臺灣政治民主化歷程中,2004年公投制度之落實,是繼1996年總統開放直選、2000年首度政黨輪替後,跨越民主治理的另一項嶄新里程碑。本文以2004年落實的公投制度為例,探析民眾對直接民主治理機制之規範面評價認知與實然面參與狀況。依據民眾的認知與參與行動,本文歸納出四種不同類型群眾:贊同公投治理之知行合一、贊同公投治理之知行不一、反對公投治理之知行不一、反對公投治理之知行合一等四種,並透過2004年「臺灣社會變遷基本調查」面訪資料的輔助,解析這些不同行為模式的影響機制。實證結果顯示:若單純考量省籍、政黨認同、統獨意識等選舉因素,確實如一般文獻之主張會對民眾參與公投機制具重要影響;惟若進一步考量民眾對政治參與影響的公民意識效能,與其對政治人物回應性的態度,原本由統獨意識所驅動的影響效果,卻被大幅沖淡。此一結果,反映民眾對公投的評價與參與,並不完全囿於藍綠或統獨意識對抗之爭,而是相當程度肯定其具有擴大政治參與、改善政府治理的功能。透過本研究,除凸顯近年來民眾對於政治人物與政策回應性的期待,會直接反映在其參與直接民主機制的行為,也再次說明未來國家的治理模式,應更擴大與強化民眾各種參與公共政策制定的管道。
After the general presidential election in 1996 and the peaceful transfer of political power in 2000, the Referendum Act was passed in 2003 and its first realization in 2004 was regarded as a milestone for Taiwan's democratic development and public governance. This article analyzes Taiwan citizens' cognition of and participation in referendum for the first time in the 2004 election. Specifically, we try to explore whether the citizens' participation is driven by their expectation of the substantive policy issues and political efficacy, or is simply motivated by other non-policy factors such as unification-independence ideology and party identity. Four categories of how respondents' cognition of referendum and their participation in reality converge or diverge are identified. In addition, the underlying mechanism influencing their behaviors are analyzed. By analyzing the 1,781 respondents from Taiwan Social Change Survey (2004), we find that in consistence with the current literature, national ideology and party identity did influence the acting and participation in referendum. However, if we take the normative attitude toward policy-making into account, the influence of national ideology will be diminished dramatically. The result reveals two important policy implications. First, people expect strongly that public opinion should play an important role in policy-making process. This expectation will furthermore affect their willingness of participation in the direct democracy. Second, people are extremely anxious for more channels of participation in policy-making. Effective governance for a modern democracy therefore is to expand and reinforce more diversified channels of participation in policy-making for the public.