论文部分内容阅读
100多年前,是否重修圆明园引发了清政府的一场争论。这本来是个“工程”问题,但在封建专制的政治体制中,较大的工程往往是有关人员中饱私囊的良机,一项工程的上马与否总要涉及许多人的利益。最后这种“工程问题”往往会演变成“政治问题”。一旦最高统治者决定要上某项工程,反对者就有“犯上”之嫌,因为事关最高统治者的颜面和权威。而且,由于政争不能透明、公开,所以各派政治力量经常借机生事,以此“大做文章”。围绕着“工程问题”的相互争斗往往会导致各种政治力量的此消彼长,使政治格局发生某种变化。在这种背景下,“工程”就成为“政治”,所以对一些重大工程是否应当立项便很难作比较科学、客观的评估。这当然是“工程”的不幸,但更是“政治体制”的悲剧。
Over 100 years ago, whether or not to rehabilitate the Summer Palace caused an argument by the Qing government. This would have been a “construction” issue. However, in the feudal autocratic political system, larger projects are often a good opportunity for those involved in personal enrichment. Whether or not a project is launched must involve many people’s interests. This last “engineering problem” often evolves into a “political issue.” Once the supreme ruler decided to go ahead with a project, the opponents were suspected of being “committed” because of the face and authority of the supreme ruler. Moreover, since political debates can not be conducted transparently and openly, the political forces of various parties often take the opportunity to take the opportunity to make “a big fuss.” Mutual fighting around “engineering problems” often leads to the diversification of various political forces and changes in the political landscape. In this context, “engineering” has become “political”, so it is hard to make a more scientific and objective assessment of whether some major projects should be approved. This is, of course, an unfortunate “project”, but it is even a tragedy of “political system.”