Taiwan needs a Party of Social Reconciliation and National Unity

Taiwan needs a Party of Social Reconciliation and National Unity
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
May 28, 2007

Comment: The following China Times editorial is a must read. It is a must read not because it is good. It is a must read because it is bad. The following China Times editorial is a mind-numbingly obtuse compendium of all the short-sighted, opportunistic, and counterproductive arguments for "ben tu hua" i.e., "nativization" ever advanced by the pro-nativization faction in the KMT.

China Times: The Kuomintang (KMT) wants to revise its party constitution to read, "identification with Taiwan, peaceful development." Because it has been simplified as "eliminating reunification, adding Taiwan," it is said to have provoked considerable internal controversy. But apparently everyone from presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou, to Party Chairman Wu Po-hsiung, to Party Secretary General Wu Deng-yi was on the same page. Even Ma Ying-jeou's mantra, "Taiwan first, for the good of the people," was written into the party constitution. Judging by the trend, any backlash during the Party Convention in late June will probably not be able to reverse this direction. Rather than say that the KMT is following the Democratic Progressive Party's path, one might say instead that the KMT is simply being more pragmatic.

The KMT had better not imagine it can shake itself free of the reunification vs. independence issue during the year end elections. The reason is the DPP has no alternative. First, it has no achievements to brag about. Second, its record of corruption is abysmal. For it to claim that it is fighting corruption isn't terribly persuasive. Playing the "Recover KMT Assets!" card is beating a dead horse. How much political mileage can be gotten out of that is debatable. The cheapest, most effective expedient is to return to the reunification vs. independence issue. To cast the KMT as a "foreign political authority," as the "China Party," as the "Reunification Party," to kick off another "Purge Chiang Influences" campaign and rehash the 228 Incident. As long as it is possible to create the impression of a dichotomy between the KMT and "Taiwan," this tactic will have considerable political force. But the KMT can neither neutralize these impressions, nor shake off these issues. All it can do is passively take the blows. Add to this Ma Ying-jeou's "mainlander" background. Not only could Chen Shui-bian play the "Ma Ying-jeou is a Hong Konger, therefore not Taiwanese" card, even Wang Jyn-ping can play the provincial origin card. To expect the DPP not to make an issue of this in future elections is to expect the impossible. Therefore neither the KMT nor Ma Ying-jeou has any choice except to confront the issue head on.

The simplest, most direct method is to escape from this dichotomy and underscore one's identification with Taiwan. Rhetorically speaking, "peaceful development" is more neutral than "eventual reunification" or "Taiwan independence is also an option." For the KMT reunification vs. independence is question for history. It is an issue it will have to face only in a remote future. For now, it is basically a phony issue. If mainstream public opinion from beginning to end is "maintain the status quo," why fall into the Green camp's trap by adopting a position opposed to independence? Some might say that "eliminating reunification" amounts to a change in political position, but it would be better to say that it is a kind of escape, a kind of liberation from a problem that can't be solved currently. For today's KMT, defending the "Republic of China" is enough. This a permanent legacy. Those attempting to change this status quo are the Green camp and Beijing, not the KMT.

Based on former KMT Chairman Lien Chan's visits to Beijing, followed by a succession of cross-Straits economics and trade fora, the KMT's cross-Straits strategic thinking is already quite clear. It is a "win/win" economic and trade policy. Taiwan's original strength was its economic and trade advantages. Within the East Asian economic sphere, Taiwan's economic advantages gave it plenty of maneuvering room. Unfortunately the DPP has adopted a Closed Door Policy while in power. It has fixated on the independence issue, attempting to author a new constitution and to "rectify names," aggravating internal and cross-Straits opposition. Not only has it enlarged fissures on Taiwan, it has also reduced itself to the status of international "troublemaker." Taiwan's neighbors are struggling to improve their economies. Taiwan, by contrast, is immersed in an internal political struggle. The result, needless to say, is that all international maneuvering room is being "managed" by Washington and Beijing. Its international economic situation within East Asia has been marginalized. Its economic competitiveness ratings have plummeted. This is a danger signal.

Why strive for "peaceful development," if not for the greater good of Taiwan? If a political party based on Taiwan still needs to hesitate about identifying with Taiwan, embracing Taiwan, then what else is there to discuss? The KMT must acknowledge it hasn't been sufficiently diligent in developing its rationale for nativization. Whereas the DPP has advanced toward the "Republic of China" via its "Resolution on Taiwan's Future," the KMT has not made much of an effort to advance toward "Taiwan." Amending the party constitution is merely making up for this deficit.

Especially when the KMT, as opposed to the DPP, is so much more diverse in its composition and and tolerant in its ideology. We have never heard of any calls for the "Exclusion of Greens" from within the party. The KMT's distinguishing characteristic ought to be an advantage. Yet it has become a lever by which the Green camp can create divisions within the party. Today's KMT has undergone one form of factional strife after another: the New Party, the People First Party, the Taiwan Solidarity Union. By now it should realize that its flexibility is its best asset.

Income distribution on Taiwan has become polarized over the years. Taiwan is becoming an "M-shaped Society" in which the middle class has disappeared. Taiwan's political culture has also become polarized. Taiwan is marching toward a politically "M-shaped Society" in which the middle way has disappeared, and one is either Blue or Green. Today's Taiwan needs a party of social reconciliation and national unity. It does not need a party that invents internal enemies and increases internal opposition. When the DPP resorts to "Exclusion of Blues" and "Exclusion of the Eleven Brigands" to establish its own credentials, for the KMT to establish its credentials by "ben tu hu" nativization of its party constitution, would seem to be a smart move!

Original Chinese below:

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.05.28
台灣需要一個讓社會和解、讓人民團結的政黨
中時社論

國民黨有意朝「認同台灣、和平發展」的方向修改黨章，因為被外界簡化為是要「去統加台灣」，據說還引發內部路線上的不小爭執，但看樣子從總統參選人馬英九、黨主席吳伯雄到秘書長吳敦義幾乎都口徑一致了。甚至馬英九常掛在嘴邊講的「以台灣為主，對人民有利」都被寫進黨章裡了，照這個勢頭看，就算六月底的全代會前還有人想反彈什麼，大概也扭轉不了大勢了。而與其說這是國民黨向民進黨的路線跟進，倒不如說是國民黨較之先前更務實了。

對國民黨而言，年底這場選戰根本休想擺脫統獨操作的泥淖。理由是民進黨也沒什麼選擇，一沒啥政績好宣揚，二是自己的貪腐紀錄一籮筐，打黑金沒說服力，打「黨產」嘛，只能算冷飯熱炒，動員能量究竟有多大還有爭議。最廉價的當然還是回歸統獨，持續將國民黨停格在外來政權、中國黨、統一黨等的意象上，再配合去蔣、二二八等的操作即可。而只要操作得宜，還是很容易在意象上讓國民黨與「台灣」對立起來，如此在動員能量上還是挺可觀。而國民黨既抹不去這些意象，也甩不掉這些議題，只有陷入一路挨打的境地。再加上馬英九的身分背景，不要說當年陳水扁操作過「香港腳」，連月前王金平都操作過省籍議題，要民進黨未來選舉時不在這上面做文章，怕是門都沒有。所以不論是國民黨或是馬英九，除了選擇直接面對，恐怕也沒其他更好的法子了。

而最直接、也最簡單的做法，就是一方面跳脫統獨二元的論述，另一方面大量加註「台灣」。「和平發展」在修辭上屬於一種過程的、狀態表述，形式上當然比「終極統一」或「以台獨做選項」等偏向目的論的表述要更中性。對國民黨而言，統獨與否一直是歷史問題，也是遙遠未來才需面對的課題，現階段根本是個「假命題」，如果民意主流從頭到尾一直都是「維持現狀」，它又何苦在綠營的相激下自陷「獨立」選項的另一邊？「去統」與其說是一種立場改變，還不如說是一種解套、一種鬆綁，不必再為一個現階段不可能解決、也解決不了的問題綁死自己。現今的國民黨，守住「中華民國」這個底線就已經足夠，這是個一直都存在的固有資產，企圖要改變這個現狀的是綠營、是北京，不是國民黨。

更何況，從國民黨前主席連戰訪問北京，到一連串兩岸經貿論壇下來，國民黨這幾年有關兩岸的戰略思考已經很清晰，就是以經貿交往為主軸的「雙贏論述」。台灣的強項本來就是經貿實力，在東亞大經濟體的整合過程中，以台灣地緣經濟位置的優勢，原本擁有很大的活動空間。無奈在民進黨執政的這幾年，一路採取鎖國政策不說，還獨沽「統獨」一味，不斷地企圖藉由制憲、正名等的操作擴大內部與兩岸的對立，結果不僅台灣內部的裂痕加大，在國際社會上也淪為「麻煩製造者」的處境。特別是現階段台灣所有鄰邦都在迫不及待地拚經濟，台灣卻是埋首拚內鬥，結果不要說國際活動空間被美中聯手「管理」，國際經濟處境也在東亞經貿整合中被一路邊緣化，這幾年國家競爭力的國際評比一路下挫，難道不是警訊？

爭取「和平發展」所為何來？不就是為了追求台灣的最大利益！一個要立足台灣的政黨，對認同台灣、擁抱台灣還要遲疑，那就不必再去談其他了。國民黨必須承認它自己在發展「本土論述」上的努力並不夠，當民進黨透過「國家前途決議文」向「中華民國」推進的時候，國民黨並沒有讓自己在論述上向「台灣」的推進上做太多努力，如今修黨章的舉動只是補足這個缺憾而已。更何況，國民黨相對於民進黨，在成員結構與理念路線上本來就多元包容，內部從未聞有什麼「排綠」的爭議，這種特質本該是個優勢，奈何過去卻一直淪為被對手操作分化的槓桿。如今的國民黨，在走過流派傾軋陣痛，度過新黨、親民黨、台聯的分裂危機後，應該更懂得將自己的異質性，視為是一種彈性，甚至是一種「資產」了吧？

台灣社會這幾年在所得分配上日趨兩極化，正在形成一種中間階層消逝的「Ｍ型社會」，同樣的在無休止的政治動員下，台灣的政治社會也日趨兩極化，同樣也正在邁向一個中道消逝、藍綠站兩旁的「Ｍ型社會」。現時的台灣，需要的是一個讓社會和解、讓人民團結的政黨，而不是持續在社會內部生產敵人，讓人民擴大對立的政黨。當民進黨用「排藍」、「排十一寇」證明它自己的時候，國民黨藉由黨章的本土化證明它自己，應該是個聰明的舉動吧！