Study On Re-appointment System For Dismissed Officials In The Context Of Administrative Accountability

Since the SARS crisis in2003, the administrative accountability has made a lot ofdevelopment and progress in system improvement and system operational aspects. In2009, China has promulgated the "Interim Provisions on the accountability of the partyand government cadres", and to achieve a unified regulations on administrativeaccountability. From2003to2011, there were administrative accountability of therepresentative and influential event for225, and905administrative staff to beaccountable, reflecting the contemporary Chinese administrative accountability inpractice step by step towards the normalization and standardized. Achievements,however, does not mean that to achieve a perfect state of the administrativeaccountability system,in the course of practice there are still some problems can not beignored. In recent years, some of the officials who have left because of accountabilityafter a period of silence re-enter the public eye, in positions of leadership in the newposition. With the widespread dissemination of the news media, this phenomenoncaused a strong reaction of public opinion and controversy. Whether it is the practice inthe re-appointment or re-appointment system, there are problems and defects. Therefore,by understanding and analysis of practical problems, as well as understanding there-appointment of officials dismissed to develop a targeted system of rules, is currentlyfacing problems to be solved.This article refers to the dismissed officials means the officials who has beenasked to resign, ordered to resign, dismissal, in the administrative accountability andremoved from office for accountability and officials leaving the original position,and re-appointment means that these officials again serve in leadership positions, acquire acertain amount of public power. The Rationality of re-appointment of the dismissedofficials is that the results of accountability time-bound. In other words, theaccountability results, in addition to the "dismissal" is not reversible, others are notpermanent. After the expiration of the discipline, the whereabouts of these people haveto be considered. Therefore, to a certain extent, the re-appointment is necessary. Thespecific circumstances of their re-appointment are a chance. The absence of such achance to make the necessary constraints will produce corresponding practice problems.From2003to2009, there were22cases of re-appointment of dismissed officials,involving officials of the23people,17of them after the formal appointment. Theseevents, as well as their public response, have caused a few issues. Re-appointmentprocess is not open and opaque, the lack of the necessary public participation, lack oflegitimacy of the re-appointment procedures, selection and appointment of a lack ofstandardized conditions. These issues, on the one hand, led to the dissatisfaction of thepublic, damage to information, supervision and other legitimate rights and interests; theother hand, the threat to the authority of the administrative accountability system, whichled to the public distrust of the Government, undermined the credibility of theGovernment image. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a dedicated leaving officialsto re-employment system, to regulate such behavior, and reasonable to protect theimportant task of the program on the basis of the important task of the results ofrationality.This article ultimately concluded was not specific arrangements about there-appointment system of dismissed officials, but raised the key issues that need to beconsidered in the process of institutional arrangements. First, information disclosure,protecting the public’s right to make the public understand and support the rationality ofthis behavior. The second is to achieve the necessary public participation; accountabilitybackground has asked the Government to consider the views and aspirations of the groups, thus ensuring the re-appointment of democratic and scientific decision-making.The third is to establish due process, on the basis of the protection of procedural justice,to ensure that the results of justice; establish standardized terms and conditions ofappointment, on the basis of the general conditions of appointment, to consider thereasons of accountability and appointment duties involved before the appointedrestrictions. Only on the basis of a profound understanding of these elements,re-appointment system of dismissed officials can be further regulated and thephenomenon of leaving officials re-appointed can be restrained, and fundamentallyrealize the effect of administrative accountability.