| Summary: | 博士 === 國立政治大學 === 亞太研究英語博士學位學程(IDAS) === 107 === The process of the nation-building and state-building of the modern nation-state since the nineteenth century, its consequence is not only the emergence of the nation-state but also the political system. In other words, the formation of the nation-state has affected political system, either democratic or non-democratic regimes. In many countries after the end of colonialism and imperialism, students and intellectuals have made contributions to democratization (Poland, Hungary, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc.).
During the formation of the nation, State conquers and preserves hegemony and shapes political system through coercion and consent. It is the reason why Modernization Theory, by Seymour Martin Lipset (1959), which affirms that “the more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy,” fails to explain the deteriorated democratization in Thailand, i.e. repeated military coups in 2006 and 2014. I argue that democratization will flourish only if democratic ideology is successfully reformed and transformed into the “rules of the game” or “Hegemonic Institution” of the State. Namely, the non-democratic ideology of “I am the State” (“l’état, c’est moi”) is reformed and the “Institutional Democrats” and the “People as the State” (Das Volk als Staat) emerge and become the “rules of the game.”
The research selects two countries for comparison: Taiwan and Thailand. Taiwan is selected as the representative of successfully consolidated democratization, i.e. Taiwan passes the “two-turnover test” (Huntington 1993) and “democracy become the only game in town” (Linz and Stepan 1996). On the contrary, the democratization of Thailand has been exacerbated due to periodic military coups. In the past, Thailand has been dubbed the “Land of Smiles.” But in recent years, it should be changed to the “Land of Coups” owing to the high statistics of military coup d’états.
The dissertation initiates the Neo-Gramscian Institutionalism to elucidate the consolidated democratization in Taiwan while doomed democratization in Thailand. It argues that democratization will succeed or founder because of ideological reformation, i.e. authoritarianism will be annihilated only if the authoritarian Hegemonic Institutions have been completely reformed and are transformed into democratic ones. Taiwan, specifically, achieves democratization because the authoritarian hegemonic institutions of the KMT Party-State have successfully been reformed by student revolution. Namely, the ideology of freedom, justice, equality, and self-determination have been transformed into “the rules of the game in a society” (North 1990) or Hegemonic Institutions. Thailand, in contrast, the student revolution fails to challenge and reform the prevailing Hegemonic Institutions since the predominant Hegemonic Institutions of Thailand help to justify military coups and bureaucratic regimes.
In conclusion, the research aims to inaugurates an alternative explanation and theoretical framework of successful democratization and the abortive ones which Modernization Theory fails to resolve. To answer the conundrum, the consolidated democratization of Taiwan and the defeated democratization of Thailand are compared, examined and testified by the Historical Comparative Analysis and the Historical Qualitative Research. The research data encompasses archives, journals, dissertations, books, news, government resources, and personal interviews of the former student leaders.
|
|---|
