不正當政權？還是不適當概念？──「外來政權」論述的再思考

Illegitimate Regime, or Inappropriate Concept? - Reconsideration of“Alien Rule”

本文挑戰台灣民主化主流論述中，外來政權概念的適妥性。外來政權乃是台灣社會科學界或是本土史論述的關鍵概念之一，但多數引用者未深入探討其意義。本文歸納各家說法以確認其內涵：第一類起因於二二八事件，然後台灣人民發現國府是外來政權；第二類則是從客觀的政體起源出發，從三個層面加以觀察：1.政權的立國精神及國家最高目標是外生的；2.執行國家目標的政治規範與結構是外生的；3.操持國家機器的統治者是外來的，非基於當地的被統治者所同意產生的。以此認為國府在台灣屬外來政權。本文指出，過去證明國府為外來政權之關鍵引述，多數偏重部份本土菁英的口述訪談與報導，此等研究在抽樣、方法論，甚至在邏輯上都是有疑問的。而派系支持與威權壓迫的解釋途徑則忽略了台灣光復之初，派系尚待建立、利益尚未聚集、教育與傳播機構未完備、與人民歡迎政府等諸現象同時發生的情形。本文並論證，第一類說法顯示其被建構的特質；而在中華民國憲法制訂時，台灣省事實上有代表參與；最後台灣人民外顯的選舉支持行為與中國認同傾向，也證明了其主觀上承認國府的正當統治地位。因此，本文認為，1949年遷入的中華民國中央政府，對當時多數台灣人民來說，並非外來政權，而是一擁有正當性的政治體制。

This article challenges the justness of the concept“alien rule”in main Taiwanese democratization studies which have often been taken for granted rather than examined in depth. The article compiles various arguments to confirm the meaning of alien rule. The first contends that alien rule lacks legitimacy, and Taiwanese people regarded Nationalist government as alien rule after 228 Incident. The second proceeds from the regime’s origin and observes 3 aspects: 1. the spirit of state building and the highest goal of the state are extraneous, 2. the political regulation and structure are extraneous, and 3. the rulers controlling the state are extraneous instead of being consented by the ruled. Nonetheless, this article finds that most past quotation trying to prove the alien rule true stresses interviews and reports of certain local elites, which are questionable in sampling, logic and methodology. Besides, explanation utilizing faction and authoritarian oppression neglects that at the outset of Taiwan retrocession, factions were not established, interests were not accumulated, education and communication were not completed, and people were welcoming the regime. This article demonstrates that the first argument is constructed; the“settler state”interpretation in the second argument doesn’t give consideration to the fact that Mainlanders lead different lives, and the government didn’t protect them by proclamation; lastly, the article draws on Western voting behavior and identification theories, indicating that Taiwanese representatives were involved in the ROC’s constitution formulation, and Taiwanese people’s voting and Chinese identification tendency prove the legitimacy of the Nationalist government. Therefore, this article reasons that the government of the Republic of China migrating to Taiwan in 1949 is not an alien ruler. Instead, it is a political regime with legitimacy.