| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立高雄大學 === 政治法律學系碩士班 === 98 === Since the democratic transition, the public has severely demanded administrative neutrality on the government administration system. Whether the army strictly abides by administrative neutrality has been challenged during each election campaign. This article presents a discussion on the significance and essentials on military official’s administrative neutrality within a democratic political system from theoretical, legislative and practical aspects.
The negative meaning of military official’s neutrality is to prevent the military authority from impairing the fairness of political competition for its own interests; the positive meaning is to avoid the politician’s wrong-doing using military authority resources to intimidate public interests and participation in the democratic system, and to safe guard the constitutional fairness and justice. Military administrative neutrality includes: governance by law, unbiased execution, no civilian appointment for military officials, no involvement in partisan matters, and militarily professionalism and ethics etc.
To fulfill military administrative neutrality requires consensus of the members of community, civilian, military, and political parties to abide by the law (due restrictions and protections of political activities) and abstinence, it also needs the media and the public’s constant surveillances. Article 138, 139 of The Constitution stipulates the goal for nationalization of the armed forces and administrative neutrality. For common good, it can take the necessary measures to limit military officials in accordance with Article 23. Yet still it needs clear legal procedures, in line with the principle of proportionality, that is, the rights and obligations relationship between civil service and the State, is conducted under the reservation of the law, and comply with the principle of human rights protection.
Finally, the public criticisms on factors influencing military being not neutral can be summarized into following six categories: political parties malicious competition, politicians abuse of power, media exaggeration, the weakness of ruling power, military officials distortion on sense of value, and lack of political sensitivity and responsiveness. Accordingly, the shortcomings and flaws in the current law and legislative system are apprised and concluded with recommendations as follows: To establish dedicated legislation on military administrative neutrality, stipulating essential offense elements for violation of the law, with legal consequences tied to the duty and influential level of the offending officials; To exclude military officials serving in civic institutions from the adoption of Public Servants Administrative Neutrality Act; To restraint the freedom of expression of military officials; To limit partisans, in legislative regulations, from commanding military officials implementing the parties’ ideas and wills and participations in political activities; And to legislatively stipulate, with reference to the US Army's promulgate just right for voting assistance program, protection of military officials voting right and rights to listen to political views.
|
|---|
