On The Rationality Of Accountability System For Major Administrative Decisions

Administrative decision-making mistakes not only cause great economic losses to the country and the people,but also greatly affect the stability of the party and the government's credibility.As early as 2004,the State Council's "outline for the implementation of the comprehensive promotion of administration according to law" clearly defined the principle of "who makes decisions,who is responsible".In 2019,the Interim Regulations on major administrative decision-making procedures of the State Council was promulgated and implemented.Before that,local governments at all levels successively issued a large number of normative documents around the legal decision-making,but the seemingly large-scale administrative decision-making accountability legal norms,the implementation effect is not very ideal,in essence,it belongs to the self-control mode of government administrative decision-making.As far as the practice of administrative rule of law is concerned,there have been few cases in which executive heads or other major leaders have been held responsible for administrative decision-making errors.From the origin of the concept,administrative decision-making should belong to the category of political science and administrative science.At present,the existing legal norms of administrative law are difficult to bear the responsibility of administrative decision-making of administrative subjects,and can only be attributed to abstract administrative acts or specific administrative acts.However,the abstract administrative act of administrative legislation is not actionable.It can only review the normative documents,or it can be revoked or modified.Only through the state compensation law,the civil servant law and the Interim Provisions on the accountability of Party and government leading cadres,which are jointly applied by the party and government leading cadres,can the individual be held responsible or purs.