台灣原住民立法委員代表行為之研究：2002-2012之質詢內容分析

Abstract

本文以2002到2012年原住民籍立委的質詢發言內容為分析資料，來分析其問政內容是否代表其所認知選民的利益，從而驗證規範性之描述性代表理論的主張是否成立。同時也嘗試透過對質詢議題次數與內容取向的變遷分析，尋找影響變遷的可能原因。研究結果顯示，「族群代表性不足會影響沒有國會代表之原住民族的權益」的情形，並未發生。現行制度雖無法徹底保障原住民族的「描述性代表」，卻有「實質性代表」的現實。所選出的原住民代表並無狹隘的族群意識，而以「泛原住民代表」自居，在質詢問政行為上呈現關照全體原住民利益的趨勢。同時，本文也發現，原住民立委所關注的議題取向會受到選區與政黨的影響，而有所不同，但原則上都與「被代表者」（原住民）的利益相關，而也具體回應了被代表者需求。

This study offers a novel empirical account of the representative behavior of the indigenous legislators in the 2002 to 2012 Legislative Yuan. Based on behavioral data, the analysis seeks first to know whether the lack of descriptive representation leads to the harm of substantive representation or not, and then second to illustrate the change and continuity of the issues which indigenous legislators pay attention to. The research findings indicates that although dedicated indigenous seats are always occupied by Amis, Atayal, and Paiwan, the interests of other indigenous peoples do not be harmed. In other words, the current electoral system does not guarantee descriptive representation of all indigenous peoples but provide a substantive representation to them. Basically, the elected indigenous legislators regard themselves as representatives of all indigenous peoples. Furthermore, although the issues concerned by indigenous legislators may be influenced by constituency and party affiliation, they are still highly related to indigenous interests. Indigenous legislators in Taiwan do response to the needs of the represented.