從1989年柏林圍牆倒塌至1991年蘇聯解體之後，自由憲政民主的蓬勃發展，而有日裔美國學者福山發表歷史終結論的看法。然根據自由之家統計，全球民主已出現連續16年的衰退，尤其中、東歐民粹主義興起及美國民主的衰退，使人開始懷疑自由憲政民主所建立起來的典範，似已衰微。其次，威權主義的崛起，如俄羅斯及中國，並沒有因民主化浪潮而走向自由民主，反而利用本身韌性而能與自由憲政民主體制抗衡，甚至造成威脅。
本文的核心問題意識是：當代自由憲政民主典範，是否面臨衰退？如其典範衰退為真，主要面臨之挑戰為何？本文的論證邏輯如下：首先釐清自由憲政民主典範之內涵；其次說明其典範危機之浮現；再者，為求聚焦，本文採「內部挑戰—外部挑戰」分析架構，從內部主要挑戰之民粹主義及外部主要挑戰之威權韌性，分別進行探討；最後，分析自由憲政民主典範對前述挑戰之回應。
本文的研究發現如下：第一，自由憲政民主除了開放性之外，尚具有動態不穩定特性，從而由內產生具非自由民主理念之民粹主義，侵蝕了自由憲政民主的常規；其次，威權大國（如中國）為維護政權所展現之韌性，不但對內能維持統治穩定性，還能與自由民主國家進行抗衡，從而由外威脅到自由民主典範。因此，自由憲政民主典範同時面對來自內、外部之挑戰。本文認為，有識之士有必要從其理論及制度盲點缺失，進行診斷進而加以更新改良，俾能在典範競逐中保有主流典範地位。

From the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, liberal constitutional democracy flourished, and it was the context that Francis Fukuyama, expressed his arguments on “the end of history”. However, according to the statistics of Freedom House, global democracy has experienced 16 consecutive years of decline, especially the rise of populism in Central and Eastern Europe and the decline of American democracy, making people doubt that the paradigm established by liberal constitutional democracy seems to have declined. In the next place, the rise of authoritarianism, such as Russia and China, did not transfer their authoritarian regime to liberal democracy as the wave of democratization prevailed. Instead, rising authoritarian countries used their own resilience to compete with the liberal constitutional democracy system and even constitute a threat to the latter.
The core problem consciousness of this article is: Is the contemporary paradigm of liberal constitutional democracy facing decline? If the paradigmatic recession is true, what are the main challenges? The argument logic of this article is as follows: firstly, clarify the connotation of the liberal constitutional democratic paradigm; secondly, explain the emergence of crisis of paradigm; furthermore, for the sake of focus, this article adopts the framework of analysis of “internal challenges-external challenges,” Discuss separately from the internal main challenge of populism and the external main challenge of authoritarian resilience; finally, analyze the responses of the liberal constitutional democracy paradigm to the aforementioned challenges.
The research findings of this article are as follows: firstly, in addition to openness, liberal constitutional democracy is also characterized by dynamic instability, which in turn produces populism with illiberal democratic ideas, which erodes the norms of liberal constitutional democracy; secondly, the resilience shown by authoritarian powers (such as China) for maintaining the regime can not only maintain the stability of the rule internally, but also compete with liberal democracies, thereby threatening the paradigm of liberal democracy from the outside. Thus, the paradigm of liberal constitutional democracy faces both internal and external challenges. This article argues that it is necessary for people to diagnose the blind spots of their theories and systems, and then to renew and improve them, so as to keep the dominant status in paradigmatic competition.

一、中文文獻
上官曌，〈全球化對民主制度的損害〉，《江西行政學院學報》，10.4（2008年）：頁47-48。
王業立主編，《政治學》，新北，晶點文化，2010。
朱浤源主編，《撰寫博碩士論文實戰手冊》，臺北，正中書局，2010。
江明修，《研究方法論》，臺北，智勝文化，2009。
吳定，《政策管理》，臺北，聯經，2003。
宋佩芬，〈中國的公民教育與威權韌性：教科書的政治社會化〉，《當代教育研究季刊》，22.2（2014年）：頁93-131。
汪子錫，〈中共“憲法”人權保障與警察戕害人身自由的矛盾探討〉，《展望與探索》，7.10(2009)：頁87-107。
倪達仁譯，《政治學》，臺北，雙葉書廊，1995。
倪達仁譯，《政治學》，臺北，雙葉書廊，2006。
許禎元，《政治研究方法與統計—SPSS for Windows的實例操作》，五南圖書，1997。
陳一新等譯校，《現代政治學》，臺北，韋伯文化，2010。
陳文政，〈憲政主義結構內涵之體系分析〉，《師大政治論叢》，第6卷（2006年）：頁47-162。
陳文政，〈全球憲政主義之興起－典範競逐觀點的初步考察〉，《臺北大學法學論叢》，88期（2013年），頁1-82。
陳文政、許禎元，〈儒家價值論述及其當代意涵：市場經濟全球化脈絡下的分析〉，《文化與哲學》，第42卷第9期（2015年），頁129-164。
陳文政、莊旻達，〈當代自由民主的侷限：理論與制度層次之初步考察〉，《哲學與文化》，第46卷第2期（2019年）：頁5-32。
陳文政，〈美國民主衰退之憲政成因：憲政極化之初步觀察〉，作者手稿（2022年10月），頁1-43。
陳思賢譯，《政治的意識形態》，臺北，五南圖書，2013。
陳義彥主編，《政治學》，臺北，五南圖書，2013。
彭懷恩著，《當代政治學-學科現狀》，新北，風雲論壇，2017。
黃昱珽，《走出台灣民主的「悖論」：民族主義與民粹主義的挑戰》，臺中，東海大學社會學系博士論文（未出版），2017。
黃秋龍，〈中國大陸「銳實力」對歐亞治理的衝擊〉，《展望與探索》，16.7（2018年）：頁133-140。
黑快明，〈中國銳實力對澳洲的滲透與澳洲政府的回應政策〉，《遠景基金會季刊》，21.3（2020年）：頁41-109。
葉耀聰，〈中國威權韌性與正當性之分析〉，《樹德科技大學學報》，23.2（2021年）：頁37-49。
葉耀聰，〈自由民主的衰退：徵象、原因與對策〉，《華醫學報》，55（2021年）：頁1-20。
葉耀聰，〈民粹主義對憲政民主衝擊之分析〉，《臺北城市科技大學通識學報》，11（2022年）：頁105-131。
葉耀聰，〈自由民主典範鞏固侷限性之分析〉，《樹德科技大學學報》，24.2（2022年）：頁161-180。
趙建民、張鈞智，〈中國大陸全國人大專門委員會的制度化歷程及評估〉，《政治學報》，57（2014年）：頁77-100。
劉書彬著，《政治學概論》，臺北，三民書局，2007。
劉國儀，〈軟實力、文化與中國崛起〉，《當代中國研究》，24.1（2017年）：頁111-121。
劉維宇，《威權與民粹關係之遞嬗：柬埔寨政治變遷之研究(1970-2017)》，臺北，臺灣師範大學政治學研究所碩士論文（未出版），2017。
蔡相廷，〈歷史制度主義的興起與研究取向-政治學研究途徑的探討〉，《臺北市立教育大學學報》，第41卷第2期（2010年），頁39-76。
鍾賢玉，《中國是否會民主化?美國學界三派之論爭》，臺北，臺灣大學政治學系碩士論文（未出版），2016。
藍玉春著，《政治學概論：全球化下的政治發展》，臺北，三民書局，2017。
魏玫娟，〈民粹主義與民主政治發展：以印度為例〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》，34.1（2022年）：頁117-151。
二、英文文獻
Bermeo, Nancy. “On Democratic Backsliding,” Journal of Democracy 27.1(2016): pp.5-19.
Bugaric, Bojan. “The Two Face of Populism: Between Authoritarian and Democratic Populism,” German Law Journal 20(2019): pp.390-400.
Bullough, Oliver. “The Dark Side of Globalization,” Journal of Democracy 29.1 (2018): pp.25-38.
Carothers, Thomas. “The End of the Transition Paradigm,” Journal of Democracy 13.1.(2002): pp.5-21.
Carothers, Thomas. “How Democracies Emerge: The “Sequencing” Fallacy,” Journal of Democracy 18.1.(2007): pp. 12-27.
Carothers, Thomas. “Rejuvenating Democracy Promotion,” Journal of Democracy 31.3(2020): pp.114-123.
Chafetz, Josh, and David E. Pozen. “How Constitutional Norms Break Down,” U.C.L.A. Law Review 65(2018): pp.1430-1459.
Chen, Wen-Cheng, and Min-Ta Chuang. “An Overlooked Case for Judicial Review: Striking a Dynamic Balance between Constitutionalism and Democracy,” National Taiwan University Law Review 12.2(2017): pp.281-341.
Chen, Wen Cheng, and Shirley Chi Chu. “Taking Global Constitutionalism Seriously: A Framework for Discourse,” National Taiwan University Law Review 11.2(2016): pp.383-427.
Cianetti, Licia., James Dawson, and Sean Hanley. “Rethinking “Democratic Backsliding” in Central and Eastern Europe-Looking Beyond Hungary and Poland,” East European Politics 34.3.(2018): pp. 243-256.
Cianetti, Licia, and Sean Hanley. “We must go beyond the ‘backsliding paradigm’ to understand what’s happening in Central and Eastern Europe,” The London School of Economics and Political Science 2020.4.17.
Cianetti, Licia, and Sean Hanley. “The End of the Backsliding Paradigm,” Journal of Democracy 32.1.(2021): pp. 66-80.
Diamond, Larry. “Breaking Out of the Democratic Slump,” Journal of Democracy 31.1(2020): pp.36-50.
Diamond, Larry. “Democracy’s Arc: From Resurgent to Imperiled,” Journal of Democracy 33.1(2022): pp.163-179.
Dixon, Rosalind, and Julie Suk. “Liberal Constitutionalism and Economic Inequality,” The University of Chicago Law Review 85.2(2018): pp.369-401.
Doyle, Oran. “Populist Constitutionalism and Constituent Power,” German Law Journal 20(2019): pp.161-180.
Doyle, Oran., Erik Longo, and Andren Pin. “Populism: A Health Check for Constitutional Democracy?” German Law Journal 20(2019): pp.401-407.
Foa, Roberto Stefan, and Yascha Mounk. “The Democratic Disconnect,” Journal of Democracy 27.3(2016): pp.5-17.
Foa, Roberto Stefan, and Yascha Mounk. “The End of the Consolidation Paradigm,” Journal of Democracy Web Exchange (updated 26 June 2017), pp. 1-26.
Foa, Roberto Stefan, and Yascha Mounk. “The Sign of Deconsolidation,” Journal of Democracy 28.1(2017): pp.5-15.
Foa, Roberto Stefan. “Modernization and Authoritarianism,” Journal of Democracy 29.3(2018): pp.129-140.
Fournier, Theo. “From Rhetoric to Action, A Constitutional Analysis of Populism,” German Law Journal 20(2019): pp.362-381.
Friedberg, Aaron L. “The Authoritarian Challenge: China, Russia and the Threat to the Liberal International Order,” The Sasakawa Peace Foundation (2017): pp.1-78.
Friedman, Steven. “Beyond ‘Democratic Consolidation’: An Alternative Understanding of Democratic Progress,” Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 58.126(2011): pp. 27-55.
Fukuyama, Francis. “The End of History?” National Interest 16(summer) (1989) pp.3-18.
Fukuyama, Francis. “Why Is Democracy Performing So Poorly,” Journal of Democracy 26.1(2015): pp.11-20.
Fukuyama, Francis. “The Populist Surge,” The American Interest 13.4(2018): pp.16-18.
Galston, William A. “The Populist Moment,” Journal of Democracy 28.2(2017): pp.21-33.
Galston, William A. “The Populist Challenge to Liberal Democracy,” Journal of Democracy 29.2(2018): pp.5-19.
Ginsburg, Tom, and Aziz Huq. “Democracy’s Near Misses,” Journal of Democracy 29.4(2018): pp.16-30.
Ginsburg, Tom, and Aziz Huq. How to Save a Constitutional Democracy. (2018) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press)
Ginsburg, Tom, Aziz Z. Huq, and Mila Versteeg. “The Coming Demise of Liberal Constitutionalism,” The University of Chicago Law Review 85.2(2018): pp.239-255.
Halmai, Gabor. “Populism, Authoritarianism and Constitutionalism,” German Law Journal 20(2019): pp.296-313.
Huntington, Samuel P. “Democracy’s Third Wave,” Journal of democracy 2.2(1991): pp.12-34.
Huq, Aziz, and Tom Ginsburg. “How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy,” U.C.L.A. Law Review 65(2018): pp.78-169.
Inglehart, Ronald F. “The Danger of Deconsolidation: How Much Should We Worry?” Journal of Democracy 27.3.(2016): pp.18-23.
Issacharoff, Samuel. “Democracy’s Deficits,” The University of Law Review 85.2(2018): pp.485-519.
Kelemen, R. Daniel. “Europe’s Other Democratic Deficit: National Authoritarianism in Europe’s Democratic Union,” Government and Opposition 52.2(2017): pp.211-238.
Landau, David. “Populist Constitutions,” The University of Chicago Law Review 85(2018)，pp.521-543.
Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan Way. “The New Competitive Authoritarianism,” Journal of Democracy 31.1(2020): pp. 51-65.
Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan. “Toward Consolidated Democracies,” Journal of Democracy 7.2(1996): pp. 14-23.
Lucas, Edward. “How Autocrats Undermine Media Freedom,” Journal of Democracy 33.1(2022): pp.131-146.
Mounk, Yascha. “The End of History Revisited,” Journal of Democracy 31.1(2020): pp.22-35.
Nathan, Andrew J. “Authoritarian Resilience,” Journal of Democracy 14.1(2003): pp. 6-17.
Nathan, Andrew J. “China at the Tipping Point?: Foreseeing the Unforeseeable” Journal of Democracy 24.1(2013): pp. 20-25.
Nathan, Andrew J. “China’s Challenge,” Journal of Democracy 26.1(2015): pp. 156-170.
Nathan, Andrew J. “The Puzzle of Authoritarian Legitimacy,” Journal of Democracy 31.1(2020): pp.158-168.
Noakes, Stephen. “The Role of Political Science in China: Intellectuals and Authoritarian Resilience,” Political Science Quarterly 129.2(2014): pp. 239-260.
O’Donnell, Guillermo. “Illusions About Consolidation,” Journal of Democracy 7.2.(1996): pp. 34-51.
Pappas, Takis S. “The Specter Haunting Europe: Distinguishing Liberal Democracy’s Challengers,” Journal of Democracy, 27.4(2016): pp. 22-36.
Pappas, Takis S. “Populists in Power,” Journal of Democracy 30.2(2019): pp.70-84.
Pei, Minxin. “The Chinese Political Order: Resilience or Decay?” Modern China Studies 21.2(2014): pp. 1-27.
Perry, Elizabeth J. “The Illiberal Challenge of Authoritarian China,” Taiwan Journal of Democracy 8.2(2012): pp. 3-15.
Plattner, Marc F. “Democracy Embattled,” Journal of Democracy 31.1(2020): pp.5-10.
Rahman, K. Sabeel. “(Re)Constructing Democracy in Crisis,” U.C.L.A. Law Review 65(2018): pp.1552-1572.
Repucci, Sarah, and Amy Slipowitz. “Authoritarians on Offense,” Journal of Democracy 33.2(2022): pp.45-59.
Rupnik, Jacqes. “The Crisis of Liberalism,” Journal of Democracy 29.3(2018): pp.24-38.
Slater, Dan. “Democratic Careening,” World Politics 65.4(2013): pp 729-763.
Son, Bui Ngoc. “China’s Comparative Constitution,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 54.1(2021): pp. 1-29.
Svolik, Milan W. “Polarization versus Democracy,” Journal of Democracy 27.1(2019): pp.20-32.
Tushnet, Mark. “Varieties of Populism,” German Law Journal 20(2019): pp.382-389.
Walker, Christopher. “The Authoritarian Threat: The Hijacking of ‘Soft Power’,” Journal of Democracy 27.1(2016): pp.49-63.
Walker, Christopher. “What Is ‘Sharp Power’,” Journal of Democracy 29.3(2018): pp.9-23.
Walker, Christopher, Shanthi Kalathil, and Jessica Ludwig. “The Cutting Edge of Sharp Power,” Journal of Democracy 31.1(2018): pp.124-137.
Wedeman, Andrew. “Does China Fit the Model?” Journal of Democracy 29.1(2018): pp.86-95.
Welzel, Christian. “Why the Future Is Democratic,” Journal of Democracy 32.2.(2021): pp. 132-144.
Welzel, Christian., Stefan Kruse, and Lennart Brunkert. “Why the Future Is (Still) Democratic,” Journal of Democracy 31.1(2022): pp.156-162.
Yeh, Jiunn-Rong, and Wen-Chen Chang. “The Emergency of Transnational Constitutionalism: Its Features, Challenges and Solutions,” Penn State International Law Review 4.1(2008): pp.89-124.
三、網路資源
Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2019: (2019) Democracy in Retreat, www.freedomhouse.org, 2019/03/25.
Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2022: (2022) The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule, www.freedomhouse.org, 2022/09/09.