问责国家元首的实证研究--以中外历史上不同的政治生态为平台

摘要

There have been two different political ecologies in human history-despotism and democracy .In a despotic country, a hereditary monarch has supreme and indisputable authority;thus, accountability is not allowed due to its damage of monarch's image.In a democratic country , the head of state is elected by people , so accounta-bility is feasible.In this case, however, what is the factual evidence and legal basis of accountability?Can aleader be held accountable under administrative law like common officials? Are other influential factors to be taken into-consideration in the procedure?Those questions belong to the marginal subject of politics and legislation and need not only theoretical supports but also substantial proof from experiment .In a transition from despotism to democracy and in view of the traditional thoughts and respect of a monarch , it is hard to conduct accountability , which can be seen as the reason why it should be reviewed profoundly .%人类历史上曾经出现过专制与民主两种不同的政治生态。在专制条件下，作为世袭的君主，其权威至高无上，不容置疑，因问责君主必将有损于其形象而不被允许。在宪政条件下，国家元首是民选的，问责制的出台自然可行，只是这样做的事实依据与法理依据何在，元首能否同一般官员一样由行政法进行问责，在问责的过程中是否应当考虑其他因素的影响，等等，因其属于政治与法律的边缘课题，不仅需要相关理论的支撑，更需要从实证的角度作出有力的佐证。作为由专制向民主的转型的威权政治形态，囿于传统思想及尊君心理的影响，欲要问责于国家元首何其难矣，因此也需要作深刻检讨。