審議民主與利益團體之關係探討

Abstract

審議民主的引進讓社會難解的政策議題，出現新的場合能溝通討論，並使得公民的政治參與方式，有了不同的想像和可能。審議民主強調平等、公平與客觀、理性，翻轉傳統代議民主的專家決策模式，將影響政策的主動權交由個人公民，並期待藉由公共審議能產生意見轉化。審議民主核心價值和被視為代表部分「民意」的利益團體，其已具有特定立場與鮮明倡議訴求之參與模式，產生緊張關係。也因此本文欲瞭解探討利益團體對審議民主操作的看法和期待，並在參與審議中呈現何種角色與互動關係。 研究發現利益團體參與審議為策略性與政治性之選擇，同時由於臺灣實踐審議的背景脈絡，利益團體參與審議之契機很大因素來自於對審議民主操作者的信任。利益團體將審議民主視為新興倡議管道或改變團體形象之方式，即使目前多質疑審議民主可對政府決策造成影響，仍肯定公民審議能創造政策議題實質對話。而審議民主操作者亦認同審議之完備性、多元性與正當性，需要仰賴利益團體的參與，然審議操作者更重視審議實踐方式與過程必須符合審議民主原則，認為審議場域和產出具有特殊性，在審議民主原則下而考量看待利益團體的進場。

Deliberative democracy makes Political gridlock and controversial policy produce new platform to communicate, then makes citizens own other possibilities and imagine of their political participations. Deliberative democracy emphasizes equality, fairness, objectivity and rationality, and transforms traditional policy decision model, then let individual citizen take the initiative, moreover expects public deliberation could make public opinions change. There are inherent tensions between the value of deliberative democracy and interest group. Interest groups usually have the clear policy positions. This article focuses on how interest group think about deliberative democracy, and what kinds of roles they played in the deliberation. This thesis research the interaction between deliberative democracy and interest groups in citizen conference. The main research findings are as follows. First, interest groups’ participation choice is strategic and political significance. Interest group willing to participate deliberation because of their trust of the citizen conference operators in Taiwan deliberation context. Second, deliberative democracy is a new advocative approach for interest group. Although interest groups question deliberative democracy process can make decision difference, they still agree deliberative democracy can increase social discussions in policy issue. Third, deliberation operator support that the participation of interest advocates in citizen conference adds integrity and legitimacy to the deliberations and their outcomes. However, deliberation operator make much of deliberative democracy values, emphasize deliberation’s process more than outcomes. For this reason, deliberation operator agree that there are the tensions between deliberation and advocacy.