Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Other Titles: ||2004年臺灣首次全國性公民投票的政治分析|
A politic analysis on the first nationwide referendum of Taiwan in 2004
|Authors: ||粘美惠;Nien, Mei-hui|
|Keywords: ||公民投票;歷史制度論;防衛性公投;扼阻公投;Referendum;historical institutionalism;defending referendum;interdicting referendum|
|Issue Date: ||2010-01-11 04:48:38 (UTC+8)|
The evolution of referendum development in Taiwan has a long history: It was germinated from 228 Incidence of 1947 when Taiwan independence advocates like Liao Wen-Yi et al. asked for referendum to express their opposition to the authority system at that time. However, it was not until March 20, 2004 did referendum come to reality in Taiwan with a legislation foundation. The referendum was given an image of high political manipulation because it was conducted on the same time as Taiwan’s general election with a lot of political consideration from both the ruling party and its opponent. It is even argued that the referendum did not reached a consensus due to intensive political mobilization of both parties during the general election. However, I wonder such a conclusion was drew with no consideration of the historical causality. Therefore, the key questions discussed in this thesis are: “What were the predicaments in the developing process of Taiwan referendum?” “What are the turning points of the development of referendum?” “What was the institutional context that influencing the process of referendum in 2004?” “Was there any factors behind the political operations posing an influence on the process of referendum, and which are they?”
“Historical institutionalism” is adopted as the research approach due to the correlation between the development and its institutional influence. In chapter one, the motivation, purpose/intention of the study are explained; the reference documents of referendum is reviewed and discussed; then, the research approach, historical institutionalism, is explained to build up a clear research structure, and the research methods and the content arrangement are included, too. In chapter two, the factors that failed referendum in Taiwan’s authority time are discussed with the focus on the causalities between referendum development and the operation of the centralization of the party-state, the strategy of high pressure governance and the ideology of “One China.” Chapter three focuses on the institutional factors to legislate for referendum—It points out the critical factors of the referendum development by illustrating the change of the authority state, the environment crises, and the decision-makers’ choices and strategies. Chapter four probes into the correlation between the operation of the first national referendum and its institutional context and illustrates how it took place. Besides, the dynamic factors affecting the development and result of this referendum are also inspected. In chapter five, the finding of this research is concluded with remarks of the research limitation, and suggestion of the following studies.
Key findings of this research in the pragmatic aspect are:
1)Party-state holds the absolute authority of the country and impairs the development of referendum;
2)The change of authority state is the turning point to realize referendum;
3)The defensive referendum is the unexpected result of the historical development, and the choice to maximize the benefit of the state as well;
4)The outcome of the first referendum was influenced by multiple factors and the national sub-consciousness of “One China;”
5)The state’s role and elective factors are critical to the development of referendum;
Key findings in the theoretical aspect are:
1)Referendum can re-build citizens’ preference for a subject;
2)Historical institutionalism fails to recognize that decision-makers’ non-action strategy may hamper the development of referendum.
|Appears in Collections:||[公共行政學系暨研究所] 學位論文|
All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.