兩岸比較視野下的中國政治發展：國家對社經變遷的控制與調適-子計畫二
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2012-12-31
Authors
黃信豪
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
本研究計畫將在相似個案的架構下，從「菁英選拔」的主題來比較中共與戒嚴時期國民黨的黨國體制。以此，本計畫目的在於透過比較研究，來釐清中共「後極權資本主義發展型國家」特性中「後極權主義」面向的政權屬性。概念上，雖然中共與國民黨皆被歸類為「列寧式政黨」，但本計畫認為兩岸的黨國體制將存在「內在組織」與「外在環境」的不同。在內在組織方面，中共黨組織能力與滲透力應是高過國民黨的，這也凸顯「後極權主義」與「威權主義」的差異。其次，在外在環境部分，即使國民黨與中共皆試圖透過發展經濟來轉化為統治正當性的依據；然而，兩者另一個重大差異在於國民黨遷台後即面臨「政權在地化」的問題：相較於中共得以漸進式的建立菁英輪替機制，而國民黨卻必須立即甄補本省菁英以維繫在台灣的統治。內部組織與外在環境的不同，不但形塑兩岸黨國體制不同的演變軌跡，或許也能解釋為何兩者在相似的體制架構下卻面臨不同的命運。
Applying the approach of the most similar case design, this research project attempts to identify the similarities and differences between the CCP and the KMT (during the martial law period) regarding elite selection. In essence, the project purports to explore the nature of CCP’s post-totalitarian regime, by comparing it to an authoritarian regime with similar party-state system. Although the two parties are both referred to as Leninist parties, the project argues that there exist two vital differences in their party-state systems that distinguish the post-totalitarian and the authoritarian regime. First, in terms of internal organization, the degrees of organizational capacity to penetrate various levels of government and society differ between the CCP and the KMT because of the nature of different regimes. Second, with regard to the external environment, compared to the CCP, the KMT had to deal with the dilemma of whether to recruit new members directly from local elites in Taiwan. It means that the CCP could gradually renew their cadres, but the KMT had to immediately advance some local elites so as to maintain its ruling in Taiwan. These two differences have shaped the different evolution paths of the two party-state systems, as well as their fates.
Applying the approach of the most similar case design, this research project attempts to identify the similarities and differences between the CCP and the KMT (during the martial law period) regarding elite selection. In essence, the project purports to explore the nature of CCP’s post-totalitarian regime, by comparing it to an authoritarian regime with similar party-state system. Although the two parties are both referred to as Leninist parties, the project argues that there exist two vital differences in their party-state systems that distinguish the post-totalitarian and the authoritarian regime. First, in terms of internal organization, the degrees of organizational capacity to penetrate various levels of government and society differ between the CCP and the KMT because of the nature of different regimes. Second, with regard to the external environment, compared to the CCP, the KMT had to deal with the dilemma of whether to recruit new members directly from local elites in Taiwan. It means that the CCP could gradually renew their cadres, but the KMT had to immediately advance some local elites so as to maintain its ruling in Taiwan. These two differences have shaped the different evolution paths of the two party-state systems, as well as their fates.