曲兆祥Chu, Chao-Hsiang林敬堯Lin, Ching-Yao2019-08-282021-08-012019-08-282016http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G0899360029%22.&%22.id.&http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/85468在香港回歸前的過渡時期，由於英國確知即將退出香港，因此開始在香港主導一系列民主化與代議政治改革。北京在香港建立以行政長官為首的政府，直接聽命中央，由行政長官總攬大權，是為行政主導的政體。如此制度設計就是為了要一方面讓香港維持原有制度與生活，同時中央又得以完整的領導與監督。 總的來說，回歸以後香港的政治體制，特別是民主的發展，可說處處受制於北京。在這種新舊矛盾的引爆點，是擁有公權力的政治社群和公民對於美好社會的理解衝突，也是雙方對於社群--公民關係，即公民身份觀的理解衝突：前者通過自上而下的界定向社會推行自由主義的公民身份傳統；而後者則通過自下而上的公民實踐，以一種反對傳統自由主義教義的方式，尋找和重新界定政治社群和公民的概念及其關係，並逐漸發展出一種社團主義的公民身份概念。 香港衝突不斷，何去何從？本文認為「撕裂」其實是「溝通」的開始，名義上北京沒有取消一國兩制，雨傘運動從量變到質變，本質上北京中央直接對香港行使管治，其實一國兩制就不復存在了。民間若沒有展現政治力，不論是通過選票或是其他手段，獨裁政治不會主動改革 本文從國家與社會的關係入手，學界關於社會運動產生和發展機制的研究有變遷、結構與話語三大視角。 針對香港規模性社會運動再現的事實，通過具體事件分析，將之置於社會變遷背景之下，對香港經濟、社會與政治轉型等結構性因素進行考察，並嘗試構建結構分析之下話語（社會規範及其不同形態，如認同感、合法性等）分析路徑，也即嘗試構建一個融合變遷、結構與話語三大視角的綜合性解釋模型。研究表明，問題解決因應的思路在於理順國家和社會關係，以使得中央和香港共持身份認同話語權與詮釋權、共同提升政府政策合法性，以期借此推動社會運動社會制度化建設在香港更好地運轉。 底層不斷發酵的社會情緒，反映香港這個社會不願在中國負面影響下討生活，這種感受已經擴散到一部分中產階級。這本質上是政治問題。政治問題不解決，直接而自發的公民行動，只會不斷湧現。反對者思考面對中共的強權政治，沒有抗爭就會有真普選嗎？沒有真普選、沒有民主，就可扭轉這種局勢嗎？香港民主運動面對的困局主要有三方面：一、中央擊碎民主夢，全面打壓將至；二、民主改革失敗，管治困局無從解決；三、雨傘運動過後，社會全面撕裂。As the British were preparing their imminent withdrawal from Hong Kong on the eve of the 1997 Handover, the city officials begin enacting a series of reforms related democratization and representational governance. Beijing’s newly established office of Chief Executive was mandated to report directly to the central government. Granted a wide range of powers, the Chief Executive became Hong Kong’s primary administrative entity. The purpose of this arrangement was to allow Hong Kong to retain the essential features of its original administrative structure while simultaneously enabling the central government to fully lead and supervise the governance of the city. To put it succinctly, since the Handover, the growth and development of Hong Kong’s system of governance, especially in regards to democratization, has been curtailed by Beijing at every turn. In this flashpoint of contradiction between new and old systems of administration, the social ideals held by powerful political communities and those of ordinary citizens have come into sharp conflict. Both sides hold incompatible understandings regarding the relationship between community and citizen as well as on the nature of citizenship itself. The political communities undertake a top-down approach promoting the liberal citizenship tradition. Regular citizens, on the other hand, take a bottom-up approach when putting their ideals into practice. This type anti-traditional liberal methodology seeks to redefinethe concepts of and relationship between political community and citizenship, consummating in the gradual creation of a corporate citizenship. What are the causes and cures of Hong Kong’s incessant social conflicts? In this paper it is argued that “ripping apart” is actually the beginning stage of “communication.” Although Beijing has not formally disassembled its “one country, two systems” framework, the central government is nonetheless in direct control of policy in Hong Kong. This fact was evidenced in both the quantitative and qualitative changes of the Umbrella Movement. The people currently have no means of expanding their influence in the government, despite the use of elections and various other measures—authoritarian governments do not make reforms on their own accord. This paper takes the relationship between state and society as its starting point and examines research on the production of social movements and development mechanisms from the three-fold perspective of change, structure and discourse. This paper studies the scale of Hong Kong’s reoccurring social movements utilizing a concrete analysis of events set against the backdrop of a society in transition. Entailed in this analysis is an observation the structural elements associated with Hong Kong’s social, economic and political transformation. An attempt will be made to construct a structural analysis of the current discourse (e.g., social norms and arrangements, self-identity, legality) as well as to present an explanation model that combines the three elements of change, structure and discourse. This research indicates that problem resolution should involve rationalizing the relationship between nation and society, which would result in Hong Kong and the central government becoming equal participants in the discourse of self-identity along with an increased consensus regarding the legality of the Hong Kong government’s policy initiatives. Future social movements could be promoted with a greater degree of efficiency, resting as they would on the basis of more robust social institutions. The continual fomenting of frustration among the lower strata of society is a reflection of the Hong Kong citizenry’s unwillingness to submit to the conditions imposed on them by Beijing in order to survive. This discontent has already spread to sections of the middle class. Unresolved political issues such as this can only lead to continued civic unrest. How could dissenters, confronting the powerful Chinese Communist Party, hope to gain universal suffrage without the use of protests? Would no universal suffrage and no democracy change this situation for the better? Hong Kong’s democratic movement thus faces a three-pronged predicament: (1) the central government, applying pressure on all sides, has shattered city’s hopes of democracy; (2) the failure of democratic reforms has left the problem of governance unresolved; (3) the deep social rift that emerged in the aftermath of the Umbrella Movement.真普選831人大決定雨傘運動佔中行動Universal Suffrage8.31 DecisionUmbrella MovementOccupy Central