Setting Limits on Democracy?

Setting Limits on Democracy?
United Daily New editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 09, 2007

Chen Shui-bian said that "one cannot set limits on democracy." Chen is wrong. The survival of a nation requires the setting of limits. If certain policies run the risk of harming or even destroying the nation, of course they must be off limits.

Chen Shui-bian argues that Taiwan independence is the result of "Taiwan's democratic political development." He argues that the US cannot on the one hand support "Taiwan's democracy" and on the other hand oppose Taiwan independence. Therefore he opposes US attempts to set limits on "Taiwan's democracy." He argues that Taiwan independence must be given the green light.

Under the democracy that prevails in regions controlled by the Republic of China, it is permissible to advocate Taiwan independence. One cannot forbid the advocacy of Taiwan independence in the public forum. But whether Taiwan independence accords with the requirements of national survival, and is something that political leaders should be promoting, is another matter altogether. Are Taiwan independence ideologues truly unaware that Taiwan independence will bring calamity? Are they truly determined to bring about their own destruction?

Following the First World War, the shackles imposed by the Treaty of Versailles reduced Germany to the status of an "abnormal country." As a result, in accordance with democratic procedures, and inside the political framework of the Weimar Republic, a political party that advocated anti-Semitism and foreign expansionism appeared, the Nazi Party. In other words, Germany at that time set no limits on the Nazi Party. But in retrospect, we see that Hitler was using democracy to hijack the German nation, to exceed the limits of what was in the interest of Germany's national survival. The Nazis used democracy to prevail politically. By the time they had achieved their dreams, they had destroyed the German nation.

Today the Republic of China government faces a similar situation. Question One: Are the Chinese people on Taiwan really prepared to pay any price for Taiwan independence, and even break with the US? Question Two: Does Taiwan independence in fact accord with the requirements of the nation's survival?

In response to the first question, Chen Shui-bian professes confidence. He argues that opinion polls confirm a trend toward Taiwan independence. Regarding this, we have reservations. Chen Shui-bian is clearly attempting to inflate the significance of "Taiwanese consciousness," spinning it as "Taiwan independence consciousness." He is manipulating "Taiwanese consciousness," using it to justify his own "Taiwan independence consciousness." Is the public on Taiwan so ignorant as to break with the US over the issue of Taiwan independence? Surely not? On the other hand, Hitler was able to hijack Germany by means of the democratic process and lead it toward Nazism. Would it be so surprising if Chen Shui-bian hijacked Taiwan by means of the democratic process and led it toward Taiwan independence? Therefore the second question is the key. Does Taiwan independence accord with the strategic requirements of the Republic of China's survival? Did Nazism accord with the requirements of Germany's national survival?

To assert that "one cannot set limits on democracy" is populist demagoguery. Suppose someone advocates "exempting everyone from paying taxes?" Obviously democracy has limits. Suppose someone advocates "resorting to force to compel a corrupt president to step down?" Obviously democracy has limits. National leaders must defend democracy. They must never lead the nation toward disaster in the name of democracy. Hitler violated this rule. He exceeded this limit. So have innumerable mini-Hitlers in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Their crime was always the same: They used democracy to destroy the nation.

If Chen Shui-bian were still a dissident leader during the "party outsider" era, he would be free to shout "Long live Taiwan independence!" But Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party are the Republic of China's ruling elite. Yet they are still lying to themselves and the public. They are leading the nation to the brink of disaster.

Can one set limits on democracy? Of course one can. Of course one must. One must set limits on the authority of leaders in positions of power. They must not be permitted to put the survival of the nation at risk. Chen Shui-bian must ask himself whether he has exceeded these limits, whether he has put the survival of the nation at risk.

To escape responsibility for the crisis of authority caused by his greed and corruption, Chen shifted public attention to his "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name of Taiwan." On the one hand he insisted that his "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name of Taiwan" had nothing to do with Taiwan independence. On the other hand he aggressively pushed his "Four Demands" and "UN membership under a New National Title." When he did this, did he exceed these limits? When his "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name of Taiwan" caused a rift in Taipei/Washington relations, when US trust was shattered, when Taipei found itself at loggerheads with its most important international backer, did he exceed these limits? On the one hand Chen Shui-bian admits that "Taiwan independence is both self-deception and deception of others." On the other hand he continues throwing gasoline on the flames of Taiwan independence. When he does this, is he exceeding these limits?

Democracy allows a variety of different viewpoints. In this respect, it sets no limits. But political leaders' actions must be limited. They cannot be permitted to engage in mass deception. Their national policies must have limits. They must maximize national welfare and minimize national misfortunes. They must not be permitted to lead the nation down the path to oblivion.

It is one thing to hold forth on how "One cannot set limits on democracy." But Chen Shui-bian has exceeded every one of his limits. He has exceeded his moral limits. He has exceeded his legal limits. He has led the nation to brink of disaster.

民主無紅線，國家政策不能沒有紅線！
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.05 03:17 am

陳水扁說，民主不可畫「紅線」。這話說得沒錯。但是，國家的生存政策卻不能沒有「紅線」；如果某種國家政策可能導致國家重傷或敗亡，當然必須畫下「紅線」。

陳水扁現在的說法不啻指出：台獨是台灣民主政治發展的歸趨，美國不可一方面支持台灣民主，另一方面卻反對台獨；因此，他反對美國給台灣民主畫上任何「紅線」，主張非給台獨「開綠燈」不可。

在台灣的民主運作中，當然會出現台獨的主張；不可能畫一紅線，禁止在民主論壇中出現台獨主張。不過，台獨是否適合成為台灣主政者執意推動的國家生存策略，那卻是另一回事。難道明知台獨會禍及台灣，也要自尋死路？

例如，在第一次世界大戰後，由於凡爾賽條約的束縛，使德國淪為「不正常國家」；因此，在威瑪共和的體制中，經民主機制，出現了納粹黨，主張反猶太的種族主義及對外侵略。也就是說，就「民主」而言，德國當時並未為納粹畫下「紅線」；但是，如今回顧，希特勒卻是假借「民主」，挾持著德國踰越了國家生存策略的「紅線」。納粹雖假借「民主」而得逞，但毀了國家。

如今，台灣儼然也面臨了類似的情境：一、台灣的「民主」是否真正不惜代價地支持台獨（包括不惜與美國反目）？二、台獨是否為符合台灣利益的國家生存策略？

對上述第一個問題，陳水扁頗有自信，他舉出許多民調來證實傾向台獨的民意高漲。對於此點，我們略有保留。陳水扁顯然是將普遍存在的「台灣意識」扭曲並擴張解釋為「台獨意識」；且其實際操作手段，亦是假借「台灣意識」來為他的「台獨意識」背書。難道台灣民眾會愚昧至不惜與美國翻臉也要搞台獨？不過，退一步說，希特勒既能經由民主機制將德國帶往納粹運動，則若謂陳水扁亦能經由民主操作將台灣推向台獨運動，似也不足為奇。於是，第二個問題遂成關鍵：台獨是否為符合台灣利益的國家生存政策？此一問題，正如應問納粹是否為符合德國國家利益的生存政策？

所謂民主沒有「紅線」，其實是一種民粹論述。如果出現主張「全民免稅」的「民主」，自然會有「紅線」；如果出現主張「以暴動逼迫貪腐總統下台」的「民主」，自然也會有「紅線」。國家主政者當然應當護持「民主」，唯他的「紅線」應在不可藉民主之名將國家帶向導致敗亡的道路。希特勒犯過這種錯，且在亞非拉一幕接一幕的民主悲劇中，更曾出現過無數小一號的希特勒。他們千篇一律的罪行是：騙過民主，輸了國家！

陳水扁若仍是「黨外」時代的民運人士，大可高喊「台獨萬歲」；但是，陳水扁與民進黨已是中華民國的執政者，竟仍玩弄「自欺欺人」的台獨騙術，那就是踩過了「紅線」。

即使民主沒有紅線，但主政者的執政責任及政治道德卻不能沒有紅線，國家的生存政策更不能沒有紅線。陳水扁應當自問：是否已踰越了執政者對國家責任及政治道德的紅線？是否已踩過了國家生存策略的紅線？

例如，陳水扁為了掙脫他因貪腐而造成的權力危機，竟轉移焦點將國家捲入「入聯公投」的台獨風暴中，這是否踰越了政治道德的紅線？另如，陳水扁一方面偽稱「入聯公投」不是操弄台獨，但另一方面又揚言「四要」，「是以新的國家名義入聯」，這是否踰越了政治誠信的紅線？再如，「入聯公投」使台美友誼受到重傷，台美信任形同崩盤，且使台灣最重要的「國際維生支柱」美國與台灣反目，更使台灣突然站在反美的立場，這是否踰越了執政責任的紅線？又如，陳水扁一方面自承「台獨是自欺欺人」，另一方面又對台獨政策火上加油，這是否踰越了國家生存政策的紅線？

民主容許見仁見智，沒有紅線；但主政者的執政責任卻不能沒有紅線，不可自欺欺人，愚民以逞；尤其，主政者主導的國家政策更不能沒有紅線，必須趨吉避凶，造福禳禍，不可「自欺欺人」，陷國家於危境死地。

民主沒有紅線，盡可各抒己見，放言高論。但陳水扁作為一名主政者，卻踰越了政治道德的紅線，踰越了執政責任的紅線，也踰越了國家生存政策的紅線。