中華民國副總統角色定位的政治分析

Abstract

副總統研究的相關文獻呈現出許多的弱點，研究內容多屬於法制與規範的研究，而且研究方法皆止於文獻分析，缺乏事實的面訪。本文希望進行實際的深度訪談，設計明確的題綱，向當事人進行實證的訪談及資料的蒐集。 本文提出兩個假說，「假說1：對於副總統一職的存廢，與未來修憲立場相關，若越傾向總統權力大的，越會支持設置副總統」；「假說2：越傾向保留副總統態度的，越傾向未來修憲時給予副總統更明確的法定權力」。研究結果發現，對於副總統職是否設置的思考與政府體制的選擇具有相當的關係，也與受訪者或是文獻寫作者的背景相關。 「憲政主義邏輯」因為強調法制與依法行政，所以多半傾向制訂較完整憲政制度，同時要求行動者應護憲守憲，這類研究者較為傾向支持內閣制，認為不需要副總統一職，強調回歸憲法條文，同時也比較會就法論法與守法。「權力運作邏輯」的研究者就比較傾向支持雙首長制或是總統，認為備位副總統的作用有其必要，強調制度要運作的好必須符合政治文化傳統的考量，同時重視政治力的相互作用與妥協。 副總統人選通常是總統黨內初選的對手，被提名是為了黨內權力平衡、派系平衡，甚或是利益交換，在實務上很難成為重要的政策諮詢者或是參與決策核心，通常在選舉之後就會被排除在決策核心之外。雖然民主政治以數人頭代替打破頭，以選票代替子彈，較過去文明很多，可是在政治本質的鬥爭意義上，總統與副總統仍然存在根本的，難以和諧的矛盾點。 副總統的主要功能為「備位」，在沒有副總統的國家，有雙首長制的總理代理、也有國會議議長代理，都是看守過渡。從日常經驗觀察，多數的選民在選正、副總統時，雖然副總統搭檔也有影響，但重心應都在總統身上。因此如遇總統缺位，宜由行政權第二順位的總理或立法權第一順位的國會議長代理、看守過渡、並改選總統，由此觀之，設「副總統」是不宜，也不需要。如果中華民國的憲政體制混淆不清，設「副總統」只為備位，而無職權規範，除非中華民國要獨創一格或完全抄襲美國的憲政體制，否則參酌國際經驗應廢掉副總統這個機關。

Current research on vice-presidents has a number of weaknesses. Most current research is focused on legal institutions and normative issues. The main research methodology is reading of relevant documents, analysis and comparison. There has been no actual interview work done. This paper seeks to use past research as a basic framework to address this inadequacy. It will design a framework of questions in order to carry out rigorous and in-depth interviews, and to collect relevant data. The paper proposes two hypotheses: (1) the issue of whether there should be an office of vice-president concerns future constitutional reform. The greater the power of the president, the greater the support for establishing an office of vice-president. (2) The greater the tendency to keep the office of vice-president, the greater the support for giving the vice-president clear powers in future constitutional reform. In-depth interviews and examination of relevant documents reveals that the decision regarding whether to establish an office of vice-president and the system of government are related. In addition, the background of interviewees or writers on the subject was an important determinant of an individual’s preference regarding the establishment of an office of vice-president. Since “constitutional logic” emphasizes the rule of law and rule by law, most people who support establishing a complete constitutional system also require political actors to protect and uphold the constitution. This research tends to support parliamentary systems, and argues that there is no need for an office of vice-president. These researchers tend to emphasize upholding the law. Researchers who emphasize the “operation of power” tend to support either a semi-presidential system or presidential system, and believe that establishing an office of vice-president is necessary. They believe that an effective system must take into account existing political culture, and also emphasize the interaction and compromise of different sources of political power. The vice-president is often selected from one of the president’s opponents in the primary race, and is often selected to balance power in the party, or balance factions, or even as an exchange of favors. In reality, it is difficult for a vice-president to become an important policy advisor or to play a significant role in decision making. Typically, after the election the vice-president finds himself on the outside of the core decision making group. Although democratic politics “counts heads instead of breaking them” and “uses ballots in place of bullets”, it is still defined by political conflict. It is therefore difficult to find harmony between the president and vice-president. In many countries that do not use an American presidential system, the vice-president lacks democratic legitimacy or the office of vice-president does not exist. These countries either use a premier or speaker of the legislative assembly to take the roles of vice-president. The two can acts as caretakers in transition periods. Generally speaking, when voting for the president and vice-president, the focus of most voters is on the president. Although the vice-president the president teams up with may have some effect, he is not the central focus, and is often seen as simply as the “freerider” on the ticket. As such, in case where the president dies or leaves office, the second most powerful holder of executive power (premier) or the most powerful holder of legislative power (speaker) can take on the caretaker role until a new president can be elected. In these circumstances, creating an office of vice-president is inappropriate and unnecessary. For example, the Republic of China constitution does not give the vice-president any powers. His only role is to step in in case that the president dies or is forced to leave office. Unless the ROC decided to completely copy the American presidential system, the office of vice-president is unnecessary and should be abolished.