- 學位論文
臺灣民主化後國民黨與民進黨不忠誠研究 ～一項菁英與民眾調查與討論
KMT and DPP Disloyalty in Post-Democratization Taiwan： Survey Analysis of Elite and Public Opioin
摘要
本文採用政治學領域的「系統研究途徑political system approach」，主要由David Easton所創建，及其分析架構，包括「政治共同體層次political community」、「政治體制與規範層次regime」、「權威當局層次authorities」、「公共政策層次public policy（分為外交與大陸政策）」，並結合「不合憲性」、「不正當性」、「不共利性」及「不安全性」，透過筆者自創的「政黨不忠誠尺度量表」，探討國民黨與民進黨的不忠誠情況。研究發現顯示：1. 菁英評議：在40位藍、綠受訪菁英的認知中，民進黨的不忠誠評議總體略為高於國民黨，但是差距非常有限。總體來說，無論在李登輝、陳水扁與馬英九三個時期，民進黨的負面評議的平均值比國民黨高。在「政治共同體層次」民進黨高於國民黨。在分期來看，李登輝、陳水扁與馬英九三個執政時期，民進黨皆高過國民黨。2. 民眾評價：在抽樣調查1603位受訪者中，民進黨的總體忠誠評價高於國民黨，分別是48.4％和34.1％，但兩黨皆未過半，與菁英對民進黨的負面評議平均值較高的情況，呈現相反趨勢。若進一步分期來看李登輝時期，國民黨高於民進黨，分別是56.4％和53.4％，兩黨皆未過半; 陳水扁與馬英九時期，民進黨皆高於國民黨，分別是46.1％和44.2％，另一個是45.3％和30.6％，兩黨也皆未過半，並且呈現評價愈來愈差的趨勢，對照菁英負面評議的平均值，國民黨在馬英九時期最低，陳水扁時期最高，民進黨則是在李登輝時期最高，陳水扁時期最低。總結上述的評價，可說李登輝主政時期，無論菁英或民眾皆認為國民黨比民進黨忠誠; 扁、馬時期，菁英則認為民進黨較不忠誠，而民眾認為民進黨比國民黨忠誠。在四個層次的總節發現中，可以很明顯地看到下述的趨勢：首先，李登輝時期無論是國民黨或是民進黨，其負面評議和評價都是偏低的，而國民黨在四個層次的負面評議及評價也都低於民進黨; 陳水扁時期，兩黨的負面評議及不忠誠評價開始飛漲，國、民兩黨在不同層次上都有較高的負面評議和不忠誠評價，國民黨在「政治共同體層次」以及「政治體制與規範層次」的負面評議及評價較民進黨為高，而民進黨則在「權威當局層次」與「公共政策層次的大陸政策」兩個層次負面評議及評價較高; 最後，在馬英九時期，國民黨在四個層次的負面評議及評價都有非常顯著的增加，並且全面超越民進黨。而國民黨則在「政治共同體層次」及「權威當局層次」這兩個層次的負面評議和評價略為降低。不過，總體數據來看仍然呈現上升的趨勢。
並列摘要
This study applies the political system approach pioneered by David Easton to explore disloyalty to Taiwan’s political system by the country’s major political parties: the Kuomintang, or Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The study’s analytical framework applies a “party disloyalty scale,” created by the author, to four levels of Taiwan’s political system: political community, regime, authorities, and public policy (including foreign and domestic policy). Survey research of elite and public opinion applies the concepts of unconstitutionality, illegitimacy, “against the common interest,” and “detrimental to system security” to measure disloyalty by the two parties during the eras of presidents Lee Teng-hui (1988-2000), Chen Shui-bian (2000-2008) and Ma Ying-jeou (2008-2016). The study makes the following findings. (1) Elite Assessment: a survey of 40 elite respondents showed that elites perceived higher disloyalty by the DPP than the KMT, although the difference was limited. Overall, elites viewed the DPP to be more disloyal in each of the three periods considered. At the level of political community however, elites saw the DPP as less disloyal than the KMT for each period. (2) Public Assessment: based on a random survey of 1603 citizens, Taiwanese viewed the DPP to be more loyal overall than the KMT (48.4% vs. 34.1%). Public perceptions thus trended in the opposite direction from elite views regarding loyalty and, notably, neither party was viewed by a majority of the public as loyal on the whole. Broken down over the three periods, the survey results show more Taiwanese viewed the KMT as more loyal than the DPP by a small margin during the Lee Teng-hui era (56.4% vs. 53.4%), while the DPP was seen as slightly more loyal during the Chen Shui-bian era (46.1% vs. 44.2%) and substantially more loyal during the Ma Ying-jeou era (45.3% vs. 30.6%). Public perceptions of loyalty for both parties trended downward over time and neither party was viewed as loyal by a majority of citizens after the Lee era. Both the public and elites viewed the KMT’s loyalty as lowest during the Ma period; however, elites viewed the DPP as more disloyal than the public during the Chen period. In summary, both elites and the public viewed the KMT as more loyal under Lee-Teng-hui, while elite and public perceptions diverged for the Chen and Ma periods; elites viewed the KMT as more loyal during those periods and the public, by contrast, viewed the DPP as more loyal. The study’s aggregate findings regarding the four system levels show the following trends. First, negative scores at all four levels were lower for both parties during the Lee era and negative scores for the KMT were lower than for the DPP at each level. Negative scores for both parties began to increase dramatically at all levels during the Chen era. Negative scores at the levels of political community and regime were higher for the KMT, while the DPP received more negative scores at the levels of authorities and public policy. Finally, there was a very clear rise in negative scores for the KMT for the Ma era and at each level negative scores for the KMT were higher than for the DPP in this period. Although negative scores for the KMT at the levels of political community and authorities dropped slightly over the Ma period, the overall data showed an upward trend in negative scores for the KMT during Ma’s presidency.