地方性公民投票的理論與實踐—台灣2014年地方自治選舉政見的觀察

Theory and Practice of Local Referendum：A Case Study of Political Views in 2014 Taiwan Local Election

傅卉棋(Huei-Chi Fu)

指導教授 ： 曾建元

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201610474

摘要

2003年11月27日立法院三讀通過《公民投票法》，使全國性公民投票及地方性公民投票有可茲實行之法律依據。但在法制化過程中，我國給予公民投票諸多限制，以致有「鳥籠公投」之譏。
地方公投貼近人民實際生活，遠較全國公投更能保障多元價值及落實人民主權。惟我國地方公投自《公民投票法》實行以來僅有三案，而只有2012年馬祖博弈案依據特別法《離島建設條例》通過。
本文研究目的係在釐清地方公投於住民之實質意涵，及當代議制度失靈時住民如何透過地方公投表達自己意見，並藉由觀察我國2014年地方選舉候選人政見，自地方執政者的角度探討其對於地方公投態度為何，輔以選舉結果檢視當選人是否能真切實現其有關地方公投或民眾參與等承諾。
本文首先討論國外地方性公民投票制度做為我國之借鏡。其次介紹我國地方公民投票制度及實踐經驗，發現我國地方公投實踐經驗先於立法。然《公民投票法》實行以來，地方公投經驗不增反減，除原有公投制度先天不良之高可決門檻外，執政者對於公投之看法亦是關鍵。
本文觀察我國2014年地方選舉候選人政見，發現有27%候選人關注地方公投相關議題。本文復自候選人及其政見分析，進一步挑選桃園市、新竹市及嘉義市作為個案分析，檢視這三市之當選者對於其所提之相關政見有無落實。由於我國公民投票可決門檻過高，公投結果又具有約束力，在公民意識崛起的趨勢下，執政者為表達對民意的重視，則會提出不同於公投之有效住民參與管道，以供住民公決。
本文最後針對地方公投，就「法規鬆綁」、「電子治理」、「節制政府」及「強化審議」等四個方面提出政策建議。

關鍵字

直接民主 ； 公民投票 ； 地方性公民投票 ； 地方自治 ； 住民自治 ； 地方選舉 ； 政見

並列摘要

The Referendum Act, adopted with the third reading in the Legislature Yuan on November 27th, 2003, provides the legal base for national referendum as well as local referendum. However during the legislative process, there are a number of limits placed on the Act, hence gaining a name called “the birdcage referendum.”
The local referendum is a better embodiment of ensuring multi-culture and human rights, compared to its national counterpart. However, since the Referendum Act came into effect, only one referendum, the referendum of opening casino business at Matsu, has been passed based on the Offshore Islands Development Act, among the three local referendums having been held.
This study aims to clarify the actual meaning brought by local referendums to local residents, and to understand how local residents express their opinions through local referendums when the system of representation fails to function properly. This study will also discuss the policy makers’ attitudes towards local referendums through observing their political views during the campaign of 2014 local election, as well as though observing the election results to examine whether the elect-mayors were able to strictly fulfill their promises in relation to local referendums or resident participation.
At the beginning, this article will discuss the systems of local referendums in other countries in comparison with that of Taiwan, followed by an introduction of the system in Taiwan and experiences conducting it. In this study, it is observed that local referendums were held in Taiwan before the regulation was in place. However, since the Referendum Act took effect, the number of local referendums has decreased, rather than increased as expected, due to not only its high threshold in nature, but also the attitudes held by policy makers who play a key role.
The observation on candidates’ political views made in this study shows that among the candidates running for the 2014 local election, 27% of them paid attention to issues related to the local referendum. Case studies on Taoyuan City, Hsinchu City, and Chiayi City were also conducted to examine the three elect-mayors on whether they fulfilled their promises in relation to the referendum made during the campaign. In spite of an unreasonably high threshold and the limited enforcement of referendums in Taiwan, the policy makers still took into consideration the public opinions in faced with the rising civic consciousness and have proposed other measures for resident participation that are different from referendums.
This article will conclude with four major suggestions: Deregulation, E-Governance, Control of government, and Strengthening deliberation.

並列關鍵字

Direct Democracy ； Referendum ； Local Referendum ； Local Autonomy ； Resident self-government ； Local Election ； Political View

參考文獻

王思為（2011）。〈法國公投制度的設計與運作〉，《歐洲國際評論》7：99-120。嘉義縣：南華大學歐洲研究所。

江大樹、張力亞（2009）。〈縣市長的領導力與地方治理：一個初探性實證研究〉， 《台灣民主季刊》6(2)：61-125。台北：財團法人台灣民主基金會。

李昌麟（2004）。〈全球公民投票制度之探討〉，《全球政治評論》6：123-148。台中：國立中興大學國際政治研究所。

沈宜卉（2007）。《從立憲主義論我國公民投票之法制設計》。台北：國立台灣大學國家發展研究所，碩士論文。

林火旺（2005）。〈審議民主與公民養成〉，《國立台灣大學哲學論評》(29)：103-143。台北：國立台灣大學哲學系。