誰取代了侍從主義？ 政治分歧與選制變遷下雲林縣政治連結的持續與變遷

What Has Replaced Clientelism? The Continuity and Change of Political Linkage in Yunlin County under Political Cleavage and Electoral Institution Change

盧信宏(Hsin-Hung Lu)

指導教授 ： 張佑宗

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/政治學研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2011.00738

摘要

派系政治一直是台灣地方政治的重要特色，而侍從主義下的特殊利益交換關係則是構成其中政治人物之間、政治人物與選民之間政治連結的基礎。然而，以特殊利益交換為基礎的政治連結卻對民主政治下的課責關係有不良的影響。選民可能只在乎政治人物給予的特殊利益，而不在乎政治人物推動的公共政策內容。而雲林縣在2005年之後，不僅民進黨的影響力大幅擴張，原本的國民黨派系也不斷地內鬥、分裂。這是否代表雲林縣的地方政治連結正在改變，侍從主義是否會被政黨在全國經營的形象與標籤取代？而雲林縣當前的政治連結型態為何？我們又該如何解釋特定連結模式的出現與運作呢？

過去的研究大多處理威權時期的侍從主義現象，並且將之理解為威權政府的動員與控制，或是來自地方社會既有的社會形態影響。然而，這些研究沒有繼續說明民主化之後的變化。而現代化解釋與制度變項，也無法解釋我在雲林縣取得的訪談資料。雲林縣的資料說明，國民黨政治人物雖然受到政黨、新的選舉制度以及社會變遷的影響，但仍然試圖透過建構派系組織、樁腳網絡，以特殊利益交換來取得選票。而民進黨雖然主要採取以政黨標籤的方式連結選民，但同時也分配特殊利益給支持者，並且直接利用特殊利益吸引沒有政黨意識的選民。而兩黨共同的特色，是都缺乏足以取代特殊利益分配的另一種資源分配方式，因此都繼續分配特殊利益，並維繫了一定程度的侍從主義連結策略。本文認為，這個政治連結現象來自台灣特殊的政治分歧。由於台灣以國族與族群情感為基礎的政治分歧缺乏資源分配的內涵，同時也阻礙其他社會分歧形成政治分歧的目標。因此，在雲林兩黨的政治人物都缺乏足以取代特殊利益分配的策略，只能繼續延續侍從主義的連結型態。

關鍵字

派系 ； 侍從主義 ； 政治分歧 ； 地方政治 ； 政黨政治s

並列摘要

Factional politics is one of the features in Taiwan local politics. The exchange of particular interest under clientelism constitutes the political linkage between politician-politician and politician-voter in the factional politics. However, political linkage based on the exchange of particular interest has negative effects on democratic accountability. Voters may be more interested in the particular interest offered by the politician rather than the contents of his platform. Since 2005, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has enlarged its electoral base in Yunlin County, while factions within the Kuomintang (KMT) fought against each other and dissolved. Does this represent a changing political linkage in Yunlin County? Will clientelism be replaced by party image and label managed by political parties on national scale? What are the linkages between voters and politicians in Yunlin County, and how could we explain the emergence and operation of such linkages?

Previous researches have mostly dealt with the phenomen of clientelism during an authoritarian period, and understood it as the mobilization and control by the authoritarian regime or as the product of social context in local society. But these researches have not illustrated the change after democratization. The modernization and institutional change can not explain the interview data that I collected in Yunlin County. The data shows that although KMT politicians was affected by the party, new electoral institution, and social change, they still attempted to construct factional organization, broker network, and gain votes by offering particular interests. DPP politicians, mainly adopted their party label to gain voter support. At the same time, they also distributed particular interests to their supporters, and even tried to gain the support of non-partisan voters through the distribution of particular interests. The similar feature between these two parties is that they both lack an alternative model for resource distribution, which can replace the distribution of particular interests. Therefore, both parties continue to offer particular interests and maintain a certain degree of clientelistic linkage strategy. In this research, I propose that such phenomenon of political linkages is caused by the special political cleavage in Taiwan. Since the political cleavage in Taiwan is constituted with nationalism and ethnicism, which lack the connotation of resources distribution, and also impede other social cleavage to become the stake of political struggle. Politicians of both parties in Yunlin do not have strategies that can replace the distribution of particular interests, thus they can only continue to rely on clientelistic linkage.

並列關鍵字

faction ； clientelism ； political cleavage ； local politics ； party politic

參考文獻

王金壽，2004，〈瓦解中的地方派系：以屏東為例〉，《台灣社會學》，7: 177-207。

吳乃德，2002，〈認同衝突和政治信任：現階段台灣族群政治的核心難題〉，《台灣社會學》，4: 75-118。

盛杏湲，2008a，〈政黨的國會領導與凝聚力—2000年政黨輪替前後的觀察〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，5(4): 1-46。

王甫昌，2008，〈族群政治議題在台灣民主化轉型中的角色〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，5(2): 89-140。

洪永泰，1996，〈抽樣調查中樣本代表性的問題〉，《調查研究》，1: 7-37。