【新唐人2011年12月23日讯】国际学术界普遍认为，多党制下的党派竞争有利于遏制腐败，但中国社科院政治学研究所所长房甯撰文《多党制会导致政治腐败》，文章在中共媒体广泛转载。学者对此认为，这是作者无视世界现实的闭门造车，是一党专制的辩护词，不具备学术观点。
房宁在《多党制下的政治性腐败》一文说，“经过在韩国、印尼和泰国的调研，印尼及泰国等东南亚国家的情况正好相反：政党之间不仅没有形成相互监督的遏制腐败机制，反倒是结成了腐败的分赃同盟。”中共官方人民网、光明网等转载了房甯这篇文章。
《北京之春》主编胡平： “第一，他的观点在理论上站不住脚，第二，在事实上也不符合实际。正是毛时代的倒行逆施，政治上的高压、经济上的一塌糊涂、文化上的萧条，是大家都感到共产党那一套是不好的、恶劣的、无论从哪个方面都是很糟糕的，所以才萌生了对民主制度的要求。”
胡平认为，毛时代剥夺个人的言论自由、信仰自由、出版结社等等的自由，才造成那么大的灾难，仅文革思想不对头受迫害的人以千万计。是中国人对自由民主的要求，才推动社会走向改革开放。
房甯声称，多元民主体制下经常发生的政党轮替，使政治性腐败行为趋于短期化、严重化，而且政治性腐败涉及政党乃至执政党的利益，因此往往会得到政治保护。
胡平认为，有了自由民主制度，就没有了政治迫害，有事大家能商量、充分的交换意见，当然比独裁制度要好得多。
胡平：“有了自由民主不等于一切问题得到解决，他只是解决问题的方法，不等于问题本身得到解决。同样有了自由民主，我们有了解决腐败问题很好的方式，那也不等于一旦有了自由民主，腐败统统绝迹。”
中国民主党领导人陈树庆则认为，反腐败最好的办法是权力制衡，包括行政、立法、司法相互间的制衡和监督，当然也包括公民对国家、和在野党对执政党的权力制衡。现在世界最腐败的反而都是独裁国家。
中国民主党领导人陈树庆：“一党专制的绝对权力肯定导致绝对的腐败，他说的话简直无视世界各国的政治现状。那个所谓学者的话，是经不起世界各国的事实辩驳的，无非是拍拍马屁而已，说不定想升官发财。”
陈树庆认为房甯的观点像是闭门造车，中共“裸官”就是最好的反证。而中国的很多问题最后都归于制度问题。
陈树庆：“中国普通公民、各行各业的很多事情，包括权利受到了侵犯，应有的权利得不到尊重、法律的保护，最后都是遇到体制上的障碍，得不到解决。”
房宁还写道，“从美国政治制度发展的历史看，两党政治不仅不能有效的遏制腐败，反而是引发腐败的一个重要原因。”
对此，胡平指出，把他的话翻译成政治语言就是，中共宣布不搞多党制，只搞一党专制。但一党专制就要垄断权力。所以它的恶劣就在：你们不能反腐败，只能我反，你们谁反腐败就把你抓起来。
陈树庆也表示，一个学者连“绝对的权力导致绝对的腐败”都不明白的话，不知道他的知识学到哪里去了。
新唐人记者常春、宋风、萧宇采访报导。
“Multi-Party System Can Lead to Political Corruptions”?
The international academic community generally believes
that the multiparty competition helps curb political corruption.
However, Fang Ning, director of Political Science Institute
at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, thinks otherwise.
In his article, Fang Ning states,
“The multi-party system can lead to political corruptions."
The article has been widely reproduced by the CCP
(Chinese Communist Party) official media.
Scholars view Fang’s remarks as non-academic,
ignoring the reality and defending the one-party dictatorship.
The article is entitled,
“The political corruptions under the multi-party system."
It states, “After conducting researches in South Korea,
Indonesia and Thailand,
we found that in Southeast Asian countries the opposite is true:
instead of forming a mechanism to mutually monitor and curb
corruption, the multi-party system, forms a carve-up alliance."
People’s Daily, Guangming Daily and other CCP mouthpiece
media reproduced the article.
Hu Ping (Chief Editor, Beijing Spring magazine):
“Firstly, his view is theoretically untenable.
Secondly, it doesn’t conform to the reality. Why are people
disgusted by the CCP’ stuff, thinking it’s terrible and wicked?
It’s just due to Mao’s era retroactions, high-handed political
environment, awful economic mess and cultural stagnancy.
Thus the populace began to demand a democratic system."
Hu Ping believes in Mao’s era the deprivation of
individuals’ freedom of speech, belief,
press and assembly, among others,
is the reason for so many great disasters in China.
Tens of millions of people were persecuted simply due
to Mao’s wrong idea launched the Cultural Revolution.
Only after the Chinese people’s started to demand freedom
and democracy, was the society pushed forward to open-up.
Fang Ning claims that under pluralistic democratic system,
frequent political changes bring faster and worse corruption.
Moreover, political corruption involves interests of political
parties and the ruling party, thus it tends to get political protection.
Hu Ping says that with liberal democracy,
no political persecution will exist.
People can freely discuss and have full exchange of views.
That will be much better than in a dictatorship.
Hu Ping: “Freedom and democracy doesn’t mean all issues
are getting solved, but there are approaches to the solution.
Likewise, enjoying freedom and democracy, we can have
a good way to solve corruptions, but it doesn’t mean all corruptions will be extinguished."
Leader of Democratic Party of China, Chen Shuqing, says
The balance of power is the best anti-corruption.
Like balances among the executive, legislative and
judicial government branches and mutual supervisions;
as well as balances between citizens and government;
and balance between opposition party and the ruling party.
In the current world, the most corrupt countries
are those under some form of dictatorship.
Chen Shuqing: “The absolute power of one-party autocracy
certainly leads to absolute corruption.
His talk simply ignores the political status quo in the world.
The so-called scholar’s remarks can’t bear the reality’ rebuttal.
It’s nothing more than flattering the regime
for personal benefits."
Chen believes that Fang Ning’s view sounds
like creating artwork without a ground.
And the best counter evidence for it
are the CCP’s “naked officials."
While many problems in China were finally found
to be attributed to the institutional problem.
Chen Shuqing: “Many problems that China’s ordinary citizens
face, even those matters taking place in various sectors,
such as rights violations, no legal protections etc., are all
found to face institutional barriers, and can’t get resolved.”
Fang’s article also says, “The U.S. political system history
witnessed that both political parties are far from effectively curbing corruption occurrences,
but it became an important cause of triggering corruptions."
Hu Ping translates the political message of Feng’s words as:
CCP rejects the multi-party system implementation and it will remain a one-party dictatorship.
Hu points out that the one-party dictatorship
means monopoly of the power.
So its depravity is: you can’t oppose corruption but I can.
Anyone daring to fight corruption will be subjected to arrest.
Chen Shuqing adds, if a scholar cannot understand
the meaning of “absolute power leads to absolute corruption,"
then it raises the question of where has the scholar’s
knowledge gone?
NTD reporters Chang Chun, Song Feng and Xiao Yu
