- 期刊
我國公民投票法爭議議題之研究－以全國性公民投票之議題為對象
A Study of Controversies in the Plebiscite Law-Focusing on National Plebiscite Issues
摘要
巴特勒（David Butler）與蘭尼（Austin Ranney）指出：「實踐民主的重要目標之ㄧ就是極大化所有公民的潛能，而直接參與公共決策的決定就是發展公民潛能的最佳途徑」。顯然，擴大公民的直接參與層面，被認為既能發展公民潛能，更是落實國民主權原則的重要指標。公民投票制度作為國民主權理論的體現或直接民主（權）原則的實踐，已成為民主國家的舉世潮流。如何在憲政的體制內，制定完善的公民投票法以調和直接民主體制與代議政治制度間的矛盾，為現代民主國家所普遍重視者。而此處特別要指出的是，公民投票制度的實施，旨在彌補代議政治之不足，而非要取代代議制度。偶爾、適時的實施有其正面的價值與功能，過度頻仍或不當的運用，恐非設計此一制度的本意。此一理念，在探討公民投票制度時應先予確認。我國公民投票法制定於二○○三年年底。由於立法的過程，是在我國第十一任總統大選政黨對決的情勢下倉促完成立法程序，可以說根本就是在「政治考量下倉促立法」，亦即政治的考量遠甚於制度的建立。正因為如此，公民投票法的內容，無論就民主理論的檢視或民主程序的操作上，都有許多應再省思之處。本研究擬就公民投票法中，公投事項限制的合理性、公投提案權歸屬之爭議、公投門檻限制的問題、公民投票審議委員會設置的妥適性及公投程序矛盾的疑問等五項議題逐一探討，並提出未來修正的可能方向。總之，民主的政治文化之養成是需要長時間的學習與經驗之累積。民主制度的實踐也非一蹴可成，它需要全體國人的包容與耐心。民主更非解決所有政治紛爭的萬靈丹，因為民主的過程當中，常常伴隨著人為的私欲所形成的逆流。公民投票制度是實踐民主程序與過程，儘管制度訂定的伊始可能無法盡如人意，但只要有實施民主制度的堅定信念，總能在錯誤的經驗下，獲得寶貴的教訓而逐步修正缺失，而民主的政治文化，也就是在這樣的過程中養成。本研究的目的，亦即希望在我國民主政治文化的養成過程中，提供一愚之得，以略盡綿薄。
並列摘要
As pointed out by David Butler and Austin Ranney, one of the most important objectives in democracy is to maximize the full potentials of the general public; letting the general public direct participation in policymaking is the best way to maximize such potentials. Installing and implementing a workable, popular plebiscite system is now the trend around the world and the most important indicator of the degree of success in a democratic society. Undoubtedly and inevitably, contradictions exist between representative democracy and plebiscite. Plebiscite should be used subtly and cautiously, not as a substitute for democracy through representation. This study will investigate and propose solutions to some of the fallacies of current plebiscite law, hoping to facilitate the better implementation and to prevent the excessive abuse of plebiscite. The plebiscite law of Taiwan was first enacted at the year 2003. Under the pressure of the imminent presidential election of 2004, the law went through the legislative process in haste, with too much political consideration, and not enough concern for the institution of a good, enforceable law. Consequently, controversies emerge and continue to grow as time goes by. The current study will focus on the discussion of controversial issues in the following areas: the appropriateness of the limitations on issues that can be solved via plebiscite; the limitations regarding initiation of a plebiscite process; the minimum requirements for an issue to become a proposition under plebiscite; the feasibility of the establishment of a committee supervising the plebiscite process, and the possible contradictions embedded in the plebiscite process. It is hoped that the current study can provide some insights and possible suggestions for modifications of plebiscite law in the future. Democracy is not a panacea for all problems; nor is it a system without problems. The enactment of plebiscite law is a small step of a long learning process. Through the accumulation of democratic experiences and the cultivation of democratic culture, democracy is all for the better. The current study serves as a stepping stone towards the brave new world of democracy.