作者：     2016-12-28

昨晚读了韦森教授发表在中国选举与治理网和共识网的《中国首先需要预算民主》一文，很受启发，也想说几句。

韦森教授说，“读到这里，我想起今年春节前夕，邓正来教授搞学术统战宴请各路诸侯时，我正好有幸与韦森教授比邻而坐。记得当时他确实是不失时机地向我宣讲过他的“预算民主优先论”。我对韦教授的论点印象深刻，如果没记错的话，我当时也对其论点有所质疑，但总的看来交换意见很不够。

今有机会仔细拜读韦森教授的大作，深为他关于我国公共财政、经济增长方式和改革方略等方面的思想所折服。对于时下热炒的“三公”问题，他的看法一针见血：“‘三公经费’只是这个大的财政体制和政府运作体制问题的一个小问题而已，只是整个问题的一个方面而已”；“哪一个政府又能像中国政府这样大手大脚地花钱的？看看各级和各地的一幢幢漂亮的政府行政大楼，就知道我们的政府是怎样用钱和怎样花钱的了。‘三公’消费，只不过是这其中的‘小菜一碟’”。他在这方面的结论是：“这些年来税收高速增长，大量的税收被庞大的行政机构花掉了。对于经济增长方式和国富与民富的关系，韦教授解析得特别精辟： “我们目前的这种经济增长方式，是与现行的政治体制尤其是政府的财政体制连在一块的。这种政府体制下，就只能有这种经济增长方式”，要它转变无异于要老虎不吃肉，“这可能么？” “‘国进民退’，不是指国企的个数在增加，而主要表现为政府和国有部门掌握的资源越来越多”；“国富，必然结果是与权力有关的人富，而大多数人‘穷’”。我尤其敬服韦森教授关于经济增长方式与政治体制改革必须协调发展的论述：“中国的经济增长方式必须转型，而与这个增长模式连在一起的政治和社会体制也必须转型。不转型，中国就要出问题”；“中国改革的历史经验告诉我们，要不断地解放思想，不断进行广泛的理论讨论，不断地突破一些理论禁区，并在实践中不断地进行实验，不断地推进，才能一步步渐进性地改。”

但是，我注意到，尽管韦森教授的大作有很多精彩的地方，但其全文欲证明的，却是很可能并不符合实际的“中国首先需要预算民主”这个命题。如果仅仅相对于解决“三公消费”失控的问题，说中国首先需要预算民主，那无疑是符合实际的看法。但韦教授显然超出了这个范围，是在整个政治与经济的关系或政治体制的范围内谈论这个问题的，更具体地说，他文章标题中的“首先”，主要是针对选举民主而言的，意思是在政治体制改革方面，我们首先需要解决的是与经济生活密切相关的预算民主问题，其次才是选举民主和其他民主内容。这个命题可能难以成立。

在这个问题上，我的观点与韦教授正好相反，为方便言说，我这里不妨将自己的观点称为“选举民主优先论”。“选举民主优先论”的内容是：不论在中国还是外国，不论是过去、现在还是可预见的将来，有选举民主才有预算民主，没有选举民主谈不上预算民主，因此，当代中国首先需要的是选举民主。下面我简要陈述一下据以支持这个观点的理由以及我对相关问题的一些看法，供韦教授和读者朋友参考。

（一）历史上没有任何国家是先有预算民主后有选举民主，都是先有利益相关方推举或选举产生的代议士，再由他们审议、控制税收和预算。在英国，从13世纪的《自由大宪章》、《无承诺不课税法》到17世纪的《权利请愿书》和《权利法案》的宪法发展史，就是一部贵族先自己与国王商谈课税问题，后由贵族和其他较富有阶层选举的议员代表他们与国王就课税、预算讨价还价的历史。在出现议会后，议员都是由被代表者推选或选举的，不是国王委派指定或变相委派指定的。只要注意到这一点就够了，因为它已经表明那里是先有选举民主后有预算民主。

在美国，为获得预算民主先争取选举民主，有了选举民主才有预算民主的情形更加清楚明白。独立战争前北美殖民地居民的口号是“无代表不纳税”，这实际上是一个争取选举民主等政治权利的口号，其所针对的就是当时北美殖民地在英国议会没代表，却要按英国议会制定的《印花税法案》等法律纳税的预算不民主现象。历史上的美国，在没有获得选举民主前，从来没有预算民主的事实。只是在独立战争胜利，美国实行了所谓选举民主之后，才出现预算民主的事实。

在法国历史上，在1789年革命发生前，国王就已经承认课税、预算控制权在等级会议的代表手里。引起法国革命的等级会议，就是路易十六为了筹集经费、希望等级会议批准财政预算而召开的。在当时，掌握预算权的等级会议的代表就是民主选举的，虽然这个民主与革命后作为国家宪法制度的民主有这样那样的差别。关于当年法国1000名第三等级的等级会议代表和另外1000名第一、第二等级的等级会议代表的选举的筹备和进行情况，关于当时“各方面都在进行活动，使自己的人充当代表和照自己的意向草拟陈情书”的情况，商务印书馆翻译出版的《法国革命史》一书的导论部分有比较详细的记载，这本书是法国学者米涅所著。

更多国家的历史情况我想就不用继续列举了。

（二）如果回避或不能在一定程度上解决好人大代表的民主选举问题，谈论实行预算民主就只能是空话或违背政治逻辑的良好愿望。现代民族国家不同于城邦国家，就民主的形式而言，在当今和可以预见的将来，都跳脱不出代议民主的大框架，尤其是像中国这样的大国。可以说，当今世界的民主，从总体上和根本上看就是代议民主，其它一切所谓“民主”，包括预算民主、直接民主等等，都要么是代议民主的表现形式、要么是其搞成环节，要么是其附属或补充形式，甚至只是不过是其比附性说法，如所谓“协商民主”。而代议民主首先要解决的就是代议员士即国民代表机关代表的选举问题。代议制度的核心问题和全部功能，都取决于谁有代表（议员）选举权和被选举权、按什么原则、规则和程序进行选举。预算民主只是代议民主的一部分，就像“三公开支”是预算民主的一部分一样。更确切地说，预算民主只是某些种选举民主运用的结果或后果。

所以，在我国，没有相称的人大代表选举制度，就不会有什么预算民主。而且，尽管有了人大代表普选制度，如果其机制不健全、内容不真实，选出的代表没有真正的代表性，也不会形成预算民主。选举民主与预算民主之间，具有政治上行为与后果关系的性质。在不甚严谨的、特定的意义上说，我们可以把选举民主与预算民主两者的关系比拟为自然界中花与果的关系。选举民主之花不开，就不会有预算民主之果。不过，果实虽然都是开化的结果，也没有真正的无花果，但却并不是所有的花朵都是能结果的。众多选举民主的鲜花中只要一部分能开出预算民主之果。有些选举民主之花非常漂亮热烈，伴有彩旗、锣鼓、掌声和演讲，但完全开不出民主之果，其中包括预算民主之果。如果开了选举民主之花，却结不出预算民主之果，那说明前者不正常、有毛病。对于它们，除非大家都满足于只在花季欣赏一下，满足于养养眼，不要结果之实惠，否则就应该放弃它们，或对它们进行改良、改革。

代议机关代表是代议制民主的细胞和主体，没有积极能动和有代表行动的人大代表群体，所谓预算民主不过是无源之水或无本之木。离开对代表选举环节的改革去争取预算民主的任何尝试，都不可能取得实质性成效。在世界范围内似乎也没有在相同情况下建设预算民主取得实质性成效的先例。

（三）韦教授在其论域内列举的我国有待解决的根本问题，与预算民主本身的问题一样，都是我国选举制度直接性、竞争性等因素严重缺乏造成的，只有通过改革选举制度才有可能解决。韦教授说，“在西方的民主制度下，在野党就看着你做什么事情，处处找茬，在这种情况下，政府官员要腐败，也比较难，且每一项大的预算花费支出通常都要经过议会争辩和投票通过，所以没必要像我们一样要专门公开‘三公经费’。中国没有预算民主制度，无人、无法从财政体制上监督和制约政府的花费和支出，便出现了今天的政府部门‘三公’消费问题”。这里，韦教授清楚地说明了我国没有预算民主是结果而不是病因，病因在选举制度。韦教授还说：“一个利用自己掌握的几乎不受实质性制约的权力和巨大的资源进行层层寻租的体制正在形成，而且不断在自我强化，……正是目前中国种种经济与社会问题的核心和关键之所在。我们要用多少年和多少代，才能使这个几乎不受任何制约的巨大行政‘利维坦’变成一个现代政治意义上的‘有限政府’，一个行政和资源配置权力受实质性制约和制衡的现代政体？这是我们的政治体制改革和社会转型要最终回答和解决的根本性问题。”我觉得韦教授这种看法很有道理。在提出问题后，他自己开出了解决问题的药方：要“从预算民主上限制政府的征税权，那么政府的预算就要有个机构来审议，来制衡。做这个事情的，在当今中国应该是且只能是人大。所以，目前的问题是先要‘做实人大’，加强人大的功能。人大代表不能像某些人那样只会投赞成票，只会举手赞成政府的任何议案和提案。”我们看到了，其实韦教授自己已经看到，归根结底是各级人大代表位子是谁给的、是上边变相计划性安排的还是自己在选举中竞争到的。政治生活的逻辑和无数的事实已经摆在那里，选举制度不改革，怎么可能解决人大代表对政府提出的财政预算案“只会投赞成票，只会举手赞成”之类的问题呢！

不客气地说，韦教授对选举民主与预算民主相互关系的看法，本身是有些矛盾的，他自己也流露出对“中国首先需要预算民主”命题信心不足。韦教授在文章快收尾的时候终于承认：“真正运作的预算民主，最后当然还离不开民主选举。没有纳税人真正选举出来的代表，他怎么会为纳税人真正谋利？又怎会真正代表纳税人的利益？”“没有民主选出来的代表，最终还是无法实现民主预算的。”这就对了！看来，韦教授此前谈的都不是“真正运作的预算民主”,待到他在“真正”的意义上谈这个问题时，终于从根本否定了自己“中国首先需要预算民主”的论点，并承认没有选举民主，预算民主“最终”搞不成。

（四）代表或议员选举制度是代议民主建设中传统的基本的话题，对于没有解决好选举民主问题的国家，这个话题永远不会过时、永远是新内容。从根本上和整体上看，代表或议员选举是当代一切民主制度的基础，没有解决好这个问题，民主范筹内的其它所有问题都不可能真正解决。国外有些华人学者，站在早已基本解决了选举民主化问题的那些西方国家的立场，戏谑地把选举称为“选主”，这没有什么奇怪，他们并没有站在中国公民的立场说话，不必较真。但身在中国的学者不能采取那种态度。因为，从发展的观点看，选举问题可分为前现代的、现代的和后现代的。那些解决了选举现代化问题的国家的学者，可以甚至理所当然地要否定“现代”而崇尚、追求后现代的情调和风格，比如说，可以把现代主流的选举民主涂抹得滑稽、丑陋无比。对于他们来说，根本不需要知道什么是好，关键是他们要说出自己感觉到的不好，甚至某天忽然崇拜起个人极权专制也是可以理解的，因为他们在那种环境里生活得太久，厌倦了。今天生活在中国、作为中国公民的学者也有权利学西方后现代的风格，但基于道义和职业责任，我反对那样做。因为我国或我们社会在选举制度上还处在前现代，我们需要的是现代而不是批评现代的后现代。在中国的今天，否定现代、崇尚后现代的一切言论，其实际作用只会有利于把中国的状况保持在前现代。

韦教授还有个“预算民主核心说”，此说对于解决好了选举民主问题的西方国家来说，可能是适用的，但对于中国来说，很有些脱离实际情况，恐难以站得住脚。韦教授反复强调：“现代民主政治的核心和根本问题是预算民主”；“预算民主是现代民主的核心”。但韦教授似乎忘了，中国的人大代表选举制度还处在“前现代”，我们怎么好老是对读者谈“现代”的预算民主呢？他似乎没有想想，如果像中国这样，没有“现代”意义上的各级人大代表，我们让谁去推动和实施“现代”的预算民主！让西方议会的“现代”议员来推动和实施中国的预算民主吗？那显然不现实。

另外，学术研究讲究创新和超越，但政治法律生活要着眼于本国具体情况和实际需要。政治法律制度建设可以吸取前人经验教训和采取与前人不同的具体形式，但从根本上看后来者相对于前人没有多少创新和超越的空间。

（五）在中国，通向预算民主的最短路径是穿越选举民主这个关隘，没有任何比这更便捷的其它路径。韦教授说，“如果我们未来的政治体制改革没有一个明确的宪政目标，而仅仅是把我们未来的政治民主化进程想象为只是在形式上采取一些西方国家通行的‘普选制’，这将非但不能保持我们国家的社会安定和经济的长期增长，还有可能出现像‘文革’那样的‘大鸣大放’式的‘大民主’，甚至会出现多数人的‘民主暴力’或‘暴政’”。普选制没有那么可怕，我国现行选举法规定的人大代表选举制就是普选制的一种形式，我估计韦教授指的是普遍、直接和竞争性的选举制（以下简称竞争性普选制）。其实，竞争性普选制也没有那么可怕，越南也是社会主义国家，他们已经实行了竞争性普选制，我看也没发生什么地震。另外，世界上实行竞争性普选制的国家多的是，而且越来越多，那些国家的社会都很稳定或比较稳定嘛。不知何以韦教授一说到普选制就将其与“文革”、“大鸣大放”、“大民主”、“民主暴力”和“暴政”联系起来？或许这样说有些言过其实了。韦教授渴求预算民主的状态，而又看都不敢看一眼通向预算民主的唯一道路，他的谨慎未免也太过头了一点。在这里，韦教授“有一个明确的宪政目标”，即推进预算民主，但他自己又封死了通向这个“宪政目标”的唯一通道，很可惜。

市场经济本身是竞争的，实行竞争性选举是社会主义市场经济体制下经济生活原则运用到政治法律生活的必然要求，从中长远观点看，谁也阻止不了。但是，以竞争性选举制为取向进行政治体制改革决不意味着激进的、颜色革命式的政治剧变，它完全可以在中共领导下有计划有步骤受控制地进行。通过改革逐步实现竞争性选举，不仅是我国通向预算民主的唯一路径，也是从根本上改善社会不稳定状态，实现长治久安的必由之路。

（六）只有以改革人大代表选举制度为突破口，推进预算民主才会真正取得成效。韦教授说，“预算民主建设，乃是未来中国政治体制改革的一个逻辑起点和突破口。” 预算民主只能说是一种选举制度的结果或实行效果，或者说，它只是一种功能，是由选举规则、程序等结构性要素决定的。完全拒绝选举制度结构要素的改革而仅仅就功能谈功能，我担心那会在很大程度上白白浪费韦教授及其追随者宝贵的时间和精力。当然，我这样说并没有否定在现有各级人大代表选举制度下预算向民主化方面或多或少做点改进的可能性。但是，如果想在预算民主方面取得实质性进步，真正达到或接近“现代”的水准，估计还是只能从人大代表选举制度改革入手。

不论是循政经关系的逻辑还是参照历史经验看问题，预算民主化问题与中国社会的转型、经济增长方式的转变一样，从根本上取决于政治资源在多大程度上由公权力组织垄断和按计划分配，多大程度上在政治市场上通过自由平等的竞争来配置。我是主张实行社会主义市场政治体制的，我加上“社会主义”这个修饰词，表明我并不反对关键政治资源仍然集中控制和计划化分配，我只是主张实现政治资源的计划配置与市场配置并存，并逐步扩大政治市场和经由这个市场配置的政治资源在本国全部政治资源中所占的比例。

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.