back to the ten years of civil war, which gradually became complete with the development of the people's regime. The methods of cadre inspection in the Red Base Area emphasized the supervision of cadres, and the appraisal of cadres by the organizational departments of the Soviet government had not been combined with rewards and punishments. After the founding of the People's Republic of China, the work of cadre assessment has been gradually ordered, regularized and institutionalized from coarse to fine, combining with the political construction of the Party's focus of work at that time, and emphasizing on political quality. The promulgation of the Civil Servant Law in 2005 accelerated the legalization of the civil service performance appraisal system. However, in the process of civil service performance appraisal, the formalism of GDP data is not conducive to the development and stability of China, which requires China to formulate the civil service performance appraisal system. At the same time, we should pay attention to the formulation of the performance objectives of civil servants and draw lessons from the advanced theory of the performance appraisal legal system and put it into practice. It is not only the requirement of the times to establish a service-oriented government, but also the only way to implement the constitutional provisions of governing the country according to law.
【學位授予單位】：武漢大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D630.3

【引證文獻】

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 于善珍;程序正義視野下的偵查訊問程序[D];湖南師范大學;2012年

，

本文編號：2239781