期刊內容 Issue content

回列表
民主鞏固或崩潰:台灣與俄羅斯之觀察(1995~2005年)
Democratic Consolidation or Breakdown: Observations on Russia and Taiwan (1995~2005)
李酉潭(Yeau-Tarn Lee)
下載檔案
45卷6期(2006/11/01)

台灣與俄羅斯都是在第三波民主化浪潮時，從威權或極權政體走向民主政體的國家。然而，兩國的民主政治發展卻有截然不同的結果。本文的主要目的，乃是在探討 1995 年至 2005 年之間，台灣與俄羅斯在民主發展上的異同。首先，針對民主鞏固之概念作概括性的整理與解釋;其次，說明台灣與俄羅斯民主發展之過程;接著，以民主轉型與民主鞏固的模型，深入比較台灣與俄羅斯民主化進程之差異;最後，則進一步提出台灣邁向民主鞏固與俄羅斯發生民主崩潰的觀察。

 

Both Taiwan and Russia became democracies during the period of Third Wave of Democratization. However, the results of democratization for each turned out to be completely different. The main purpose of this paper is to examine the similarities and dissimilarities of democratic developments during the period of 1995-2005. The concept of democratic consolidation and relevant ideas is clearly explained in the first section, also showing the process of Taiwan and Russia’s democratic developments. In addition, models of democratic transition and democratic consolidation to clarify the difference of both countries’ democratization are used. Finally, observations on Taiwan’s democratic consolidation and Russia’s democratic breakdown are offered.

 

第三波民主化民主轉型民主鞏固民主崩潰台灣俄羅斯 Third Wave of Democratization democratic transition democratic consolidation democratic breakdown Taiwan Russia

相關期刊

主權層次性與聯合國席次的政治安排-蘇聯的個案
The Hierarchy of Sovereignty and Political Arrangements of UN Seats: A Case Study of the Soviet Union
趙竹成(Zhu-Cheng Zhao)
53卷4期(2014/12/01)

蘇聯自 1922 年建立後，在主權的實踐上有兩重要的轉折點，一是 1922 年的建立，是透過條約的簽訂而組成。也就是 1922 年的蘇聯在本質上具有「邦聯」的性質。但是，隨著 1924 年蘇聯憲法的通過，「邦聯」的蘇聯轉換 成「聯邦」的蘇聯，原來俄羅斯聯邦、烏克蘭、白俄羅斯及外高加索聯邦四個共和國主權的安排，透過憲法架構下「自由退出權」的設計得到妥協。在這樣的架構下，蘇聯體制的變異性成為一個特殊的現象。這種變異性使蘇聯在聯合國創立之初，就出現「一國三席」的特..

During its establishment in 1922 and political transformation in 1924, the USSR transformed from a confederation to a federation through the Soviet Constitution in 1924. As a result, four sovereignties, including the original Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the Byelorussian SSR, and the Transcaucasian SFSR, were entitled free exit rights as a compromise under the constitutional framework. This structure led to a unique phenomenon where one nation had three seats at the UN. While the USSR served as a permanent member in the U..

選舉輸家和贏家的情感極化差異： 政治效能感的調節作用
The Differences of Affective Polarization between Electoral Losers and Winners: The Moderating Role of Political Efficacy
王靖興 (Ching-Hsing Wang)
64卷1期(2025/03/01)

過去研究已指出選舉輸家和贏家在民主滿意度和政治支持上具有顯著的差異，然而卻鮮少有研究檢視選舉輸家和贏家在情感極化的程度上是否有顯著的不同。本研究認為在選舉競爭激烈的情況下，選舉輸家對於勝選者缺乏信心，不信任勝選者會回應其需求，加深其與勝選陣營之間的鴻溝，進而具有較高的情感極化程度。另一方面，選舉贏家則因為處於勝選、掌握政治權力的一方，對於敵對陣營可能較具有包容力，因此會具有較低的情感極化程度。此外，本研究進一步提出選舉輸家/贏家與情感極化之間的關係會受到治效能感的調節作用而產生異質性的影..

Previous research has pointed out significant differences between electoral losers and winners in terms of democratic satisfaction and political support. However, there has been scarce examination of whether there are significant differences in affective polarization between electoral losers and winners. This study argues that in fiercely competitive elections, electoral losers lack confidence in the winners and distrust that their needs will be addressed, deepening the divide between them and the winning camp, and leading to higher levels ..

top