On September 20, the Institute of Rule of Law Government of China University of Political Science and Law released the 2018 Assessment Report on China's Rule of Law Government (hereinafter referred to as the Report). The Report disclosed that in 2018, the construction level of the national rule of law government was slightly improved, and 80% of the local governments passed the assessment. The development trend of the construction of the national rule of law government is still steadily improving.
At the same time, the Report also summarized the evaluation results of the rule of law government in the past three years: the evaluation in 2016 showed that 88 cities scored more than 600 points; The evaluation in 2017 showed that 93 cities scored more than 600 points; The 2018 assessment showed that 80 cities scored more than 600 points. Based on the three-year evaluation, we can draw the basic conclusion that 80% of the 100 cities assessed have reached the passing level.
Shenzhen, Fuzhou and other 20 cities failed
On the premise of a total score of 1000 points, the average score of 100 evaluated cities is 654.34 points, with a score rate of 65.43%. The top ten cities are Shenzhen, Qingdao, Guangzhou, Suzhou, Hangzhou, Shanghai, Beijing, Nanjing, Ningbo and Chengdu in turn.
In this assessment of the rule of law government, there were 20 cities that failed, that is, scored less than 600 points, namely Lanzhou, Shaoyang, Fuzhou, Anshan, Hohhot, Benxi, Tangshan, Nanyang, Jieyang, Shangqiu, Cangzhou, Baotou, Yichun, Yulin, Taiyuan, Urumqi, Datong, Suihua, Lhasa and Kashi.
It is reported that it has been six years since the Institute of Legal Government of China University of Political Science and Law launched the evaluation project of the rule of law government in 2013. In the 2018 assessment, the indicators were adjusted significantly. In addition to increasing the legal protection of business environment as a first level indicator, the specific observation points also tended to consider the implementation effect level, considering that the indicators tend to be strict.
Moreover, the regional imbalance of the level of the rule of law government objectively exists, the gap between eastern cities is increasing, and the gap between central and western cities is narrowing. From the average score rate of cities in the east, middle and west, it is still obvious that the east is higher than the middle and west. It is worth noting that the average score of cities in the west is higher than that of cities in the middle, indicating that cities in the west have made great progress. From the perspective of the balance between cities, the range and standard deviation of the scores of cities in the central and western regions are declining. For example, the range of cities in the central region in 2017 was 272.17 points, and this year it dropped to 176.12 points, a drop of nearly 100 points, reflecting that the balance between cities is improving. These are noteworthy phenomena.
Failed to pass the organization leadership indicators for five consecutive years
The Report points out that the organization and leadership of the rule of law government, the system embodiment of administration according to law, and the administrative law enforcement have low scores, and there is a clear phenomenon of "lagging behind".
Especially in the evaluation of the organizational leadership of the rule of law government, from 2014 to 2018, the scoring rate of the first level indicators shows that the scoring rate of the organizational leadership of the rule of law government is basically unqualified.
According to the survey in the Report, the network search data shows that in the assessment of the discussion and research on the construction of a rule of law government or the administration according to law at the plenary meeting of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Party Committee, only 7 of the 100 cities assessed have full scores, 17 have high scores, and most of the cities are at the middle and low levels. According to the analysis in the Report, only a few cities held special meetings to discuss and study this topic, while the common practice in most cities is to combine the construction of a rule of law government or administration according to law with other work, which makes the development of the work of a rule of law government more decentralized. It reflects that the leadership of the Party Committee on the construction of a rule of law government needs to be further deepened, and more energy needs to be invested to solve various problems in the construction of a rule of law government.
To this end, the Report suggests that the key to improving the institutions and working mechanisms for building a rule of law government is to improve its effectiveness. More than 90% of local Party committees have leading and deliberative bodies such as the "leading group/committee for comprehensively governing the city according to law" or the "leading group for building a rule of law government", and more than half of cities hold special government executive meetings to study the construction of the city's rule of law government, aiming at the "reform of decentralization, management and service", "government information disclosure", and "reform of the administrative law enforcement system" And other issues related to the construction of a rule of law government. However, the form is greater than the essence, especially the lack of specific measures with strong pertinence for the construction of the rule of law government in the region.
The experience level of e-government users needs to be improved
The Report points out that e-government is developing rapidly, but the user experience is poor, and the interaction function should be improved. For example, for the observation point of "whether the online processing of administrative examination and approval in each city is fast and convenient", 83 cities obtained full marks, accounting for 83% of the total, indicating that the online processing of administrative examination and approval launched by local governments has achieved good results in the context of the State Council's efforts to promote the reform of administrative examination and approval. However, we must also recognize that a considerable number of local government websites still remain in the propaganda function, and the development of service functions is insufficient. Many local government websites lack the function of consulting services, and even if they do, the quality of replies is low.
At the same time, the list of powers has been generally established, and the boundaries of government powers and responsibilities have been gradually determined, but its practical application needs to be strengthened. The list of powers, as an important way to determine the functions of the government, has achieved remarkable results under the strong promotion of the State Council. The municipal governments in 94 cities have announced the list of powers of various departments and made dynamic adjustments in a timely manner. However, the list of powers of some city governments and their functional departments has not yet been formulated or is not open to the public. The list is only online, and the actual utility is not enough.
Leading cadres should be refined in learning methods
According to the report, from the evaluation data, most cities can organize leading cadres to study law by giving legal lectures before the executive meeting of the government, but the way of legal learning activities is relatively simple. Most of them are unilateral lectures on a certain law, and the participation of leading cadres is not enough. Moreover, the system of learning law is also insufficient. Therefore, the Report suggests that the activities of leading cadres to learn law should be arranged more carefully and systematically. For example, in combination with the system of administrative heads appearing in court to respond to litigation determined by the new Administrative Procedure Law, leading cadres who have participated in administrative litigation can tell their experiences; In combination with typical cases encountered in daily management, different leaders can discuss the main problems in law enforcement from the perspective of their respective work. (Reporter Wan Jing)
