審議民主與多元社會的穩定

Deliberative Democracy and the Stability of a Pluralist Society

吳澤玫(Tse-Mei Wu)

《政治與社會哲學評論》 49期 (2014/06) Pp. 1-58

https://doi.org/10.6523/168451532014060049001

摘要

在自由主義民主社會裡，公民經常對社會制度和公共政策抱持歧見，因而穩定性問題對所有當代多元社會構成重要的挑戰。我們必須正視並加以解決的問題是：如何促使抱持不同道德觀和價值觀的公民，自願接受並遵守重要制度和政策的規範？本文的目的在於闡明，古德曼和湯普森的審議民主觀如何及在何種程度上能夠確保多元社會的穩定。筆者將指出，公共審議可以發揮集思廣益、轉換個人偏好、促進相互尊重、為決策結果賦予正當性的功能，故可縮小政治歧見的範圍，促使公民更願意支持並遵守最後的決議。而古德曼和湯普森的審議動態性主張亦有助於確保穩定。然而，他們的理論缺乏可行的實作機制，須輔以這類機制的設計，才能真正實現公共審議的穩定性功能。

關鍵字

審議民主 ； 穩定性問題 ； 古德曼 ； 湯普森 ； 審議

並列摘要

In a liberal democratic society, citizens frequently disagree about various social institutions and public policies. The problem of stability presents a challenge for every contemporary pluralist society. The problem we are faced with is how citizens can be motivated to accept and comply with institutions and policies voluntarily, even if they affirm different conceptions of morality and good. The purpose of this essay is to formulate how and to what extent the conception of deliberative democracy proposed by Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson can secure the stability of a pluralist society. I will point out that public deliberation can produce a brainstorming effect, transform individuals' preferences from private interests to public interests, promote mutual respect between citizens, and confer legitimacy on the results of policy-making. These effects can mitigate political disagreement and make citizens more willing to support or comply with the ultimate results. Moreover, Gutmann and Thompson argue that the deliberative process is dynamic, which is also conducive to stability. However, their theory lacks practical mechanisms, and such mechanisms should be offered as supplements in order to realize the stabilizing functions of public deliberation.

並列關鍵字

deliberative democracy ； the problem of stability ； Amy Gutmann ； Dennis Thompson ； deliberation

參考文獻

林祐聖 2007 〈我們沒有台上台下之分─代理孕母公民共識會議中的專家與常民關係〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，7 卷2 期， 頁1-32。

陳東升 2006 〈審議民主的限制─台灣公民會議的經驗〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，3 卷1 期，頁77-104。

Ackerman, Bruce and James S. Fishkin 2003 “Deliberation Day,” in James S. Fishkin and Peter Laslett eds., Debating Deliberative Democracy. Malden, M.A.: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 7-30.

Chambers, Simone 2001 “Constitutional Referendums and Democratic Deliberation,” in Matthew Mendelsohn and Andrew Parkin eds., Referendum Democracy: Citizens, Elites, and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns. New York: Palgrave, pp. 231-255.

Chambers, Simone 2004 “Behind Closed Doors: Publicity, Secrecy, and the Quality of Deliberation,” The Journal of Political Philosophy 12: 389-410.