民粹主義成因與政治效應的比較研究

Abstract

民粹主義為何興起和興起後的民粹主義有何影響是上个世纪九十年代以来，民粹主义在全球范围内兴起後，学术界广泛关注的問題。有別於過去的民粹主義研究從政治人物和政黨搜尋答案，筆者將研究對象放在選民，探討選民支持民粹主義的原因和支持民粹主義後的政治後果。\r\n\r\n按照傳統政治學對民粹主義民主的理解與當前學術界就民粹主義概念定義達成的共識，筆者將民粹主義定義為一種人民反對菁英及彰顯人民意志的薄意識形態。採用政治心理學的研究途徑，筆者視民粹主義為政治文化的一個重要組成部分，個體選民所持有的一類心理學態度。在此基礎上，筆者使用已有的CSES第五波調查資料和在台灣蒐集的三筆一手或二手調查資料，對個體選民民粹主義態度的成因與政治效應進行系統的的比較分析和深入的案例討論。\r\n\r\n在民粹主義態度的成因上，本文發現民主赤字、政治支持、治理績效評估和選舉輸贏，這些對當前民主政治理念及其實踐的認知、評價與經歷顯著地影響了個體選民的民粹主義態度。且認知、評價與經歷愈負向，個體選民所持有的民粹主義態度愈高。台灣脈絡下，影響民粹主義態度的因素只有政治支持和治理績效評估。另外，個體選民所持有的民粹主義態度受到宏觀脈絡性結構因素的影響在不同的國家或地區存在顯著的差異。民主模式在縱向分權上愈趨於共識型和貧富差距愈大的國家或地區，選民的民粹主義態度愈高，但在民粹主義政黨選舉表現愈為強勢的國家或地區，選民的民粹主義態度並未隨之變高。\r\n\r\n在民粹主義態度的政治效應上，本文發現個體選民民粹主義態度的形成顯著地改變了他們的一些政治態度和政治行為。首先，個體選民持有的民粹主義態度愈高，愈不認可代議民主，也不認同與投票給主流政黨，相反愈認同與投票給包括民粹主義政黨在內的非主流政黨。台灣脈絡下，還愈不喜歡主流政治人物，愈喜歡民粹主義政治人物。其次，個體選民持有的民粹主義態度愈高，在心理層面和行為層面涉入政治的程度愈低。民粹主義態度的這一負向影響也未因政治涉入是制度化管道內還是非制度化管道內而呈現不同。再次，個體選民持有的民粹主義態度愈高，在左右意識形態的政治光譜上愈向兩端走。台灣脈絡下，民粹主義態度未使個體選民在經濟發展、社會分配和統獨等爭議性政策議題上的立場出現極化。總結而言，民粹主義態度對選民政治態度和政治行為存在退出效應和極化效應，未形成賦權效應。比較分析部分，筆者使用多層模型發現民粹主義政黨對選民政治態度和政治行為也存在退出效應和極化效應，還存在賦權效應。\r\n\r\n上述之發現是本文在研究方法方面做出改進以推進民粹主義研究的基礎上獲得的一般性結論和脈絡性知識，較為一致穩健。這些改進包括：同時關注社會大眾層級需求面和政黨層級供給面的民粹主義現象；將研究案例拓展至非歐美的國家或地區；使用標準統一的民粹主義概念定義、問卷題目和操作化方式。\r\n\r\n透過這一研究，本文認為民粹主義內生於民主政治在微觀層級也成立，民粹主義在社會大眾層級和政黨層級的興起對民主政治產生的政治影響是多元複雜的，既存在負向的也存在積極的，這與過去學術界所強調的民粹主義是民主政治的陰暗面有所衝突。本文也揭示了大眾層級民粹主義是理解政黨層級民粹主義為何興起的關鍵，而後者對前者的影響並沒有學術界預期的那麼重要。就此而言，筆者呼籲學術界應摒棄對民主政治和民粹主義的固有看法，認真對待和系統檢驗民粹主義與民主政治之間的相互關係，將需求面和供給面的民粹主義現象整合在一起進行研究，針對民粹主義研究面臨的新問題與新挑戰，回歸與回應傳統政治學的經典論述亦是一個突破口。

The global rise of populism since the 1990s has sparked widespread academic interest. Unlike previous populism studies that focused on politicians and parties, the author focuses on voters, exploring the causes and consequences of populism at the individual level.\r\n\r\nIn line with the understandings of populist democracy in traditional political theories and the consensual definition of populism in current scholarship, the author defines populism as a thin ideology “that not only depicts society as divided between ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite,’ but also claims that politics is about respecting popular sovereignty at any cost.” Taking a political psychology approach, the author thinks of populism as an important element of political culture and a psychological attitude held by individual voter. Based on these presuppositions, the author analyzes the causes and political effects of individual voters’ populist attitudes using data from Module 5 of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems surveys and three survey data collected in Taiwan. Through systematic comparative analysis and in-depth case study, the findings obtained in this paper on the causes and political effects of populism are as follows:\r\n\r\nWhat causes populist attitudes in the mass publics? This paper finds that perceptions, evaluations, and experiences of current democracy’s ideas and practices including democratic deficit, political support, evaluation of governmental performance, and electoral win or loss fosters the rise of populist ideas among the mass publics. In detail, individual voters may hold higher populist attitude when their perceptions, evaluations, and experiences of current democracy’s ideas and practices are more negative. In Taiwan’s context, only political support and evaluation of governmental performance affect individual voters’ populist attitude. In addition, individual voters’ populist attitude is influenced by macro contextual factors and varies significantly from country to country or region to region. People may hold higher populist attitudes in countries or regions that tend to be more consensual democracy pattern in vertical dimension or have higher income inequality. However, populist attitude don’t become higher in countries or regions where populist parties have become more dominant in elections.\r\n\r\nAs for the political effects of populist attitudes, this paper finds that individual voters’ political attitudes and political behaviors change significantly as individual voters develop their populist attitude. First of all, the higher populist attitude individual voters hold, the less likely to support representative democracy and mainstream party, and the more likely to identify and vote for non-mainstream parties, including populist parties. In the context of Taiwan, the higher populist attitude individual voters hold, the more likely to dislike mainstream political figures, and the more likely to prefer those with populist characteristics. Secondly, the higher populist attitude held by individual voters, the lower the degree of political involvement in both psychological and behavioral dimensions. The negative impact of populist attitude on individual voters’ political involvement also does not differ significantly from conventional political involvement model to unconventional political involvement model. Thirdly, the higher populist attitude held by individual voters, the more likely to move to both ends of the left-right spectrum. In the context of Taiwan, populist attitude don’t influence the polarization of individual voters’ position on controversial policy issues such as economic development, social welfare, and unification-independence.\r\n\r\nTo sum up, populist attitude in the mass publics has a withdraw effect and a polarization effect on their political attitudes and political behaviors, without creating an empowerment effect. In the comparative analysis section, this study uses multilevel model and finds that the populist parties also have a withdraw effect and a polarization effect, but have an unexpected empowerment effect.\r\n\r\nAs this study puts further improvements of previous populism studies in research method dimension, the above findings obtained by this paper are consistent and robust. These advances include: focusing on populism phenomena at both the mass public level and the party level; expanding the research cases to non-Euro-American countries or regions; and using more standardized and unified definition, questionnaire and operationalization of populism.\r\n\r\nThrough this study, this author reveals the questionable relationship between populism and democracy at the individual level, responds to the classical discourses on populist democracy and liberal democracy in traditional political theories, and calls on current scholarship to abandon their preconceived notions of populism and democracy and to systematically examine the interrelationship between populism and democracy. At the same time, it also provides a sample for the academic community to conduct an integrated study on populism on the demand side of the mass society and the supply side of the political party, and to a certain extent, clarifies some debates on the interrelationship between the demand and supply sides of populism.