Carl Schmitt論公投及其限制：關於直接民主對代議制之挑戰所做的警告

Carl Schmitt on the Plebiscite and its Limits: A warning of the challenge of direct democracy to a representative system

楊尚儒(Shang-Ju Yang)

《台灣政治學刊》 24卷1期 (2020/06) Pp. 109-161

https://doi.org/10.6683/TPSR.202006_24(1).0003

摘要

如同今日的台灣，威瑪共和也曾採行公民投票的制度並且以憲法明文規定之。按照立憲者的原意，之所以要將直接民主的要素帶入威瑪憲法，其理由主要在於他們──一如臺灣的立憲者──對於議會的不信任，因此將直接民主要素視為用以補充代議機關之不足，甚或是視為制衡議會的機制之一。德國法學者Carl Schmitt（施密特）不僅曾經深入地分析議會制的正當性，也同樣對威瑪憲法當中的直接民主要素做出了批評：直接民主形成了對於議會制度的挑戰，並間接造成威瑪共和的瓦解。在理論層次來看，施米特對於代議民主與直接民主的觀察雖然在戰後德國被繼受，但他的影響卻常常被低估。因此，本文將對威瑪的直接民主制度進行概略性的剖析。接著則再回到理論面，透過Carl Schmitt的書寫來探討代議民主與直接民主的競爭關係，最後則透過其觀點來反思直接民主的侷限與缺失。

關鍵字

公民投票 ； 威瑪憲法 ； Carl Schmitt ； 議會制 ； 直接民主

並列摘要

As in Taiwan today, direct democratic institutions were also present during the Weimar Republic and enshrined in the Constitution. Similar to the founders of Taiwan's constitution, the founders of the Weimar Constitution brought direct democratic elements into the Weimar Constitution mainly because they lacked confidence in the parliament and thought direct democratic elements could complement the representative system or act as a measure of checks and balances against the parliament. The German jurist Carl Schmitt has not only analyzed the legitimacy of parliamentarism, but has also provided a critique on direct democratic elements in the Weimar Constitution: the elements of direct democracy challenged parliamentarism and indirectly caused the collapse of the Weimar Republic. While Schmitt's theoretical account of representative and direct democracy was widely adopted in the postwar period, his influence remains underestimated. Therefore, this article will first introduce the direct democratic elements in Weimar Germany and then move on to Schmitt's analysis of the tension between representative and direct democracy. Lastly, based on Schmitt's thought, this article will also reflect on the limitations and weaknesses of direct democracy.

並列關鍵字

plebiscite ； Weimar Constitution ； Carl Schmitt ； parliamentary system ； direct democracy

參考文獻

鍾芳樺，2006，〈國家與法作為人民的自我組織：論威瑪時代Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt 與 Hermann Heller 對法最終證立問題的分析〉，台北：國立臺灣大學政法律研究所博士論文。Chung, Fang-hua. 2006. “Guojia yu fa zuo wei renmin de ziwo zuzhi: Lun weima shidai Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt yu Her-mann Heller dui fa zuizhong zhengli wenti de fenxi” [State and Law as Self-organization of the People: On the Analysis of "the final Justification of Law" in Hans Kelsen@@$$s, Carl Schmitt@@$$s and Hermann Heller@@$$s Staatslehre in Weimar Republic]. Taipei: PhD thesis, College of Law, National Taiwan University.

Becker, Hartmuth. 2003. Die Parlamentarismuskritik bei Carl Schmitt und Jürgen Habermas. Berlin, DE: Duncker & Humblot.

Bracher, Karl Dietrich. 2003. “Es begann mit der Weimarer Erfahrung.” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 51(1): 1-4.

Fraenkel, Ernst. 1991. “Die repräsentative und plebiszitäre Komponente im demokratischen Verfassungsstaat.” In Deutschland und die westlichen Demokratie, ed. Alexander von Brünneck. Frankfurt am Main, DE: Suhrkamp.

Gusy, Christoph. 1997. Weimarer Reichsverfassung. Tübingen, DE: Mohr Siebeck.