台灣社區公民參與的行動與實踐-社區型公民會議與村里民大會之比較性研究

The Praxis of Civic Engagement in Taiwan: The Comparative Study of Community Consensus Conference and Town Meeting.

黃勇智(Yung-Chih Huang)

指導教授 ： 張英陣

國立暨南國際大學/人文學院/社會政策與社會工作學系/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6837/NCNU.2010.00058

摘要

社區參與概念的落實在當前世界各國逐漸位居主流的位置，我國業已將此概念的運用納入施政的五大方向之一。回顧以往台灣社區參與的發展軌跡，在歷經政府主導的參與和地方結社參與之後，近年來各方開始關注公民直接參與的概念意涵。在2002年至2008年期間，尤以審議式民主的討論發展得最為迅速，實務上則以公民會議的運用為主。然而在村里遍及全台的情況下，概念相仿的村里民大會在此波公民參與的浪潮中卻是相對沉寂。故此，本研究以質化研究的方式比較社區型公民會議與村里民大會的運作，透過深度訪談方法蒐集社區民眾對於此兩種機制的經驗與看法，嘗試從社區民眾的觀點了解機制中所蘊含的公民參與意義，爾後提出有助於促進社區公民參與的制度建言。

從本研究八名曾參與社區型公民會議與村里民大會的社區居民身上可以發現，社區型公民會議與村里民大會在參與者結構、公共事務以及機制運作上呈現了不同的公民參與樣貌。在參與者結構的部份，社區型公民會議的成員組成較為多元，其參與的社區居民是經過篩選且限量的。村里民大會則沒有條件與數量上的限制。此外，兩種機制共呈現了六種社區居民風格特性，分別是業餘性、訴求展現、熱心、使命感、號召前來、以及嘗試心態。其中使命感及嘗試心態的特性是出現在社區型公民會議，而號召前來則出現在村里民大會中。

在公共事務內容方面，社區型公民會議的公共事務是在社區內局部發生，全面影響，而村里民大會的公共事務則是局部發生，局部影響。另一方面，在社區型公民會議，公共事務隱含的利害關係是較為區隔且不連動的，相較之下村里民大會的公共事務，其利害關聯則較為連帶與競合。至於在公共事務可行性的部份，可以發現社區型公民會議是以政府既定的公共計畫內容為基礎，討論的過程不觸及經費的部份。然而在村里民大會，經費決定公共事務的討論及回應。

機制運作上，社區型公民會議處理的是「組合封包式」的主題型態，而村里民大會則處理「多樣的問題集」。其中的角色互動與分工型態，社區型公民會議的公民被定位成問題解決者，公共部門與第三部門人士則分別扮演補充者與輔佐者的角色。在村里民大會，公民則是問題形成者或公共消息的閱聽人，公共部門則扮演問題解決者或公共消息傳播者，里長在過程中則為訊息的媒介。

然而，兩者在機制結束後的效應，卻反映了相似的結果。社區型公民會議與村里民大會最後的行政權力是掌握在公共部門，而機制參與的過程帶給社區居民包含了「知」、「說」、與「聚」方面的滿足。至於在整體評價上，社區居民認為社區型公民會議的功能在於規劃公共事務的參考建議，而村里民大會則是形成公共問題與傳達公共消息。此外，社區型公民會議的啟動困境在於「燃料」的不足，而村里民大會則是「發動者」與「性能」的挑戰。至於運作過程的評價，社區型公民會議所營造的言說情境獲得了正面評價，另一方面村里民大會則被認為適用於公共消息的傳播，但其承載的時間卻不適合公共討論。最後，兩種機制都提到社區居民的公民參與困境，公民參與僅是生活的選項之一，人們未必是選擇並持續投入公民參與。

基於上述的研究發現，本研究認為無論是社區型公民會議或者村里民大會，都僅完成了局部的民主意涵。其主要的原因或許受制於資本主義勞動價值掛帥的時代氛圍與行政官僚過度代理公民行使權力，擠壓了社區居民對公民參與價值認識與投入的空間。事實上，本研究發現兩種社區型公民參與機制具備其各自有利於發展民主的基礎。故此，本研究最後從機制再設計的角度出發，提出所謂「協力車」的公民參與模型，盼此能回應既有社區公民參與機制面臨的局限。

關鍵字

公民參與 ； 社區參與 ； 基層民主 ； 公民會議 ； 村里民大會

並列摘要

Community participation has become a mainstream policy in the most counties. Promotion of community engagement is one of the major policy agenda for the government of Taiwan. In the initial stages of community participation development in Taiwan, most of the projects were government-led or controlled by local elites of community-based associations. Recently, people are more concern about the direct civic engagement. From 2002 to 2008, the deliberative democracy became a hot issue for the public. The community consensus conferences are applied from the western countries. However, town meeting has rooted in local governance for long time, but it has been ignored. Thus, this study adopted qualitative approach to explore the mechanism about community consensus conference and town meeting. Through in-depth interview, this study explored the viewpoints of eight residents of their perceptions on community participation.

Community consensus conference was different from town meeting about the structure of members, civic agenda, and the operation mechanism. First, for the participant members, the participants of community consensus conference were more diversified than of town meeting. On the other hand, participants in community consensus conference were screened by some strict criteria and only allowed some specific residents to join. The motivations of participating these two kinds of mechanism were varied. Most participants of community consensus conference were visionary and checking what’s going on. Participants of town meeting were invited or mobilized by local elites.

Most issues discussed in the community consensus conference could influence the whole community. The agenda of town meeting influenced small part of the community. On the other hand, the civic agenda in community consensus conference was less conflict of interests than that of town meeting. The interests in community consensus conference were separate from each other, rather than in town meeting were entangled. The feasibility of civic agenda was more than town meeting. It was because the agenda in community consensus conference was government-based. There’s no budget problem in community consensus conference. On the contrary, budget issue was a key point in the discussion of town meeting.

The community consensus conference discussed a series of topics framed within a single agenda. The mechanism in town meeting worked multiple agendas. On the other hand, members in these two mechanisms differed in roles and interaction. In the community consensus conference, community residents were problem solvers. Officials were complements and nonprofit worker was an assistant. In the town meeting, community residents were issue initiators or audiences. Officials were problem solvers or announcers and the head of neighbor was a mediator.

Whether in community consensus conference or town meeting, the power of decision-making and administration was controlled by government officials. For community residents, these two mechanisms fulfilled the needs of knowledge, discourse, and relationship. As a whole, the function of community consensus conference was recommendatory, and town meeting was issue-forming and meditative. However, community consensus conference faced the lack of resource. Holding town meeting was affected by head of neighbor and its efficacy. Community residents were satisfied with the speech condition of community consensus conference. On the other hand, because of time, town meeting could not form a condition for sufficient speech. It was appropriate to announce civic information. Finally, there was a plight in both mechanisms about civic engagement. Community residents not necessarily engage civic affairs or engage continuing.

Based on these findings, the conclusion was that both mechanisms only achieve the partial democracy. This is because the value of capitalism and the bureaucracy is that overly represent citizen reduce the civic atmosphere and opportunities of citizen engagement. Even though under this condition, these two mechanisms still have its niche to deepen democracy. On the basis of the conclusion, this study suggests a “tandem” model to enhance the praxis of community civic engagement.

並列關鍵字

Civic engagement ； Community participation ； Neighbor democracy ； Citizen consensus conference ； Town meeting

參考文獻

中文部分

Rehg, W. (2007)。審議民主與「發現的脈絡」。收錄於廖錦桂、王興中主編，口中之光—審議民主的理論與實踐。P.195-200。台北：智庫。

內政統計月報 (2008)。土地面積、村里鄰、戶數暨現住人口。網址Hhttp://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/month/m1-01.xlsH。2008/10/22參閱。

內政統計年報(2008)。社區發展工作成果。網址Hhttp://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/year/y04-05.xlsH。2008/10/22參閱。

王紹光(2007)。台灣民主政治困境，還是自由民主的困境。台灣社會研究季刊。65。P.249-256。