學生革命、國家、與相嵌式霸權體制: 臺灣和泰國的民主化。

Abstract

自十九世紀以來，現代民族國家的民族塑造和國家建構進程，其後果不僅是民族國家的出現，而且還有政治制度的出現。換句話說，民族國家的形成造成了兩種政治制度，不是民主制度就是非民主制度。在殖民主義和帝國主義結束後的許多國家，學生和知識分子為民主化做出了貢獻（波蘭，匈牙利，南韓，台灣，印度尼西亞等）。 在國家形成期間，國家通過脅迫和同意征服和保留霸權並塑造政治制度。 這就是為什麼Seymour Martin Lipset（1959）的現代化理論主張「一個國家越富裕，它維持民主的可能性越大」，就無法解釋泰國民主化程度的惡化， 即2006年和2014年的重複軍事政變。因此，我認為只有民主意識形態成功地轉變為國家的「遊戲規則」或「霸權主義的制度」，民主化才會蓬勃發展。 也就是說，「我是國家」（“l’état, c’est moi” - 朕即國家）的威權主義意識形態得到改革， 「機構民主主義者」和「人民成為國家」的觀念（Das Volk als Staat）出現並被制度化為「遊戲規則」。 該研究選擇兩個國家進行比較：台灣和泰國。台灣被選為成功鞏固民主化的代表，即台灣通過「雙翻轉理論」（Huntington 1993），「民主已然成為城裡唯一的遊戲規則」（Linz and Stepan 1996）。 相反的，由於經常發生軍事政變，泰國的民主化惡化了。 在過去，泰國被稱為「微笑之地」。但近年來，由於軍事政變的高統計數據，它應該改為「政變之地」。 本論文啟動了新葛蘭西制度主義，以闡明當泰國的民主化逆轉時台灣正鞏固的民主化過程。本研究認為民主化將因意識形態的改革而成功或失敗，即威權主義只有在專制的霸權機構完全改革並轉變為民主的時候才會被消滅。確切而言，台灣實現了民主化，因為國民黨國家的專制霸權機構已經成功地通過學生革命進行了改革。也就是說，自由，正義，平等和自決的意識形態已經轉變為「社會中的遊戲規則」（North 1990）或霸權機構。相比之下，泰國的學生革命未能挑戰和改革主導的霸權機構。值得注意的是，泰國占主導地位的霸權機構有幫助為軍事政變和官僚制度辯護。 總之，本研究旨在為現代化理論未能解決的成功民主化和失敗的民主化開闢另一種解釋和理論框架。 為了回答這個難題，通過歷史比較分析和歷史定性研究對台灣的鞏固民主化和泰國的民主化進行了比較，檢驗和證實。 研究數據包括檔案，期刊，論文，書籍，新聞，政府資源以及前學生領袖的個人訪談。

The process of the nation-building and state-building of the modern nation-state since the nineteenth century, its consequence is not only the emergence of the nation-state but also the political system. In other words, the formation of the nation-state has affected political system, either democratic or non-democratic regimes. In many countries after the end of colonialism and imperialism, students and intellectuals have made contributions to democratization (Poland, Hungary, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc.). During the formation of the nation, State conquers and preserves hegemony and shapes political system through coercion and consent. It is the reason why Modernization Theory, by Seymour Martin Lipset (1959), which affirms that “the more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy,” fails to explain the deteriorated democratization in Thailand, i.e. repeated military coups in 2006 and 2014. I argue that democratization will flourish only if democratic ideology is successfully reformed and transformed into the “rules of the game” or “Hegemonic Institution” of the State. Namely, the non-democratic ideology of “I am the State” (“l’état, c’est moi”) is reformed and the “Institutional Democrats” and the “People as the State” (Das Volk als Staat) emerge and become the “rules of the game.” The research selects two countries for comparison: Taiwan and Thailand. Taiwan is selected as the representative of successfully consolidated democratization, i.e. Taiwan passes the “two-turnover test” (Huntington 1993) and “democracy become the only game in town” (Linz and Stepan 1996). On the contrary, the democratization of Thailand has been exacerbated due to periodic military coups. In the past, Thailand has been dubbed the “Land of Smiles.” But in recent years, it should be changed to the “Land of Coups” owing to the high statistics of military coup d’états. The dissertation initiates the Neo-Gramscian Institutionalism to elucidate the consolidated democratization in Taiwan while doomed democratization in Thailand. It argues that democratization will succeed or founder because of ideological reformation, i.e. authoritarianism will be annihilated only if the authoritarian Hegemonic Institutions have been completely reformed and are transformed into democratic ones. Taiwan, specifically, achieves democratization because the authoritarian hegemonic institutions of the KMT Party-State have successfully been reformed by student revolution. Namely, the ideology of freedom, justice, equality, and self-determination have been transformed into “the rules of the game in a society” (North 1990) or Hegemonic Institutions. Thailand, in contrast, the student revolution fails to challenge and reform the prevailing Hegemonic Institutions since the predominant Hegemonic Institutions of Thailand help to justify military coups and bureaucratic regimes. In conclusion, the research aims to inaugurates an alternative explanation and theoretical framework of successful democratization and the abortive ones which Modernization Theory fails to resolve. To answer the conundrum, the consolidated democratization of Taiwan and the defeated democratization of Thailand are compared, examined and testified by the Historical Comparative Analysis and the Historical Qualitative Research. The research data encompasses archives, journals, dissertations, books, news, government resources, and personal interviews of the former student leaders.