審議民主概念中的公民會議，近年來已成為民主國家的重要審議機制，甚至可能成為未來公共政策制訂的基礎，許多不同的政府機構、非營利組織、學術團體陸續利用此機制提升公民參與。本文以公民會議的參與者與籌辦者為研究對象，分別從審議民主自我轉化理論及轉化學習理論的角度，探究公民會議前後，以及結束迄今約1年餘，相關參與者產生轉化的情形為何，進一步分析審議民主理論與轉化學習理論之間是否存在著互惠性（reciprocity）。本研究以宜蘭社區大學舉辦的「新竹科學園區宜蘭基地」公民會議為研究個案，針對參與者及籌辦者進行不同階段的問卷分析，呈現出其在審議民主理論自我轉化的過程；亦同時採取深度訪談方式，藉以瞭解參與者的轉化學習過程，並進一步探究其動機及影響程度。 本研究結果指出，首先在審議民主理論自我轉化三個面向中，「知識」層面僅侷限於政策知識的轉化，並未擴及政策相關知識；「態度」層面，政治效能感維持高度效能感，另會議甫結束時相關政策態度並未產生轉化，然而卻在會議結束後一年後有了轉變，初步推測應與外在環境因素變化有關；至於「行動」層面，則提高了參與公共事務的興趣，同時強化公共參與行動。惟前揭審議民主理論自我轉化的三個面向之間並未出現直接且明確的因果關係，僅發現知識的轉化整體而言會帶動政治效能感的轉化，同時知識的轉化也會相對地提高其參與公共事務的興趣和信心，可以初步推測知識與行動之間存在某種程度上的因果關係。其次，研究發現審議民主自我轉化理論及轉化學習理論兩者之間存在些許差異，在審議民主的轉化面向中，即使並未產生批判性思考，還是有可能會有行動方面的轉化；反觀轉化學習理論卻必定是需要經過批判性思考，最後才有可能完成轉化學習，但兩者仍可藉由審議民主中強調「知情」及「溝通」的過程中產生相互影響。本文藉由實證研究探討審議民主的重要價值理念，也提供未來舉辦公民會議經驗參考。

近年來，審議民主在台灣日漸蓬勃發展。自2002年的審議民主公民會議開始以來，台灣以有過許多辦理審議民主之參與機制的經驗。因此本研究的目的，在於探討審議民主「理性溝通」的理論，在實際執行過程中所落實的情況為何，以探究理性溝通的實際樣貌。 從文獻中發現，為了達成共識，「理性溝通」與「互惠」乃是審議民主的核心理念。所謂「理性溝通」，就是論證。最終共識應是由「較佳論證的力量」所促成的，而非其他內在或外在限制所造成。另一方面，「互惠」則是指：當討論過程中產生衝突或價值差異時，討論者會試著擺脫價值層次的爭議，尋求彼此皆可接受的協議。過去文獻對於這兩個概念主要聚焦於抽象層次的規範性探討。為了探究理論在實際的落實情況為何。本研究以William Dunn (2004)所發展出來的政策論證架構，並以內容分析法分析二代健保法人論壇參與者的發言內容，以及共識結論報告，探索參與者在審議過程中的說理過程。 本研究發現：在「理性溝通」的部分，從發言特質之中可以看見，不論有無共識的討論，皆是以「分析」與「說明」類型居多。具邏輯推演形式的「分析」論證較為常用，顯示法人論壇的參與者，慣以「邏輯推理」來進行理性討論。而在有共識結論的討論中，其使用頻率高於無共識的討論。顯示具邏輯推演形式的「分析」論證，較能引起在場的其他成員認同，因而成為討論的慣用形式，且其易使討論能出現共識。至於在「互惠」發言的部分，有共識結論的討論，慣用類型仍是「分析」類型為最多。此外在相異型互惠變化，是以擴張轉換為多。表示在對話中，發言者會以更進一步的推理方式予以支持。顯示支持者並非感覺式的認同，乃是能瞭解對方所說的話，並且明白其所支持的理由為何。另外在正反雙方交詰過程中，不同立場的成員也會依循對方的發言類型而轉換，形成一種理性溝通的循環，企圖尋求支持。 綜觀研究結果，在實際討論過程中，邏輯論述是審議民主所稱的理性對話中，相當主要且具說服力的溝通方式。另一方面，審議民主重視參與者在公共審議的過程裡，彼此相互尊重和同理，允許合理的歧見，並且最終達成共識。對於審議民主而言，這正是表現了互惠的實現。從有共識的討論中可以看出，不同立場者不但將自己的理由內涵予以充實外，透過對話與兼容建議的提出，使參與者願意改變，接受新的提議，進而達成共識。此正為互惠性的表現。由此可見，審議民主確實展現有別於代議民主「算數目」的一種實質民主型態。對於民主政治的發展而言，深具前瞻性與盼望。

審議民主模式強調公民為中心的政策參與；傳統多元主義式政治參與則強調利益團體對政府決策的影響，公民與利益團體皆是公民社會中不可或缺的重要組成，本研究聚焦於兩者在政策參與上的互動關係。本研究選擇原能會委託辦理之「核廢何從公民討論會」審議模式為個案，利用深度訪談與次級資料分析，探究利益團體對審議民主之態度及其與公民之間的互動關係。 本研究主要的研究結果如下： （一） 主管機關採用審議民主模式之因素：溝通過程不順利、嘗試增加社會層面思考、建立對話平台及傳達正確資訊。 （二） 利益團體參與審議民主之因素：包含監督審議民主模式進行、提供正確資訊以及嘗試新型態參與管道等；然而，受到過去互動經驗、團體自主性考量以及效果不確定，對參與審議民主模式的呈現負面考量。 （三） 利益團體與公民在審議活動過程中交相產生影響。 （四） 審議民主模式有利於利益團體與公民的互動關係中提升公民能力，然而，在弱勢聲音投入方面有所限制；在制度設計上，一方面能突破團體在政策資訊蒐集之困境，另一方面卻限制了議題討論的範疇。最後，團體與審議民主在決策影響上，尚未產生具體的作用。 據此，本研究提出三項實務建議：加強政策資訊公開流程、建立審議民主制度化體制以及利益團體廣泛參與審議民主活動。 / Deliberative democracy emphasizes citizen-orientation in decision-making and pluralist democracy emphasizes interest groups’ influence on public policy. Since both citizens and interest groups are important components of civil society, this article focuses on the interaction between deliberative democracy and interest groups in policy participation. This research takes “Public Forum for Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Siting” as the empirical case and explores it by secondary data and in-depth interview. The findings are as follow: 1. The reasons for government to adopt public deliberation as policy tool were to face the obstacles in communication process, to increase social discussions in this issue, to build up a new communication platform, and to disclose accurate information to the public. 2. The motives for interest groups to participate deliberative process are monitoring public forum, providing accurate information, and attempting to create new forms of public participation. Nevertheless, there are also some concerns which might cause interest groups’ unwillingness to participate the deliberative process, including their prior experiences of interacting with governments, the maintenance of group autonomy, and uncertain effects from deliberative process. 3. This study shows that both interest groups and deliberative democracy have mutual effect deliberative process. 4. Deliberative process in the interaction could enhance civic competence, but restrict the voice from social minority; in the dimension of the institutional design, deliberative process can help interest groups collect necessary information, but limit the scopes of policy issues for discussion. Finally, there is no apparent evidence supporting that interest groups and deliberative democracy process can make decision making difference. In the end, this study proposes that the governments should strengthen information disclosure, build infrastructure regarding deliberative democracy as well as promote deliberative activities.

本文從理論的基礎出發，試圖要反駁當下審議民主實踐，忽略了審議民主所「應該」強調的，並不是將審議民主視為是取得決策的一種工具或方法，而是必須將審議民主視為是一套有別於自由民主的思想。審議民主「應該」關注的，不是決策的正當性，而是如何深化民主。為此，本文回頭去找尋審議民主被提出的起點，並重新描繪審議民主轉向的核心價值是深化民主，而不是作出決策。這迫使理論必須從重新思考，如何從藉由「審議」取得決策正當性，往深化民主的方向移動，而且也同時讓審議民主理論所觸及的範圍，從「審議」形式的決策本身，擴及到一個完整不間斷的民主過程。 　　一旦確認審議民主是「深化民主」的「過程」，那麼充當實踐的配套措施（即本文所稱的「中介畛域」的適當運作），也應該由此理論基礎所引導。為此，本文從深化民主過程所需的理論概念中，推導出可進一步落實中介畛域的實踐要件，分別是開放性、連貫性、互為主體性和累積性。另一方面，為了防堵民主實踐上可能出現的困境，所以也針對「網路的巴爾幹化」、「論述失敗」與「易受主流意識操弄」三個困境，提出相對應的「有效性」、「簡易性」及「動態的脈絡化」三個要件。事實上，本文所提的七個要件，「共同」構成了本文所理解的審議民主在實踐時，其「理論」面向上所應具備的內涵，這些內涵非專屬於本文所檢視的辯論百科，而是適用於各種形式的審議民主程序。 　　最後，本文更進一步將上述七個要件細分成十四個細項。這十四個細項是試圖對應理論所指引的七個要件，並進而回應理論上所要求的「深化民主過程」的核心價值。或者說，這些細項可被當成是審議民主實踐機制設置上的最基本要求，雖然確保這十四個細項的審議民主實踐機制，無法保證最後的結果一定能達到理想境界，但我們至少可以相信，依循這些細項的機制，是試圖往深化民主──而不是取得決策正當性──的方向前進。當然，這十四個細項不是為了窮盡可能性或成為標準答案，而是在筆者能力範圍內所能提出的具體檢視方式，而提出這些具體的檢視方式，也分別有著實踐與理論上的各別意涵。 　　在實踐上，這十四個細項的提出是為了要指出，審議民主「理論」不應該一直停留在理論的層次，我們探索審議民主理論的最終目的之一，就是要實踐它，因此，從實踐層次來進行探究，並指出可能的實踐方式確有其必要性。另一方面，從理論上來看，本文所提的檢視細項不僅是為了要提供未來研究參考，更重要的是，這種實踐層次的闡明是為了凸顯出，未來的審議民主理論必須在理論與實踐之間找到明確的連結。換言之，應如何在實務的層次上施作審議民主是重要的，讓施作結果得以對理論進行回饋與修正也是重要的，但唯有理論與實踐之間能夠不斷地互相進行補充、修正，審議民主理論才有可能為民主作出真正貢獻，而本文正是試圖經由審議民主，與已被實作的辯論百科，為這種連結作出描繪。 / This paper tries to illustrate that deliberative democracy is not a decision-making method but a kind of thoughts. The core element of deliberative democracy is not about the legitimacy of policies but the process of deepening democracy. It means that deliberative democracy theory should widen its possible contribution from only a decision-making method to a complete process of deepening democracy. When we regard deliberative democracy as a process, then we should develop accompanying measures (so-called “intermediate realm” in this paper) for the real-life practice. For achieving this purpose, this paper infers four elements, that is, openness, coherence, inter-subjectiveness and cumulativeness, from theoretical foundations on the one side. For avoiding three another predicaments of democratic practice, that is , cyberbalkanization, discourse failure and the dominating ideology, this paper also proposes three accompanying elements, that is, effectiveness, simpleness and dynamic contextualization on the other hand. All these seven elements, applying to all kinds of deliberative democracy practice apart from Debatepedia which we take as an example in this paper, constitute the content of intermediate realm for deliberative democracy practice. This paper in a further step divides these seven elements into fourteen items in order to respond to the core value of deliberative democracy, i.e. deepening democracy. In other words, these items are the basic requirement for real-life deliberative democracy practice. These fourteen items have no intention to include all possibilities of democratic practice but merely to provide some concrete examination methods in my sphere. These examination methods have their practical and theoretical meaning at the same time. In practice, these fourteen items means deliberative democracy theory should not stay as a theory is. If democracy theory is an ideal for our better life, we then should realize it and, that is more important, develop some methods to realize it. In terms of theory, this paper reveals the close relationship between deliberative democracy theory and its practice. That means it is important to know how to realize deliberative democracy, it is also important to know how to improve democracy theory. But these two situations can only be done when we can find a valid connection between them. This paper takes Debatepedia as an example to describe how this kind of connection could be possible.

民主原則之規範性困境，今日已於所有民主國家的政治生活中，展現為層出不窮的民主危機。尤其因為民粹威權主義於成熟民主國家的大行其道，民主危機的解決已成為當代民主迫在眉睫的問題。為求取釜底抽薪的解決之道，則必須從理論層面出發，對民主之概念進行徹底的反省。然而，法學本身顯然難以克服此一困境，而必須將道德哲學與政治哲學的理論資源與方法納入視野之內，以便從規範性證立民主的基本內涵開始，循序漸進地獲致其反映於制度層面應有的具體內容。 　　過往的民主理論證立民主之所以具有無法克服的困難，是因為其終須依賴當代多元社會下有爭議的道德信念。對此，本文以Jürgen Habermas的「論辯倫理學」為基礎，從而對民主的基本精神提出無爭議的規範性證立。透過論辯倫理學的進一步推演，Habermas亦導出「法律論辯理論」，以說明法律作為施展強制力的工具是如何被證立的。藉由結合論辯倫理學與法律論辯理論，便能將民主強制付諸於日常生活的實踐之中，據此呈現出民主作為憲法原則的應有樣貌。植基於此一的路徑，本文拓展了Habermas的理念，從而證立並闡發民主的核心精神。 　　此一依循論辯倫理學及法律論辯理論所獲致的民主原則內容，即為審議民主理論。依據前述的理論奠基，本文認為審議民主理論蘊含的內容可歸結為「論辯之基本權」以及「政治平等諸規則」兩大理念，並能透過基進民主理論的批判以深化對後者的理解，從而闡發審議民主理論的基進意涵。「基進審議民主」明確而豐富的內容不僅宣告著民主原則規範性困境之解決，也同時於實踐上提出了化解民主危機的制度建議。 / In the political life of all democracies, the normative dilemma of principle of democracy has appeared as endless crises of democracy. Accrodingly, to solve the crisis of democracy thus becomes an urgent issue for the contemporary democracy. As populist authoritarianism propagated on a upsetting scale around developed democracies, finding a resolution also grows more significant. To solve this problems once and for all, we must proceed forward from a theoretical perspective that indicate a profound reflection on the concept of democracy. Because jurisprudence becomes manifest in lack of proper paths to overcome this dilemma by itself, incorporating the theoretical resources and methods of ethics and political philosophy into the field of vision may be imperative and necessary. With the foundation that justifies fundamental connotations of democracy in a normative approch, we will obtain the specific contents that democracy reflects at the institutional level progressively. 　　Previous works on democratic theory are so difficult to justify democracy per se because their justifications depending on controversial moral beliefs in contemporary plural society drift into failure. In this regard, Jürgen Habermas advanced the “Discourse Ethics” which suggests a non-controversial normative justification of democratic essences as the most promising theory at present. Through employing Discourse Ethics, Habermas deduced “Discourse Theory of Law” to explain how to justify law as a compulsory instrument. In this manner, democracy can be forced into daily life, via combining Discourse Ethics and Discourse Theory of Law, to draw a ideal form as a a constitutional principle. Through the illustration of Habermas's doctrine, this thesis tries to broaden the ways to understand and describe the democracy. 　　“Deliberative Democracy” is the very idea derived from Discourse Ethics and Discourse Theory of Law. Based on the foundations of the above, this thesis suggests that the contents of Deliberative Democracy can be attributed to the two basic concepts including “fundamental rights of discourse” and “rules of political equality”, which, through criticisms of radical democracy, shall be further deepen the understanding of the latter to elucidate what radical meanings do Deliberative Democracy have. With specific and profuse contents, radical deliberative democracy not only invents a solution to the normative dilemma of principle of democracy, but puts forward institutional proposals to resolving crises of democracy in practice simultaneously.

行政官員與立法委員於立法院的政策論述，是代議民主體制中政策合法化過程的核心，論述內容是否具備審議民主精神係影響政策合法性及未來執行過程的關鍵因素，但相關主題過去卻為學界所忽略。本文從審議民主觀點探究行政官員與立法委員的政策合法化論述，透過個案比較研究法，選取大學法與私立學校法的修法過程進行內容分析。研究結果顯示，立法委員的政策合法化論述主要以監督、連任、與政策為目標，其互惠性、多元性、尊重性、與合理性皆有待加強；行政官員的論述則是基於課責、回應、及責任等考量，但大多論述皆過於保守與消極，缺乏合理性之精神。兩者論述內容的差異及審議民主精神之缺乏，應與各自的制度性角色要求相關。基於研究發現，本文主張立法委員的論述應多聚焦於政策方案內容，行政官員則應更為主動、積極，以更符合回應與責任的要求、提升政策論述的審議精神。本文亦建議，立法院應針對政策合法化過程建立完整的公開記錄制度。本文為一初探性嘗試，未來學界可根據實務觀察，設計更完善的評估指標，或輔以制度論角度，裨益於對立法委員與行政官員的政策合法化論述有更完整地解釋。 / Administrators and legislators’ policy discourse in the Legislative Yuan is the core of policy legitimation under the representative democracy. The content of discourse with deliberative democracy spirit, ignored by the academics in the past, will influence policy legitimation and policy implementation. This study investigates administrators and legislators’ policy legitimation discourse from the perspective of deliberative democracy. The author selected the processes of amending the University Act and the Private School Law by comparative study of cases, and used content analysis method. The results show legislators take the supervision, reelection, and policy as their purposes in the discourse of policy legitimation. The attributes such as reciprocity, diversity, respect, and reasonableness in the legislators’ policy legitimation discourse have a great room for improvement. Administrators would mainly consider accountability, responsiveness, and responsibility during the discourse. Administrators are always conservative and passive, and the discourse is a lack of the reasonableness. The difference between legislators and administrators’ discourses may relate to respective institutional roles. Accordingly, this study suggests legislators focus on the content of policy proposal. This study also recommends administrators be more active and enthusiastic to answer to the requirement of responsiveness and responsibility, and to promote the deliberative spirit of the discourse. Besides, the author proposes the Legislative Yuan institutionalize the complete and open records of the policy legitimation. This research is the pilot study. Therefore, in the future, the academics could design more appropriate evaluative indicators, or can be integrated by the perspective of the institutionalism for better explanation of administrators and legislators’ policy legitimation discourse.