重探台灣的政體轉型：如何看待1970年代國民黨政權的「正當化」

Reexploring the Regime Transition in Taiwan: A Reinterpretation of the KMT's Legitimation in the Early 1970s

本文挑戰「由外而內的正當化」的流行說法，指出國民黨政權在1970年代初並非藉由強化與地方派系的結盟來化解正當性的危機。從象徵鬥爭的觀點重構這段歷史，本文指出，外部正當性的危機雖是引發轉型的重要觸媒，但內部的脈絡才真正決定了轉型的方向。而轉型之所以能在沒有大眾動員的情形下出現，除了適逢國民黨內部的權力繼承，以及國民黨必須解決長久以來權力不足的難題外，也跟它一向以來的正當化論述、當時人們如何界定現實與危機，以及公共領域中的異議聲音有關。革新保台路線之所以能確立並化解危機，即因它能 暫時統一各方的立場。儘管1972年的轉型不符合政體轉型模型所謂的「自由化」或「民主化」，卻導致中央政治參與機會的開放，進而促成全國性反對勢力的形成，實是戰後政治轉型真正的起點。據此，本文比較了從象徵的面向掌握正當性╱權力的進路，與視正當性為「有權者之間的相互認可」兩者的優劣，呼籲重視台灣獨特的脈絡，反省政體轉型模型的適用性，摸索台灣自己的理論。

This article challenges the popular opinion that the KMT regime solved its legitimacy crisis in the early 1970s by strengthening its coalition with local factions. Reconstructing this history from the perspective of symbolic struggle, this article points out that the crisis of external legitimacy was only a catalyst to this political transformation. It was the internal context that determined the direction of this transformation. And the fact that this transformation occurred without a mass mobilization had much to do with the historical conjunction of the power succession inside the KMT regime. But this also must be attributed to the KMT's ongoing predicament, which was grounded in its lack of sufficient power, its previous discourse of legitimation, people's definition of reality and the crisis in the moment, and dissenting voices in the public sphere. The discourse 'defending Taiwan through reform' came out as guideline und solved the crisis successfully only because it could temporarily unite the different positions. Although this political transformation was by definition neither liberalization nor democratization, it did lead to an opening of participation in the level of central government that further engendered a nation-wide opposition. In this sense, the transformation was doubtless the starting point of Taiwan's postwar regime transformation. Based on these findings, this article highlights the advantages of an approach that grasps legitimacy/power from a symbolic dimension in comparison to one that considers legitimacy as a 'mutual recognition between power-holders.' Meanwhile, it emphasizes that future research needs to consider Taiwan's particular context seriously, to reflect upon the application of the transitological model, and to develop theory.