很多批評者認為，審議民主崇尚理性的言說模式，使得不擅說理 社會弱勢群體無法平等、有效地參與審議的過程。批評者所指出的審 議不平等是否真的存在？本文以台灣舉辦過的六場公民會議為案例， 進行量化與質化分析，來檢證審議不平等的論題。本文根據審議民主 理論，使用「發言時間」、「發言頻率」、「開啟議題」、「對話能 力」、「說理」和「成為結論」六大面向來測量審議的不平等，並認 為，由於程序主義的作用，不同背景的公民，進入公民會議這種程序 引導的審議情境，大抵都能說理和影響結論。也就是說，審議不平等 只存在於「發言時間」、「發言頻率」、「開啟議題」、「對話能 力」四個面向。我進一步指出，這四個面向的不平等程度，是視議題 性質而定的。本文認為，審議能力受到「情境知識」所影響；行動者 的社會位置，塑造他們的生活經驗，使他們對特定的議題，有不同程 度的了解和感受。因此，公民們的情境知識，會因議題性質而不同； 他們的審議能力，也就會因為議題性質的不同而有所差異。

Critics have said that the practice of deliberative democracy has not lived up to the normative standards of political equality, because members of socially disadvantaged groups often do not have opportunities toeffectively participate in deliberations. The paper uses data from six citizen conferences in Taiwan to empirically examine the thesis of deliberativeinequalities. I use six dimensions in discursiveinteractions to measuredeliberativeinequalities: frequency and time of speech, dialogic capacity, initiating new topics, making rational arguments, and influencingconclusions. I argue that because of procedural factors instituted to create the ideal situation of speech, deliberative inequalities are not significant in the dimensions of making rational arguments and influencing conclusions. In addition,inequities in four other dimensions of discursive interaction depend on the nature of issues under discussion. For less complex issues that have greater impacts on citizens’ daily lives, most citizens have the “situated knowledge” needed to participate in discursiveinteractions. Thus, deliberativeinequalities are not significant for these kinds of issues. The analyticresults confirm the arguments.

審議民主、公民會議、公共領域、參與式民主、內容分析法

deliberative democracy, publicdeliberation, publicsphere, citizenparticipation, content analy