本論文係以立法系統(legislative system)為理論架構，探討我國中央政府預算案 之立法過程。本研究源於「系統」(system)的概念，推衍至「社會系統」(social system) 、「政治系統」(political system)及「立法系統」等相關概念。系統是 一個相對的概念，政治系統是社會系統的一種次級系統 (subsystem)，政治系統最 簡單的模型即是將各種輸入(inputs)經由政治體系的運作轉化為輸出(outputs) ； 立法系統又為政治系統之次級系統，其內涵係以立法機關為中心，結合其周圍相關 的黨政關係、利益團體、行政官員、行政機構、專家團體與選舉人團等因素，以共 同構成立法系統，本研究係將中央政府預算案視為一輸出項，而把上述立法系統中 具有影響力的各種因素視為輸入項。

本論文從系統分化的社會演化觀點嘗試提出對現代民主之內涵與民主化開展之可能性的另種論述。本文中所提及的「民主」與民主化不一定跳脫西方世界對相關概念的想像與定義，但在嘗試將「民主」視為政治系統用以描述自身之方式的這個主張而言，無論是西方式民主或者是其他種類的民主均能夠含括於其中。此外，民主化的開展僅被視為政治系統朝向「民主」的一種系統分化的社會演化過程。西方國家對民主的界定則是在此分化的演化發展中，透過宗教與政治、宗教與法律，以及政治與法律等系統彼此之間、以及從社會中分化出來而取得之形式「之一」。這是一個對系統而言不斷增加複雜性的過程，也正是在此過程中，對於民主或民主化之內容的界定變得越來越不容易。在本論文對西方與台灣民主化過程的探究中，嘗試指出的是一個類似的功能分化的社會演化與系統內部分化的相互辯證過程。這個辯證過程使現代「民主」概念得以作為一個「未預期之後果」而出現。 宗教對信仰自由的維護與對人權的爭取毋寧是來自於自身的信仰元素。換句話說，與之有關的論述是以一種自我指涉的運作方式而獲得實現。此種不斷回到自身之信仰以尋求論述之正當性的作法在操作上賦予了這些論述正當性，這便是系統的自我指涉運作。就此而言，系統毋寧是封閉的，其在自身之中不斷地自我生產有關信仰自由與人權的論述。然而，也正是因為其運作上的封閉，使得宗教（長老教會）所生產出來的論述與接續之行動均能夠在內部獲得支持，從而對自身而言具有正當性。這個正當性也成為其能夠進行觀察與自我描述的基礎。從系統論的觀點而言，長老教會在政治與社會關懷的論述與行動上，便是以封閉為基礎的開放性自我指涉運作。若非以此自我指涉的封閉且開放之運作為其系統形成的特性，那麼論述與行動的正當性便易於受到質疑，甚至無法獲得系統內部的支持。據此，現代社會以功能為主要分化形式的系統形成，至少在時間面向上均必須取得自我指涉或自主性運作上的正當性。這個正當性決定於系統在多大程度上能夠持續地維持與其環境的界線。長老教會對人權與信仰自由的主張與論述的建構，或許是與政治系統對相同論題的溝通存在著無法跨越的差異。這個差異同時也標示的是宗教與政治系統之間的那個界線，而這個差異的維持在系統分化的社會演化過程中，使得「民主（化）」作為政治系統乃至於社會描述自身的語意是可能的。 / This thesis draws on Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems, and examines the relationship between religion and democratization in Taiwan. In order to advance the analysis and to make some helpful suggestions, two points are firstly highlighted. One is the concept of democracy itself, and the other is the descriptions of it by the political system and by other social systems within society. The word ‘democracy’ has long history since ancient Greek city-state, however, its modern use and the meaning of it can possibly date back to the Middle ages, especially to the sixteenth century. Modern concept of democracy relates to the tradition of monotheism, in this case referring to the Reformation and later to the formation of Western political philosophy. The second point argues that ‘democracy’ is simply a self-description of society, and its realization lies in the transformation of the form of differentiation from hierarchical to functional. Luhmann would like to link the semantics to social evolution, by which he can investigate and explore the dialectical process between semantics and structures. The analysis of the relationship between democracy and democratization refers to this dialectical process, concerning systems differentiation and social evolution. Issues relating to democratization, the consolidation of democracies, and their discontented consequences, etc. need to be reconsidered in the sense that the concept of democracy and its modern descriptions utilize a ‘paradox’ which must be hidden while forming and maintaining identities, whether they be societies, nations, or individuals. This constitutes both positive and negative sides of the development of democracy, and also leads to crises gradually confronted by those ‘matured’ democratic Western countries and also by some third-wave democratizing regions. Among them exists a similar problem which will be discussed in this thesis: the concept of democracy and its modern developments are increasingly eroding its own foundation when the differentiation of subsystems and the evolution of society both go too far. This by no means indicates that there will not be any democracy in the near future. Instead, as an observer observing observations, this thesis inquires our present situations while at the same time attempting at offering some possible and also suitable questions from systems theory perspective.

這篇論文的目的是為盧曼社會系統理論中的一個難題提供可能的解決之道。此難題即為：社會系統既是去主體化的，又是主體化的。這個難題的出現，乃肇因於盧曼認為系統既是自我透明的，也是自我不透明的，既是環境透明的，也是環境不透明的。這兩種弔詭就是盧曼社會系統理論的自我同一性弔詭與環境同一性弔詭。因此，為了解決社會系統理論的去主體化問題，首先就必須解決自我同一性弔詭與環境同一性弔詭。對此，我們建議從盧曼與胡塞爾的比較開始。藉由此種比較以及隨之而來的清洗與重組，我們可以從他們那裡擷取有利於解決上述弔詭的概念與命題。這些概念與命題是：一、存在著諸系統；二、新的觀察概念：構造；三、社會作為內在於意識系統中的社會行動秩序，而溝通系統則作為內在於理解系統中的社會溝通秩序。 / This thesis is aimed at solving a dilemma in Luhmann's theory of social systems.The delimma is: social systems are both desubjectized and subjectized. This is because in Luhmann's theory, they are both transparent and intransparent to itself, and the environments are both transparent and intransparent to systems. These two paradoxes are self-identity paradox and environment-identity paradox. Therefore, if we want to solve the problem of desubjectization in Luhmann's theory, we must solve the self-identity paradox and environment-identity paradox at first. We suggest that it can begin with the comparison between Luhmann and Husserl. Through this comparison, and correspondingly, cleaning and recombination, we can take concepts and propositions which can be used for resolving the above-mentioned paradoxes. The concepts and propositions are: 1. there are systems; 2. new concept of observation; and 3. society as the order of social actions in a consciousness system, and communication system as the order of social communications in a understanding system.