中央監察權與地方行政權併合之研究-以兩漢刺史制度的弔詭演變為例

Study on Combination of Central Supervision Authority with Local Administration Authority -- Illustrated with the Paradoxical Evolution of Perfectural Governor System of East and West Han Dynasty

何雲鶴(Yun-Ho Ho)

指導教授 ： 顧慕晴

國立臺北大學/公共事務學院/公共行政暨政策學系/碩士(2011年)

摘要

自秦代於中央置丞相、太尉、御史大夫以來，中國古代的中央政府體制，基本上維持著行政、軍事以及監察三權分立的型態。在監察權的行使上，漢武帝劃時代的設計了刺史制度，以品秩較低的刺史監臨地方高級行政首長，目的在於加強中央集權，維持權力平衡、鞏固統治的穩定。
然而，隨著時間的演進，刺史制度開始出現了質的變化—漸次的取得行政權、軍事權以及財稅權。這種「地方官化」的過程，使刺史不再只是中央手足的延伸，單純執行監察職能而已；反而開始涉及地方事務，儼然為地方最高行政長官。再者，這種由中央官轉變成地方官的情形，在中國古代史上並非單一事件，如唐代的節度使、明清的總督巡撫亦為適例。本研究即欲以兩漢的刺史制度為起點，探討造成這種現象的原因，究竟是歷史的必然或偶然，冀能在學術上有拋磚引玉的效果。
本研究採取的研究方法為文獻分析法與比較研究法。在文獻分析法方面，主要是與刺史制度相關關的古籍和專書專論。不可諱言的，史籍上關於刺史制度的記載並不完整，難以一窺全貌，吾人僅能從零散的記載加以整理，並參考今人的著作予以補充，以求能分析出最正確的資訊。在比較研究法方面，筆者對西漢和東漢的刺史加以比較，藉此瞭解刺史地方官化的軌跡及其因素。
經由文獻的整理與分析，本研究得到下列幾點結論：
一、刺史的「地方化」與「地方官化 」有層次上的不同，應加以區分。
二、刺史的地方官化過程，可分為「中央監察官時期」、「地方化時期」、「第一次地方官化時期」、「準地方官時期」、「第二次地方官化時期」。
三、地方勢力一旦掌握了行政權、軍事權以及財稅權，不受中央控制監督，吾人可將其定義為一種「地方霸權」的型態。
四、刺史制度地方官化的原因，約略有角色職權變化、中央統治型態改變、地方局勢以及歷史因素等四種變項，影響的程度也不同。
五、刺史制度地方官化的弔詭演變，是各項因素交錯影響後的偶發結果，而非人為刻意安排的必然現象。
六、監察權行使的分際應：(一)職責明確(二)以合議的方式作成決議，避免專斷獨行(三)有輪調的機制(四)監察權的目的應在維持權力制衡，而非加強中央集權，淪為統治者排除異己的工具。
中國古代不乏與兩漢刺史制度相類似的制度設計，最後都由走向行政官，如唐代的節度使，原本為防範邊境的軍職，不與民事，後來也發展成地方最高行政首長；明朝的總督，原本為中央臨時派遣巡察地方軍務的特使，發展到明代末年，亦搖身一變成為了地方軍政首長。其因素是否和兩漢的刺史制度相同，也都是日後值得再發展的課題。

關鍵字

中央監察權 ； 地方行政權 ； 刺史 ； 刺史制度 ； 弔詭

並列摘要

Since Qing Dynasty began to install premier, minster of national defense, and Ombudsman, the central government system of ancient China is basically maintained with the model of separation of three powers as administration, military, and supervision. Through the exercise of supervision authority, Emperor Wu of Han Dynasty has established era-making prefectural governor system, resorting to lower ranking prefectural governor to so supervise higher ranking administration chief, and the purpose of which is to strengthen the centralized authority, maintain balance of power, and consolidate the stability of its rule.
Nonetheless, prefectural governor system has begun transformation in terms of quality with the changes of time – it has gradually obtained the authority of administration, military, and finance. For such “transformation of localized official,” it has rendered prefectural governor as no longer the authority extension of central government, and it would not merely exercise the authority of supervision. On the contrary, prefectural governor has started to involve itself with local affairs, making itself to become the highest administration chief of the locality. Furthermore, it is not just one single incident as such central government official turning into local official, for instances, Je-du-shi of Tang Dynasty and viceroy of Ming and Ching Dynasty being of suitable illustration. This study would like to make use of the prefectural governor system of Han Dynasty as its point of initiation to investigation the reasons of such sign, and see if it is the historical inevitability or simply accident, in the hope that it can have created the effect as to reckon itself as an example and bring forth greater discussions.
The research methods employed by study include document analysis and comparative research. For the document analysis, it is mainly to study the related ancient text and monograph on prefectural governor, and it is undeniable that the records on prefectural governor are not comprehensive, and it is hard to have overall glimpse. Therefore, I can but organize from random records, and make reference to works by our contemporary for supplement, hoping to analyze the most accurate information. As for comparative research, the author would compare the prefectural governor system between West and East Han Dynasty so as to appreciate the track and factors for transformation of localized official.
With organization and analysis, this study has obtained following few conclusions:
1. In fact, “localization” and “transformation of localized official” for prefectural governor are different in terms of tiers of structure, and should be well divided.
2. The processes of “transformation of localized official” for prefectural governor can be found into “period of localization,” “first-stage of transformation of localized official,” “period pseudo-local official,” and “second-stage of transformation of localized official.”
3. When local authority has taken over the administration, military, and financial authority and ceased to being controlled and supervised by the central government, we can then considered its as the model “local hegemony.”
4. There are reasons of prefectural governor turning into local officials, and they can be categorized into four different variables as change of role-play and duty, change of ruling with central government, situation of locality, and historical factors, and their impacts vary.
5. For the paradoxical changes of prefectural governor, it is considered as the accidental results of intermingling among various factors rather than the inevitable sign of artificial and deliberate arrangement.
6. The division of supervision authority should be: (1) clear cut of authority and responsibility; (2)resolution reached upon collaborative consensus rather than dictatorial and sole decision; (3) found with mechanism of rotary shift of assignment; (4) the purpose of supervision authority is to maintain balance of power and not to strengthen centralized authority, turning itself into the tool for rulers to excluded dissidents.
As a matter, we can find that there are actually similar system design of prefectural governor as East and West Han Dynasty in ancient China, and they have, at the end, evolved into administration official, such as Je-du-shi of Tang Dynasty. The official is, in the first place, designed as military post to safeguard the border and not involved with civilian affairs, but has ultimately turned into the highest administration chief. The viceroy of Ming Dynasty used to be the temporary envoy assigned to observe and check military affairs, and it has developed and changed into the military head of the locality to the end of Ming Dynasty. If the reasons for these two posts are the same as those to prefectural governor would be of worthy issue for future and subsequent study.

並列關鍵字

central supervision authority ； regional administration authority ； prefectural governor ； prefectural governor system ； paradox

參考文獻

吳國基(2005) ，〈弔詭理論在學校行政上之應用與實務〉，《學校行政雙月刊》，第36期，頁94-108。

黃延齡(2007)，〈古希臘與春秋戰國的詭辯學派－論普羅泰戈拉與鄧析〉，《歷史月刊》，第232期，頁66-75。

蔡偉鼎(2001)，〈語言的邊際－論《莊子》的「弔詭」〉，《哲學與文化》，第28卷，第10期，頁949-972。

鄭曉時(2004)，〈漢初「誅呂安劉」政變的過程與歷史意義〉，《臺灣政治學刊》，第8卷，第2期，頁185-244。

嚴耕望(1990)，《中國地方行政制度史》。臺北：中央研究院歷史語言研究所。