20. On Recall:Regardless of how you came to power, citizens have the right to remove you from office.

Elections best embody formal democracy, while recall best achieves substantive democracy. Regardless of how officials assume office, their competence cannot be accurately judged before they actually take office. Only by allowing them to truly assume office can their true nature be fully exposed. Citizens can easily judge whether an incumbent official is qualified. Qualified officials are naturally welcomed by all. But how should citizens deal with unqualified officials?

In monarchical autocracy, officials were appointed by the monarch. Regardless of public discontent, citizens held no power to remove them—an inevitable consequence of autocratic logic. In democratic eras, all state power derives from the citizenry. Thus, citizens inherently possess the right to recall officials. This applies not only to unqualified officials but even to qualified ones, provided citizens are willing and legally justified to do so.

The prevailing practice in modern democracies is to prioritize elections over recall. Once an official is legitimately elected, regardless of competence, they are generally not easily removed. The rationale is that every official serves a fixed term; if incompetent, they cannot be re-elected upon term expiration. Their defeat in the next election effectively constitutes recall by the citizens, rendering explicit emphasis on the recall right unnecessary. This emphasis on election over recall is reasonable in nations where all officials are elected. However, in countries appointing officials through a merit-based examination system, the oversight provided by recall authority is essential for democracy to function.

Practically, how should citizens' recall rights be safeguarded? Let us examine the implementation of a recall system using the example of recalling a county magistrate.

I. Immunity Period

Newly appointed officials require a period before their performance can be evaluated, and the effects of their governance take time to manifest. Therefore, newly appointed officials should be granted an immunity period during which they cannot be recalled. Within this period, regardless of their governance actions, they cannot be recalled.

II. Initiating Recall Proposals

After the immunity period expires, any citizen registered in the county who believes the county magistrate is unqualified and should be recalled may initiate a recall proposal on the political participation platform and solicit support from other county citizens.

III. Meeting the Recall Proposal Support Threshold

If the proportion of voters supporting the recall proposal reaches a specified threshold—for example, 5% of the county's eligible voters (a hypothetical threshold, subject to adjustment based on actual circumstances)—a recall election must be organized.

IV. Recall Election

Once the recall proposal meets the threshold, the National Recall Commission shall dispatch personnel to the county to organize the recall election. To prevent local interference, all national recall elections shall be organized by the central National Recall Commission.

V. Handling of Recall Outcomes

If the recall proposal is approved by the county's voters, the results are announced, the county magistrate is immediately removed from office, and that magistrate is permanently barred from holding public office.

If the recall proposal fails to pass the vote, the county magistrate retains the right to continue administering the county, and the immunity period shall be recalculated from the date of the vote.

When a nation selects officials through the imperial examination system, it must be complemented by a recall system. Without the effective oversight of a recall system, the imperial examination system cannot achieve the goal of democracy.