A Critical Review on the Important Classificatory Concepts of Modern Political Regimes

現代政權重要類型概念的檢視與批判

吳文程(Wen-Cheng Wu)

《東吳政治學報》 33卷4期 (2015/12) Pp. 211-283

摘要

分類是了解的開端，是我們分辨認識週遭事物的主要辦法。當我們將政治現象（活動、體系、制度）加以分類，每一類型給予一個一般性名詞，就形成了類型概念。本文試圖以基本的分類原則和標準來檢視(檢討和批判)比較政治裏，現代政權的一些重要的類型概念。現代政權可以分類成三個主要類型：民主的、極權的和權威的三種政權。為符合排斥性的標準，極權型政權和－黨權威型政權，必須清楚地加以區分。賴帕特（Arend Lijphart）將民主區分成多數民主和共識民主二種模式，使我們了解二種模式的不同政治效果，但是他的分類並不符合分類的標準。權威型政權可以進一步分類成二種類型:軍事權威型政權和－黨權威型政權。歐當諾（Guillermo O'Donnell）的官僚權威型政權概念，將研究焦點聚焦於官僚體系和技術官僚的角色，以及經濟的決定性因素，但是既然這些政權大多數是由軍隊和軍人所建立和統治，也許就稱它們為軍事權威型政權比較適當。選舉（競爭）權威型政權也許有不少經驗世界的個案，但它是一個自相矛盾的名詞，它混淆了民主和權威型（非民主）政權的界限。如果那些形式上的民主措施只是為了鞏固權威型政權，並不符合民主的最低標準，何不就稱它們為權威型政權。

關鍵字

類型概念 ； 政權 ； 民主政權 ； 極權型政權 ； 權威型政權

並列摘要

Classification is the beginning of understanding. It is the main method of sorting things out and making sense out of the world we live in. When we classify political phenomena (activities, systems, or institutions) into classes and give each class a general noun we form classificatory concepts. This paper tries to use the basic principles and criteria of classification to critically review the important classificatory concepts of modern political regimes in comparative politics. Modern political regimes can be classified into three main types: democratic, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. To meet the criterion of exclusiveness, totalitarian regimes and authoritarian regimes, especially one-party authoritarian regimes must be clearly distinguished from each other. Lijphart's classification of democracy into majoritarian versus consensus democracies sheds light on different political effects of these two modes of democracy, but his classification does not meet the criteria of classification. Authoritarian regimes can be further classified into two types: military authoritarian regimes and one-party authoritarian regimes. O'Donnell's concept of bureaucratic authoritarianism focuses on the role of bureaucracies and the economic determinants of these regimes. But most of these regimes are established and ruled by the military, it may be more appropriate to just call them military authoritarian regimes. Electoral (or competitive) authoritarian regimes may have quite a few empirical cases, but it is a self contradictory term. It blurs the boundary between democracy and authoritarianism. If some democratic trappings are there just to consolidate authoritarian rule and do not meet the minimal criteria of democracy, it may be better just call them authoritarian regimes.

並列關鍵字

classificatory concept ； political regime ； democratic regime ； totalitarian regime ； authoritarian regime

參考文獻

Adriano, Fermin(1984).A Critique of the Bureaucratic Authoritarian State Thesis: The Case of the Philippines.Journal of Contemporary Asia.14(4),450-484.

Bogaard, Matthijs(2000).The Uneasy Relationship between Empirical and Normative Types in Consociation Theory.Journal of Theoretical Politics.12(4),305-423.

Bogaard, Matthijs(2009).How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism.Democratization.16(2),399-423.

Bormann, Nils-Christian(2010).Patterns of Democracy and Its Critics.:Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich.

Collier, David(ed.)(1979).The New Authoritarianism in Latin America.N.J.:Princeton Press.