Public Referenda: Tools in the Service of Presidential Elections

Public Referenda: Tools in the Service of Presidential Elections
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 19, 2007

As the year end election approaches, several referenda related issues have been dusted off and added to the political agenda. One issue is whether presidential elections should be held concurrently with legislative elections. A second issue is whether presidential and legislative elections should be held concurrently with public referenda. A third issue is whether the referendum law should be amended, and if so, how. These issues, which have surfaced one after the other recently, obviously interest the ruling party.

Regarding the question of whether the presidential elections, legislative elections, and public referenda should be held concurrently, the Executive Yuan has said it hopes they can be. The ruling party hierarchy is already planning to push for a three in one election. Regarding the referendum laws, President Chen has hinted that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) proposes to amend them, and hopes to drastically lower the threshold for initiating referenda, widen the scope of issues that may be voted on, change the right of initiative, and eliminate constraints upon the executive. The proposal that the threshold for a public referendum be reduced to only one hundred persons has yet to clear consultations between the ruling government, the legislature, and the various political parties. Referenda topics the DPP have proposed include investigating KMT party assets and joining the United Nations using the name "Taiwan."

Public referenda are one of many mechanisms for bringing about democracy. They are an important means of revitalizing democratic pluralism. The advocacy and promotion of public referenda on Taiwan is something we should welcome with open arms. Unfortunately public referenda on Taiwan have degenerated into a tool for winning elections, rather than a means of enhancing the quality of democracy. In other words, whether to hold a referendum, how to hold a referendum, when to hold a referendum, and why one should hold a referendum, hinge on whether they help win elections, especially presidential elections, because presidential elections are the elections that most affect the power of the ruling regime. Public referenda have been transformed into a tool for winning elections, instead of means of seeking social consensus. This distinction must not be overlooked by anyone concerned about the future of democracy on Taiwan.

Elections are mechanisms for the realization of democracy. To link public referenda with presidential or legislative elections however, is unprecedented among democratic countries. That such a procedure increases the turnout for public referenda is something everyone understands. However elections are not the sum total of democracy, nor should they be. The foolish linkage of elections with public referenda, and the simplistic equation of democracy with voting, assuming that everything can and ought to be decided by a vote, that if all questions are decided by a vote, democracy has been realized, reveal a blind spot among advocates of democracy on Taiwan.

Equating elections with democracy is a form of blindness. Voting is merely part of the democratic process, a problem solving method of last resort. A more mature democracy seeks social consensus and social harmony via communication and debate. If one fails to understand the need for rational communication and patient debate, but pursues only electoral victories, partisan quid pro quo, and jockeying for power, then the democracy one brings into being may appear healthy from the outside, but will be rotten to the core.

If the only time that Taiwan brings up the issue of public referenda is every four years, during presidential elections, and if politicians champion public referenda solely as a means of winning elections, then public referenda are pointless. If the threshold for a public referendum is reduced to only one hundred persons, we forsee a whole range of public referenda diluting the already thin air of democratic debate. If public referenda are merely political ploys that lead to ideological impasse and partisan bickering, then Taiwan's public referenda will remain empty rituals incapable of lending legitimacy to its system of democracy. If the ruling party plays the public referendum card every time a presidential election rolls around in order to seize or maintain political power, then it is unqualified to claim that it is championing democracy.

After all, the legitimacy of a democratic political system does not depend upon the number of votes cast. The legitimacy of a democratic political system depends upon political leaders who champion rational thought and responsible debate about matters affecting the community, who seek consensus from all walks of life in order to create a harmonious society.

During the last presidential election the public underwent a traumatic experience. In the years since, the ruling regime has learned nothing from the experience. Three years later, nothing has changed, everything is as it was. The referendum process remains riddled with defects. The neutrality of the Central Election Committee remains in question. A successful public referendum remains a chimera. Referendum proposals include ad hoc demands for the amending of laws for flagrantly partisan motives, and tired election ploys familiar to the man in the street. With referenda like these, how can the ruling regime expect to win the hearts and minds of the political opposition and society at large? How can it persuade the public to participate in them? All we can expect is a political sham that delights politicians even as it increases voter alienation and provokes public disgust.

Original Chinese below:

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.04.19
公投該綁的是民主價值，不是總統大選
中時社論

隨著年底選舉日近，幾個相關的公民投票話題漸囂塵上，開始排入政治議程。話題之一是總統與立委選舉是否合辦舉行，而且是否應同時舉行公民投票；話題之二是公民投票法應否修正、應如何修正；話題之三是公投的題目，這三個話題最近相繼出現，而且顯然都是執政黨所感到興趣的題目。

在是否合併舉行總統、立委選舉及公民投票的問題，行政院業已表達希望中選會將總統及立委選舉合併辦理的立場，執政黨高層則已計畫推動三合一選舉。在修改公投法的議題上，陳總統示意民進黨提案修法，想要大幅降低公投提案人數門檻、擴大交付公投的議題範圍、改變公投提案權排除行政機關的限制等等，其中將公投提案人數門檻降為百人的意見未能於府院黨協商會報中通過，引起外界注意，至於交付公投的題目，民進黨方面也已經提出包括索討黨產、以台灣名義加入聯合國等等。

公民投票，是實現民主的機制之一，也是活化多元民主的要徑，在台灣加以推動提倡，本應樂觀其成。惟值得提醒國人注意的一個現象是，公民投票在台灣已經演成贏得選舉勝利的工具。而不是充實民主品質的法門。也就是說，是否舉行公民投票、如何舉行公民投票、何時舉行公民投票、為何舉行公民投票，在在都與選舉，特別是總統選舉掛勾；而總統選舉，則是攸關執政權力最鉅的選舉；公民投票選舉工具化，其背後的意義就是變成權力的爭奪遊戲，而不是民主議題實質社會共識的追求，此中的差別，不容關切台灣民主發展前途的有識之士小覷。

選舉，當然原本就是實現民主的機制，採公民投票與總統或立委選舉綁在一起舉行，其他民主國家不乏先例；這樣的做法，有提高公民投票出席比率的效果，也是大家都知道的道理。然而，選舉，畢竟不是民主的全部，也不該是民主的全部。選舉與公民投票結合，有一個在民主發展過程之中難以避免的盲點，就是將民主與投票畫上等號，以為一切都可以也應該用投票解決；以為只要將一切問題用投票加以解決，就是民主實現的證明。

之所以強調這是一種盲點，理由在於將投票與民主畫上等號的意識，忽略了投票只是民主程序之中，解決問題一種不得已的方法；更高境界的民主，其實是要從溝通討論的程序中，徹底地尋求社會共識，贏得社會的高度和諧。不懂得講究溝通討論所需要的精緻、品質、理性還有耐性，只是一味追逐投票的勝利、黨派利益的交換，或者權力位置的角逐，那麼表象的民主背後，將只會是一種「敗絮其中」的品質。

如果台灣談論公民投票，只是每四年總統選舉時的例行儀式，政客們想要辯解提倡公民投票不是求取勝選的拙劣手段，將毫無說服力；如果公民投票的提案門檻真的降低到只有百人即可，可以想見，汗牛充棟的公投提案，會將原已淡薄的社會民主討論空氣稀釋到何種難以聚焦的程度？如果公民投票的議題，盡皆只是一些政治上揮之不去卻又走不出死胡同的意識形態八股，淪為政黨選舉鬥爭的廝殺劇本，台灣的公民投票永遠都只會徒具形式，難以建立其民主正當性。矢言追求提升台灣民主品質的執政黨，如果只是一而再、再而三，到了總統大選就依樣葫蘆地操演公民投票的戲碼，遂行奪取或維持執政權力的政治本能，其實沒有任何資格宣講民主政治義理。

畢竟，民主政治的實質正當性，不是靠著投票的數目加以驗證。民主政治的實質正當性，是要藉著政治領袖提倡全社會不斷的理性思辯溝通，在攸關社會發展的重要議程、議題上，從各階層尋求高度共識，真正達到全社會水乳交融的民主和諧境界。

公民投票在上次的總統大選有過一次不堪回首的慘痛經驗。幾年來執政者似乎並未從中得到真正有益的教訓。三年之後，一切都在原地踏步！公民投票法制仍然瑕疵滿布，中選會政治中立的公信力依然不彰，公民投票的成功經驗完全從缺，有的只是臨陣磨槍的粗糙修法提議，斧鑿痕跡明顯的議題選擇，捫心自用而且路人皆知的選舉策略操弄，如此這般的公民投票設計，又怎麼可能邀得在野黨的同意，贏得社會民眾的衷心感動，樂意參與追隨呢？可以預期的，只怕又是選民高度疏離，望之令人生厭而只有政客樂在其中的政治歹戲拖棚而已。