Chapter 69 "Accountability storm" under the coal policy situation

Compared with the financial turmoil on Wall Street marked by the "Lehman bankruptcy", the "9.8" Xiangfen dam collapse accident in Linfen, Shanxi, etc. caused the storm of accountability in Shanxi, which was also unprecedentedly suffocating and shocking. It also affected And changed the destiny and life of many people. According to media reports, the dam collapse in Xiangfen County killed 276 people. The hundreds of fresh lives that have sadly disappeared left behind their own different fates, and gathered into a group of shocking "Roman numerals", which together with the heart-wrenching wails of the families of the dead and injured, combined into a common cry of sadness : Accountability!accountability!

First of all, the procuratorate of Shanxi Province was responsible for the Xiangfen dam collapse accident. Five people, including the chairman of the Xinta Mining Company in Xiangfen County, Shanxi Province, the director and deputy director of the mineral processing plant of the mining company, were arrested on suspicion of major labor safety accidents. The local public security agency approved the arrest.Another seven suspects are still under criminal detention by the public security department.Immediately afterwards, a group of staff members of state agencies suspected of dereliction of duty related to this case were brought up by the procuratorate and sent to the "squad room". It is understood that there were as many as 22 of them.

So far, some people seem to think that this "storm of accountability" should "end smoothly".But it never occurred to me that a more intense "accountability rush" swept Shanxi's top management with overwhelming force.As a result, "some were exempted, some were withdrawn, and some were arrested." For those who are officials in Shanxi, there are tens of thousands of "questions" that can be answered in the world, but the "question" of "administrative accountability" cannot be "answered", so that this "question" has become the official career of many people. The "hurdle" that cannot be passed.

Some people in the industry believe that as the central government further deepens its implementation of the scientific outlook on development and the concept of people-oriented governance, official accountability will become more stringent. The emergence of the "accountability system" not only allows officials to grasp power, but also faces the risk of being "questioned" and knocked down. The biggest function of the so-called "people's public servant" is to bear "responsibility for the people's livelihood" to the people of one side.Its biggest job is to "seize the things that are not implemented, investigate those who have not implemented them, investigate those who have not implemented them, and implement the things that have not been implemented."If these officials are still unable to do this, they should be "asked" to the ground in accordance with the established procedures, or "asked to be dismissed from get out of class".

Under normal circumstances, people often equate "administrative accountability" with "taking the blame and resigning". In fact, the two are slightly different in essence. The explanation of the relevant information is as follows: "Administrative accountability system" means that a government at a level shall, within the scope of the departments and work under its jurisdiction, fail to perform or perform the duties of the current person in charge of the government at that level, the various work departments of the government at that level, and the main person in charge of the government at a lower level due to intentional or negligence within the scope of work under its jurisdiction. A system of internal supervision and accountability for behaviors that correctly perform statutory duties that affect administrative order and efficiency, delay administrative work, or damage the legitimate rights and interests of administrative counterparts, causing adverse effects and consequences to administrative agencies.

"Responsibility" is divided into two categories: political responsibility and legal responsibility. Only when the two conditions must be met at the same time can an effective and absolute restriction be formed on the "questioned" object. "Resignation by taking the blame" refers to a self-blaming behavior of political officials (referring to politically elected and politically appointed officials) rather than ordinary civilian staff. The so-called self-blame refers to the self-initiated "responsibility investigation" by political officials who evaluate their performance of duties and their words and deeds, believing that they did not perform their duties seriously or that their words and deeds violated public opinion.

There are usually two ways to blame yourself: apology and resignation. An apology is a political official’s public apology to the public for his poor performance of duties or his words and deeds, in order to seek the public’s forgiveness; taking the blame and resigning is the most severe form of self-blame. Difficult to obtain public understanding, only to resign. According to the "Interim Provisions on Resignation of Party and Government Leading Cadres", party and government leading cadres should take the blame and resign from their current leadership positions because of serious mistakes in work, negligence of duty, causing heavy losses or adverse effects, or taking important leadership responsibilities for major accidents.

According to regulations, there should be a set of clear and scientific and systematic institutional norms for officials to take the blame and resign. In the future, legislation in this area should be improved, and at least some principled standards should be stipulated. That is to say, leading party and government cadres should take the blame and resign under any of the following circumstances: The first situation is that serious mass incidents are caused due to dereliction of duty, or improper handling of mass or sudden incidents, resulting in serious consequences or adverse effects, and the main leadership responsibility;

The second situation is that due to serious mistakes in decision-making, which caused huge economic losses or bad influences, they bear the main leadership responsibility.There are also serious dereliction of duty in safety work, and major liability accidents have occurred continuously or repeatedly.Or when an extremely serious accident occurs and the leader bears the main responsibility; The third situation is that there are consecutive or repeated serious liability accidents, or particularly serious liability accidents, and bear the main leadership responsibility, important leadership responsibility, etc.

From another point of view, accountability and taking the blame and resigning are just a means, and its role is "governance", that is, it plays a vigilant and preventive role through accountability after the accident.However, experts believe that more attention should be paid to the "prevention" of accidents, that is, to prevent accidents from the process and root causes, rather than "prevention" through "accountability" after the accident produces results.