德國、韓國與我國政黨法之比較研究

A Comparative Study of Political Parties Law of Germany, South Korea and Taiwan

本文以德國、韓國及我國政黨法為比較對象，乃因德國和韓國兩國政黨法規範架構完整、內容細緻，為我國政黨法草擬之主要參照對象。而且，德國、韓國和我國皆為後威權民主國家，皆為防杜過去威權統治復活而在政黨法中設立相關規範，但卻因歷史經驗不同，所以規範重點也有所差異。本文以「政黨與國家」、「政黨與政黨」、「政黨與個人」為比較架構，獲得下列結論：
第一，德國、韓國與我國政黨法基於歷史經驗及政治現實，選擇性地在制度上給予政黨某些框限規範或某些自主空間。例如德國政黨法有關於黨內民主的詳細制度規範，甚至規定政黨必須以秘密投票方式進行國會議員提名、以民主方式形成內部決策，韓國政黨法強調應給予政黨自由活動權利，我國特別規定政黨負責人排黑條款，在黨內民主及黨員除名上給予政黨較大的自主空間。如此，政黨仍能維繫現有的彈性作法，或以黨內協調方式、或以全民調方式產生提名人選。
第二，德國政黨法與韓國政黨法，皆有值得學習與借鏡之處。德國政黨法與韓國政黨法中對政黨的國家補助門檻較低，有助於政黨發展。而且德國、韓國兩國政黨法規範完整細密，尤其是德國政黨法關於黨內民主的規範詳盡，含括政黨內部的民主決策，韓國政黨法對妨害政黨內部選舉的規定也比我國完整，這些都是我國政黨法在未來修訂時可以參考學習的地方。不過，韓國政黨法對政黨設立的高人數門檻是否有所必要，也值得我國思考。

This article compares law on political parties of Germany, South Korea and Taiwan for
the content of the political party law of Germany and South Korea are complete and detailed, and are the main reference objects for the drafting of Taiwan’s political party law. Moreover, Germany, South Korea and Taiwan are all post-authoritarian democracies. Relevant norms are all set up to prevent the resurrection of authoritarian ruling in the past while normative points are stressed variously due to different historical experiences. Based on the comparison of“party and state”,“party and party”,“party and individual”, this article draws the following conclusions:
Firstly, Germany, South Korea and Taiwan’s political party law selectively give political parties certain framed norms or certain autonomy spaces because of historical experience and political reality. For example, Germany’s political party law has detailed institutional norms about intra-party democracy. It even stipulates that political parties must nominate members of parliament by secret ballot to form internal decisions in a democratic way; South Korea’s political party law emphasizes that political parties should be given the right to freedom of movement; Taiwan’s political party law especially sets gangster exclusion clause and gives the political parties greater autonomy for internal democracy and the removal of party members. In this way, political parties can create nominees in a coordinated manner within the party or in a poll while still maintaining the existing flexible practices.
Secondly, the political party laws of Germany and South Korea are worth learning as references. Both of the political party laws have lower thresholds for state subsidies, which contribute to the development of political parties. Moreover, the political party laws of Germany and South Korea are complete and detailed, especially the norms of intra-party democracy, including the democratic decision-making within the political parties of Germany are thorough; the regulations on internal elections of South Korea are also more complete than ours. These are the references that Taiwan can learn in the future revision of political party law. However, the necessity of high membership threshold for a political party’s setting stipulated by political party law of South Korea is also worthy of consideration.