自一九七○年代中期南歐、拉丁美洲與蘇聯暨東歐各國相繼爆發民主浪潮以來，「公民社會」(Civil Society)即成為政治與社會學界探討的焦點。「公民社會」有賴於對個人結社言論自由、公共參與自由和政治參與自由的保障，因此其具有國家及社會走向自由化的意函。由於自由化往往先於民主化，在研究極權與威權國家民主轉型的過程中，「公民社會」便正好可作為研究一國走向民主化的起點。在世界各國民主轉型的例子中，蘇聯的民主轉型過程顯得與眾不同，這一方面是因為蘇聯本身是多民族帝國，境內民族問題嚴重，另一方面是因為蘇聯作為全球第一個、也是實施最久的社會主義國家，其擁抱的極權主義體制對國家與社會之間的關係產生深刻的影響。
本論文主要是採用新制度主義(new institutionalism)的研究途徑，來探討蘇聯末期公民社會萌芽的來龍去脈。在解釋蘇聯公民社會的特殊發展經驗中，一反過去較常被使用的現代化理論或菁英途徑，而是側重於新制度主義下的非正式規則（或制度）因素，譬如歷史、文化與傳統等。第一章專門介紹「公民社會」概念的歷史演進過程與各種意涵；第二章敘述俄羅斯歷史上三種可能有利於或不利於「公民社會」特殊傳統，包括集體主義、保守主義與專制主義；第三章探討蘇聯在戈巴契夫領導下所進行的「公民社會」制度創新；第四章續探討公民社會在蘇聯的實踐情況；第五章則對蘇聯末期萌芽的公民社會進行反省、檢討與比較，說明其特色；第六章為結論。
本論文得出的結論是，蘇聯雖然在一九八五年戈巴契夫上台前已有「公民社會」萌芽的「要素」，但當時的社會還不是真正的「公民社會」。真正的公民社會要等到戈巴契夫上台推行一連串改革開放的措施後，才算真正萌芽扎根。不過，不論是和同一時期西方抑或東歐的公民社會比較，蘇聯末期萌芽的公民社會都顯得相當薄弱與不穩，這主要是由於蘇聯暨俄羅斯長久以來的傳統文化不利於公民社會的發展。此外，民族主義浪潮也衝擊到公民社會的發展，凸顯民族主義與公民社會之間的深刻矛盾，這一點也說明了蘇聯公民社會所獨有的困境。 / Since South Europe, Latin America and the Soviet bloc began the democratization in 1970s, civil society has become the focus of the politics and sociology of academic circle. Civil society depends on the assurance of the association freedom, speech freedom, public participation freedom and political participation freedom, implying that the state and society are being or have been liberalized. Because liberalization always goes ahead of democratization, civil society happens to be used as a starting point of research of post-Communist transition. The USSR’s case seems so different with others, not only it as a multi-nation empire, but also it as the first and long-enduring socialist country in the world.
The thesis adopts the approach of new institutionalism to discuss the process of an emerging civil society in late USSR. Instead of the modernization theory or elite approach that are often used, the new institutionalism, especially in informal institution, seems to be the most persuasive in explaining the USSR’s case. The first chapter introduces the historical evolution and various meanings of civil society’s idea. The second specifies three historical traditions in Russia that may help or damage the development of civil society, including collectivism, conservatism and absolutism. The third talk about the institutional innovation of civil society by Mikhail Gorbachev. The fourth pays attention to the real situation in USSR’s civil society. The fifth reconsider, review and compare the USSR’s civil society with the East European and the west ones. The sixth is my conclusion.
My conclusion is that although the USSR has had the “elements” of an emerging civil society before Gorbachev appeared on the stage in 1985, the society has not been a “real” civil society yet. A real civil society has not taken root until Gorbachev put a series of reforms into practice. Nonetheless, being compared either with the west or the East European ones, the USSR’s civil society seems very fragile and unstable, because the Russian particular tradition and culture prohibit the civil society from development and consolidation. In addition, the nationalist wave put impact on the development of civil society, highlighting the deep contradiction between nationalism and civil society. This point also underlines the dilemma of the USSR’s civil society.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:CHENGCHI/A2002001028 |
| Creators | 羅彥傑, Lo, Yen-Chieh |
| Publisher | 國立政治大學 |
| Source Sets | National Chengchi University Libraries |
| Language | 中文 |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Rights | Copyright © nccu library on behalf of the copyright holders |
Page generated in 0.0015 seconds