台灣與南韓民主化後的政黨和政黨體系制度化：政黨與選民的連結關係

Abstract

本論文的觀點認為，政黨與政黨體系的制度化是民主政治的重要核心，這個論點也受到政治學文獻的廣泛支持。我們利用第三波民主化中的兩個新興民主政體 (台灣與南韓) 的實證經驗，檢視其民主化後的政黨政治發展，嚐試填補東亞政黨與政黨體系制度化研究的缺口。本研究區分了兩個相關但具有區別的概念—「政黨體系制度化」與「政黨制度化」。我們特別關注兩個問題： 1. 為何在民主化之後，相較於南韓，台灣實現了更快速地政黨體系制度化？ 2. 為何兩個國家中的主要政黨，政黨制度化的程度並不一致？ 為了回答這些問題，本研究透過檢視過去兩國獨裁政權的不同遺緒，試圖解釋台灣和南韓政黨體系制度化之所以不同的原因。同時，我們也開發了一個解釋模型來顯示，選民和政黨之間的聯繫方式，將會影響個別政黨的制度化結果。 透過審視台灣與南韓的選民與四個主要政黨的聯繫方式，結合了綱領性/意識型態與情感/侍從主義不同聯結，我們嚐試解釋兩個國家的政黨制度化在民主化後為何有不同的程度。 本文發現，若政黨與選民之間具有較強的綱領性/意識型態性聯結，並結合較弱的情感/侍從主義性聯結，其政黨制度化的水準最高。如果政黨與選民之間，綱領性/意識型態性以及情感/侍從主義性的聯結都強的話，政黨制度化的程度將會降低，這是因為政黨具有在正式組織之外動員選民的選項。然而，弱的綱領性/意識型態性聯結加上弱的情感/侍從主義性聯結，政黨的制度化程度會比弱的綱領性/意識型態性聯結加上強的情感/侍從主義性選民的組合來的更低，因為雖然缺乏了綱領性/意識型態性選民聯結，但情感/侍從主義性聯結至少提供了政黨與選民之間的聯繫渠道。 最後，在台灣和南韓個別的個案研究章節中，本論文提供了兩國的主要政黨在自由化以來的發展概況，探討威權遺緒、政黨與選民的聯結以及政黨制度化之間的關係。

This study is premised on the belief, widely accepted in the political science literature, that party and party system institutionalization is important for democracy, and the desire to fill a gap in research on party and party system institutionalization in East Asia by examining the development of political parties in the region’s two third wave democracies – Taiwan and South Korea – since democratization. The study distinguishes between two related, but analytically distinct concepts – “party system institutionalization” and “party institutionalization.” In particular, we address two key questions: (1) Why has Taiwan witnessed much more rapid party system institutionalization than South Korea following democratization? (2) Why has the pace of party institutionalization varied between the major parties in the two countries? To answer these questions, the study tries to explain the different levels of party system institutionalization in Taiwan and South Korea by reference to the legacies of the authoritarian regimes in the two countries, before developing a model that shows how linkages patterns between voters and parties may influence the institutionalization of individual political parties. By examining the combination of programmatic/ideological and affective/clientelist linkages between voters and the four major parties in Taiwan and South Korea, we try to explain why parties in the two countries have institutionalized at different paces since democratization. We find that strong programmatic/ideological party-voter linkages combined with weak affective/clientelist party-voter linkages produces the highest level of party institutionalization. When strong programmatic/ideological party-voter linkages are combined with strong affective/clientelist linkages, party institutionalization will be lower as parties have the option of mobilizing voters outside the formal party organization. However, weak party programmatic/ideological party-voter linkages combined with weak affective/clientelist linkages produces lower levels of institutionalization than the combination of weak party programmatic/ideological linkages and strong affective/clientelist linkages, as in the absence of programmatic/ideological party-voter ties, affective/clientelist ties at least offer a channel for parties to link with voters. Finally, separate case study chapters on Taiwan and South Korea provide an overview of the development of each of the major political parties in the two countries since liberation, exploring the relationship between authoritarian legacies, party-voter linkages, and party institutionalization.