透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.222.116.199
  • 期刊
  • OpenAccess

多元民主理論-公民審議的一個理論基礎

Theory of Polyarchal Democracy: A Theoretical Foundation for Citizen Deliberation

摘要


當代一位審議民主理論家John Dryzek曾經宣稱,約在1990年左右,民主理論研究領域上展現出一個明確而強烈的「審議轉向」(deliberative turn):在轉向之前,訴諸公民的「偏好加總」;在轉向之後,則憑藉公民的「審議能力或機會」。這個眾所矚目的轉向宣稱,通常結合著「加總模型」與「審議民主」兩個對立的民主模型的見解,從而輕易導致兩個值得商榷的論點。第一,1990年之前的民主理論,「都是」加總模型,自此之後則「全是」審議民主。第二,在「正當性」的強弱比較上,訴諸公民之「偏好加總」的加總模型,遠不如憑藉公民之「審議能力或機會」的審議民主。依據筆者的淺見,這兩個論點確實尚有商榷之處。本文企圖透過著名政治學家Robert Dahl的「多元民主理論」,而來論述筆者這一淺見。本文的解析,大體上具有兩個主要目的。首先,指明Dahl所建構的「多元民主理論」,非但不是「加總模型」,反而可以相容於「審議民主」,甚至也包含審議民主理論家十分珍視的「公民審議」。其次,指出「多元民主理論」可為時下風行的「公民審議」,奠定一個鞏固的理論基礎。為了能夠達成這兩個主要目的,本文的解析,將從「立論基礎」、「民主判準」、以及「民主制度」等層面逐一進行。

並列摘要


John Dryzek, a deliberative democracy theorist, has said that around 1990 the theory of democracy took a definite deliberative turn. Prior to that turning point, the democratic ideal was seen mainly in terms of aggregation of preferences; after that turning point, many believed that the essence of democratic legitimacy should be sought in citizen deliberation. Combining two contrasted models of democracy, an aggregative model of democracy and a model of deliberative democracy, this popular and influential claim of a deliberative turning point in democratic theory led smoothly to two points. First, prior to 1990, all democratic theories were aggregative models of democracy; since that turning point, all democratic theories have been models of deliberative democracy. Second, on a scale of legitimacy, an aggregative model of democracy is weaker than a model of deliberative democracy. In my opinion, these two points are questionable. This article seeks to present a systematic interpretation of Robert Dahl's theory of polyarchal democracy by examining these two points. This paper analyzes the theoretical foundations, democratic criteria, and democratic institutions in exploring this question.

參考文獻


林國明、陳東升(2003)。公民會議與審議民主:全國健保的公民參與經驗。台灣社會學。6,61-118。
陳東升(2006)。審議民主的限制:台灣公民會議的經驗。台灣民主季刊。3(1),77-104。
郭秋永(2002)。邏輯實證論、行爲主義、及後行爲主義:經驗性政治研究的理論基礎。人文及社會科學集刊。14(4),465-514。
Bailey, Michael,David Braybrooke(2003).Robert A. Dahl's Philosophy of Democracy, Exhibited in His Essays.Annual Review of Political Science.6(June),99-118.
Besson, Samantha,José Luis Martí,Samantha Besson,José Luis Marti (eds.)(2006).Deliberative Democracy and its Discontents.Burlington:Ashgate.

被引用紀錄


邱智民(2010)。公民參與科技風險決策之評估:以英國基改作物與食品公共辯論為例〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2010.01127
黃若深(2017)。公民新聞與民主之關係探討:以太陽花運動為例〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201702753
李衍儒(2014)。後代議民主之參與制度設計-以我國觀光賭場博弈公投為例〔博士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2014.01958
陳靜儀(2013)。Iris M. Young論差異政治、民主與社會正義〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2013.00567
楊雅雯(2016)。人民參與審判與刑法民粹主義〔碩士論文,國立中正大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0033-2110201614065505

延伸閱讀