平等權中政治上無力的概念、理論與測量

Abstract

歷來平等權的違憲審查操作方法中程序取向的論述途徑重心在於透過關注民主政治的不平等現象與若干缺陷，將平等保護對象鎖定於政治程序中的無力者，藉此以建立司法權的正當性，並能契合實質平等概念中關注弱勢者的平等價值。然而誰是政治上無力者不僅歷來討論無法區別規範與經驗層次的論證與方法釐清以致於無法解決問題，也有概念上、理論上以及測量方法上的不明、無法與爭論之處。本研究核心因此著重在透過概念與理論的探討與實際經驗分析測量政治上無力者以解決問題。 本研究首先透過概念與理論的回顧與探討將平等權的概念與理論基礎與政治上無力此一概念連結，指出平等權介入與保障因素中的多層面：程序與實體價值結果取向、影響與地位作為衡量基準、對稱與不對稱平等觀、因素間的包含、交纏性與相關關係、不同倫理基礎、機會與結果平等與相關／因果關係。而政治上無力此一概念作為得以吸納其他平等權介入與保障因素的因素之一也有不同的論述重心（包含是否以敵意、偏見或刻板印象為基礎以及不同的民主理論經驗預設）與價值正當性基礎而與實質平等概念連結。然而不同論述背後都有一定的經驗性的現象理論預設，經驗理論是否實在會影響正當性基礎與規範論證的有效性。 透過第一部份的回顧與探討，本研究進一步在第二部分將政治上無力者概念化，透過權力此一概念中的不同層面與平等概念的回顧與討論，將決策層面權力、非決策層面權力、文化與意識層面權力與真正利益、實質與結果政治平等、一般利益對比特殊利益、偏好加總、多維度議題以及群體等概念納入政治上無力者的概念內涵之中，並以政治參與以及選區立法委員回應作為政治上無力概念的操作定義與實證研究基礎。 第三部分則從國會研究、群體民意與以及誰決定公共政策（誰統治）的民主理論回顧與探討出發，將歷來論述中有關政治上無力的經驗預設以及平等權介入與保障因素歸納連結至各個民主理論而歸入多數決論、（經濟）菁英論、多元論與偏差多元論等民主理論圖像之下，並分別提出競爭假說。 在實證研究上本研究以量化研究與統計方法分析民意問卷資料以及立法院表決資料，透過檢視民眾的多維度政策意向、民眾的政治參與以及民眾是否得到選區立法委員的回應等三個應變項，與各個平等權介入及保障因素與假說中政治上無力可能因素等自變項之間的關係以釐清並驗證假說。根據分析結果主要發現為：1. 不同群體特徵與人口特徵之間的民眾多維度政策意向並無顯著差異；2. 群體人口比例與政治權力（政治參與以及立法委員回應）並無顯著正相關關係，部分少數群體反而有較高的政治參與而較具有權力；3. 敵意、偏見、刻板印象與立法委員回應間無顯著相關關係，也並無證據支持敵意、偏見、刻板印象可持續的條件存在；4. 少數與顯見等特性與一般民眾的政治參與無顯著相關關係；5. 社經地位與政治參與有顯著正相關關係，並有一定程度的證據顯示社經地位較低者立法委員回應程度也較低；6. 政治參與與立法委員回應程度無顯著相關關係。 這些發現的意涵與啟示包含：經濟菁英民主論的經驗描述存在於臺灣社會，低社經地位者確屬政治上無力者；保障少數或「分散又隔離的少數」的傳統平等權憲法論述典範應該轉移；結合民主模型的探討與實證支持使程序取向的平等權論述更穩健實屬必要。

Process-based equal protection theories in judicial review build its foundation and legitimacy by addressing the needs of the politically powerless people originating from the inequalities and failures in democratic systems, and this theoretical approach is able to correspond to the concept of substantive equality. However, debates on “who is politically powerless” continue due to the inability to distinguish empirical and normal aspects of arguments and methodologies as well as insufficient clarification on the concept, theory, and measurement of political powerlessness. This research therefore will focus the conceptual and theoretical issues and empirical measurement of political powerlessness. Firstly, in incorporating political powerlessness into the right to equal protection by reviewing and discussing the development of the right to equal protection and the factors attributed to intervention and warranting protection under equal protection(equal protection factors), this research finds that there are multiple dimensions in the concept of equal protection and equal protection factors, which include: procedural-based/result-based approach, impact/position evaluation basis, symmetric/asymmetric viewpoint, inclusion/interaction/mediation relationship between equal protection factors, different ethical foundations, equality of opportunity/outcome, and causal/correlation relationship. Political powerlessness, as an equal protection factor that may contain other factors, can be incorporated into equal protection and the concept of substantive equality on different grounds, including: 1. if there is an emphasis on animus, prejudice, and stereotype; and 2. democratic model concerning who governs. There are different empirical assumptions behind different grounds in political powerlessness, which its validity would affect the justification of normal claims. This research further conceptualizes political powerlessness in the second part. In reviewing and discussing the different dimensions of the concept of power and the concept of political equality, this research address the importance of decision-making power, non-decision-making power, cultural and ideological power and real interests, substantive-and-result political equality, general/particularistic benefit, aggregation of preferences, multi-dimensional issues, and concept of groups, and then I incorporate these concepts and dimensions into the concept of the politically powerless. This research then proposes political participation and policy responsiveness from legislator as the operational definition and empirical research basis of the concept of political powerlessness. The third part starts from the review and discussion of congressional research, group public opinion, and democratic theories, and summarizes the assumption related to political powerlessness and equal protection factors, categorizing these assumptions into majoritarian theory, (economic) elite domination theory, pluralism, and biased pluralism. Finally I propose corresponding competing hypotheses to test these theories. In terms of empirical research, this research adopts quantitative and statistical methods to analyze public opinion questionnaire data and Legislative Yuan roll-call voting data. It examines the correlation between people’s multi-dimensional policy preferences, political participation, legislator's policy responsiveness, and equal protection factors to test the proposed hypothesis. According to the results of analysis, the main findings are: 1. there is no significant difference in the multi-dimensional policy preferences of people between different group characteristics and demographic characteristics; 2. there is no significant correlation between the group population size and political power (political participation and legislator response), and some minorities have higher degrees of political participation; 3. there is no significant correlation between animus, prejudice, stereotypes and legislator's responsiveness, and there is no evidence to support the existence of conditions for animus, prejudice, and stereotypes to be sustainable or persistent; 4. there is no significant correlation between minority, visibility, and political participation; 5. there is a significant correlation between socioeconomic status and political participation, and there is evidence showing that legislators would less likely to respond to the preferences of people with lower socioeconomic status; 6. there is no significant correlation between political participation and legislators' responsiveness. The implications of these findings are: the empirical description of (economic) elite domination democratic theory exists in Taiwan, and those with lower socioeconomic status are politically powerless; the traditional paradigm of constitutional equal protection theory targeting the minority or the 'discrete and insular minorities' may need to be shifted; it is necessary to discuss the democratic model and empirical evidence in making process-based equal protection arguments to acquire a more robust result.