Introduction:

It is important to improve the democratic supervision mechanism for the building of democratic politics. How to safeguard the civil rights of the masses, to prevent the same level of government supervision, to guaid against the higher can no longer monitor the lower, are becoming the major problems for the harmonious development of every country. This essay is based on the demonstration helding in Canberra on March against the government taxes to analysis the status and problems in the construction of the Australian democratic supervision. Then it will address this problems how to build a truly democratic oversight mechanisms. Finally, it will will compare and contrast how the same question is dealt with in China. the status and problems of democratic supervision in Australia

On April 23, 2011, there was helding a rally against the government taxes, appearing many flags covered with the words \"off witches\" and s \"Bob Brown bitch” and other slogans. At the rally, the Australian opposition leader delivered a speech, against Bob Brown listening to the Australian left-wing leader Girard ? Greens and violating of previous promise about \"no tax on carbon emissions,\" He said that \"If the prime minister were honest to Australian people, we would not be living in a situation like the current one.\" This large-scale assembly, is driving the embodiment of democratic supervision.

Currently, in Australia, the democratic parties of the democratic supervision has the following characteristics:

1, equality. Both the democratic parties and the ruling party are political parties within the Constitution and own the legal freedom.

2, cooperative. Multi-party cooperation are aimed to improve the party's leadership to realize that people being the masters.

3 People. As the democratic parties are part of the people of their political alliances, therefore, the democratic parties’ democratic supervision are people’s supervision. There are some problems about democratic parties’ democratic supervision:

1, poor access to information. The communication between Ruling party and the Democratic party is not enough, leading to informed sources for the Democratic Party is not smooth and the feedback information is not timely.

2, the conditions for protection is not enough. The economic strength of the democratic parties are often smaller than the ruling party, the number of support is not dominant.

3, views can not put into action. Not all democratic parties can put forward views about government decision into action.

4, the mechanism is not smooth. In practice, democratic supervision can take out advice easily but improvements can not get recognized. how to build a truly democratic oversight mechanisms

For such problems, there are some improvements on the following aspects:

1, increasing the transparency of democratic supervision of the public. Before making decisions the government should seek the views of the people

2, exploring various ways to broaden the channels of democratic supervision. The government should increase the depth and breadth of information dissemination to create a good atmosphere for public opinion.

3, providing enough security . Government should take measures to establish equality between the democratic parties and the ruling party to encourage suggestions and comments.

4, understanding the public’s real opinion. Democratic parties and governments need to do information work to understand people's real needs. how the same question is dealt with in China

In China, because of the Communist’s autocracy, so the democratic supervision of the Democratic Party is more narrow. The Chinese government would do enough in the investigation before making decisions, and then draft of policy-making plans. On the controversial issues, the govement usually carry out on a small scale test, and then spread across the country. Therefore, in China, the govement would do more work before and through the decision-making to guarantee democratic supervision.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the democratic supervision in Australia is broader and can turn into more direct action, but the effect can not be well maintained the true will of the people. In China, democratic supervision mainly work before government decision-making and play a role in decision-making process, once the government decisided, the role of democratic supervision becomes very small.

民主黨派的民主監(jiān)督權(quán)利建設(shè)初探

在民主政治建設(shè)中，如何完善民主監(jiān)督機(jī)制，真正維護(hù)廣大人民群眾的民主權(quán)利，防止同級(jí)無(wú)力監(jiān)督、上級(jí)無(wú)法監(jiān)督的情況出現(xiàn)，是每個(gè)國(guó)家和諧發(fā)展所面臨的一個(gè)重大問(wèn)題。本文從3月份在堪培拉舉行的反對(duì)征稅的集會(huì)入手，分析澳大利亞民主監(jiān)督建設(shè)的現(xiàn)狀和存在問(wèn)題。然后針對(duì)存在問(wèn)題提出如何建設(shè)真正的民主監(jiān)督機(jī)制。最后比較了在中國(guó)同樣的問(wèn)題下的解決措施。

2011年4月23日，堪培拉舉行反對(duì)征稅的集會(huì)，現(xiàn)場(chǎng)掛滿了寫(xiě)有“趕走巫婆”等標(biāo)語(yǔ)的旗子，還有一條標(biāo)語(yǔ)將吉拉德稱為“鮑伯?布朗的婊子”。在集會(huì)上，澳反對(duì)黨領(lǐng)袖發(fā)表演講，諷刺吉拉德聽(tīng)從澳大利亞左翼綠黨領(lǐng)袖鮑伯?布朗的建議，違反此前“不會(huì)對(duì)碳排放征稅”的承諾，決定自2012年7月1日開(kāi)始對(duì)碳污染征稅。他認(rèn)為“如果在選舉前就做到

對(duì)人民坦率，我們就不會(huì)身處目前這樣的境地了。”民主黨派舉行大規(guī)模的集會(huì)，是行駛民主監(jiān)督權(quán)的體現(xiàn)。 目前，在澳大利亞，個(gè)民主黨派的民主監(jiān)督權(quán)有以下幾個(gè)特點(diǎn)：

1,、平等性。互相監(jiān)督的主體，各民主黨派和執(zhí)政黨一樣，都是政黨，在范圍內(nèi)的政治自由和法律地位是平等的。

2、合作性。多黨合作，能更好的改善執(zhí)政黨的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，實(shí)現(xiàn)人民當(dāng)家作主。

3、人民性。由于民主黨派是各自所聯(lián)系的一部分人民的政治聯(lián)盟，所以，民主黨派的民主監(jiān)督具有人民性。

民主黨派的民主監(jiān)督機(jī)制存在以下幾個(gè)問(wèn)題：

1、 知情渠道不暢。執(zhí)政黨往往與政協(xié)及民主黨派之間雙向、主動(dòng)的溝通不夠，導(dǎo)致民主黨的知情渠道

不是通暢，反饋信息不及時(shí)。

2、 條件保障不夠。民主黨派的經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力往往比不上執(zhí)政黨，人數(shù)支持也不占優(yōu)勢(shì)。

3、 不敢付諸行動(dòng)。不是所有的民主黨派都能在對(duì)執(zhí)政黨的決策有意見(jiàn)時(shí)能夠提出來(lái)，并付出行動(dòng)。 4、 機(jī)制不順。民主監(jiān)督在實(shí)踐中提建議容易，提改進(jìn)意見(jiàn)卻得不到認(rèn)可。 針對(duì)這樣的問(wèn)題，可以從以下幾個(gè)方面進(jìn)行改善：

1、 加大民主監(jiān)督的公開(kāi)透明度。在做決策前可以征求民眾的意見(jiàn)，通過(guò)再?zèng)Q定決策發(fā)布。 2、 探索多種途徑，拓寬民主監(jiān)督的渠道。要加大宣傳的深度和廣度，營(yíng)造良好的氛圍，讓社

會(huì)各方面廣泛了解、支持和參與民主監(jiān)督。聘請(qǐng)執(zhí)法監(jiān)督員隊(duì)伍，帶領(lǐng)民主監(jiān)督工作順利開(kāi)展。組織委員通過(guò)調(diào)研、觀察、座談等形式對(duì)決策進(jìn)行民主監(jiān)督。

3、 加大保障力度。要采取措施，建立民主黨派和執(zhí)政黨的平等關(guān)系，鼓勵(lì)對(duì)決策提出建議和

意見(jiàn)。

4、 認(rèn)真了解。民主黨派和需要做好信息工作，健全網(wǎng)絡(luò)，了解民眾的真實(shí)需求。

在中國(guó)，由于是黨專政制度，所以在決策方面，民主黨的民主監(jiān)督更狹隘。所以中國(guó)決策過(guò)程在決策前就做足夠的調(diào)查，草擬決策方案，征求民眾意見(jiàn)。對(duì)于有爭(zhēng)議的重點(diǎn)問(wèn)題，一般是在小范圍內(nèi)進(jìn)行試驗(yàn)，然后推廣到全國(guó)。因此，中國(guó)實(shí)際上是在決策前和決策中接收更多的民主監(jiān)督，在決策后會(huì)實(shí)施條例壓制民主監(jiān)督的權(quán)利行使。

比較澳大利亞和中國(guó)的決策過(guò)程中民主黨的民主監(jiān)督權(quán)利的行使情況來(lái)看，澳大利亞的民主監(jiān)督范圍更廣，行動(dòng)更直接，但效果并不能很好的維護(hù)民眾的真實(shí)意愿。中國(guó)的民主監(jiān)督主要在決策前和決策過(guò)程中發(fā)揮作用，一旦作出決策，民主監(jiān)督的作用變得很小。