審議式民主公民培力內涵及轉化學習歷程研究：社會資本理論分析

Abstract

為實踐審議式民主核心價值，建構社會資本循環，朝向良善公民社會邁進，本研究旨在探討審議式民主發展之條件與背景因素，以及其發展現況與特色，並探究五位審議式民主參與者公民培力內涵與轉化學習歷程，再探討審議式民主參與者社會資本內涵。本研究採用質性研究的深度訪談法，針對不同領域之審議式民主參與者共計五位進行半結構式訪談，研究結論有以下七項：一、審議式民主發展背景因素有四項：（一）政治民主化；（二）公民社會自由化；（三）公民文化素養提升；（四）社會中經濟富裕及安定的中產階級人口提升。二、審議式民主發展條件有六項：（一）支持審議民主；（二）參與公民審議的意願；（三）公民心性與能力；（四）政治脈絡因素；（五）社團參與；（六）日常公民討論。三、審議式民主的特色有六項：（一）公開性；（二）平等性；（三）包容性；（四）共識；（五）影響力；（六）互利互惠。四、審議式民主現況分為：（一）積極面(五項)：政府鼓勵民眾多元參與，從書本理論走入社區鄰里，培養跨時代的公民教育精神，促使全民終身學習；（二）消極面(三項)：審議式民主過程雖豐沛但後續行動無力，並且因資訊落差、參與式預算反客為主等因素，淪為政治背書工具。五、審議式民主的公民培力內涵有三項：（一）心理層面；（二）社會層面；（三）政治層面，並藉由政治功效感、政治信任感、反權威意識、民主深化認同、民主價值認同使其深化，進而展開自主性的公民行動。六、審議式民主的轉化學習歷程有四階段：（一）情境投入及提升心靈投入；（二）引發轉化學習因素；（三）修正及重新審視、建構；（四）體現公民認知與行為。七、審議式民主的社會資本內涵有四項意義：（一）建立網絡關係；（二）透過信任開啟對話；（三）互利互惠，強化社會連結；（四）培力公民素養，建立民主規範。依據以上研究結論，對政府組織、社會組織團體、公共參與者等提出多項建議，亦對未來相關研究提供研究方向。This study has aimed to investigate the conditions and background factors for the advancement of deliberative democracy, as well as its current state and distinguishing features, in order to achieve the fundamental principles of deliberative democracy, foster cycles of social capital, and progress towards a virtuous civil society. The study has also aimed to analyze the implications of civic empowerment and the transformative learning process experienced by five participants in deliberative democracy. Additionally, it has sought to investigate the significance of social capital among participants in deliberative democracy.This study utilized qualitative research methodology by conducting in-depth interviews with a total of five people representing diverse domains of deliberative democracy. The research conclusions are summarized as follows:1.The development of deliberative democracy are influenced by four contextual factors: (1) political democratization; (2) the liberalization of civil society; (3) the improvement of civic cultural literacy; and (4) the growth of the economically stable and prosperous middle class in society.2.The development of deliberative democracy is contingent upon six conditions: (1) public endorsement of deliberative democracy; (2) citizen willingness to engage in deliberation; (3) civic mindedness and ability; (4) political context-specific elements; (5) active participation in social groups; and (6) routine civic discussions.3.The characteristics of deliberative democracy are sixfold: (1) transparency; (2) equality; (3) inclusiveness; (4) consensus; (5) influence; and (6) mutual benefit.4.The current state of deliberative democracy can be categorized into the following: (1) Positive aspects (consisting of five items): the government fosters a culture of lifelong learning for all citizens, encourages diverse public participation, and facilitates the transition from theoretical to practical discussions. (2) Negative aspects (three items): In spite of extensive deliberation, the subsequent actions exhibit a lack of strength. Furthermore, the reversal of participatory budgeting and other information disparities have contributed to the transformation of deliberative democracy into a tool for political endorsement.5.Deliberative democracy fosters civic empowerment through three aspects: (1) psychological, (2) social, and (3) political. It encourages autonomous civic engagement by strengthening political efficacy, political trust, anti-authoritarian consciousness, deepening democratic identity, and democratic value identification.6.There are four stages to the transformative learning process of deliberative democracy: (1) situational engagement and spiritual engagement enhancement; (2) activation of transformative learning factors; (3) correction and re-examination, construction; and (4) incarnation of civic cognition and behavior.7.There are four distinct meanings associated with the social capital of deliberative democracy: (1) fostering network relationships; (2) facilitating dialogue through the establishment of trust; (3) mutual benefit by fortifying social connections; and (4) empowering civic literacy by establishing democratic norms.On the basis of the aforementioned research findings, a number of recommendations for public participants, government organizations, and social organizations are made. Further research directions for future studies are also provided by these suggestions.