Face up to the Rapid Decline of Taiwan's Democracy

Face up to the Rapid Decline of Taiwan's Democracy
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 9, 2007

This year is the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law. For a democratic nation, this ought to be a milestone. But as this newspaper noted yesterday in an article entitled "Politics Spurned," the public remains highly distrustful of the executive, the legislature, and even the ruling and opposition political parties. What does the future hold for the Republic of China's democracy? The young republic seems to be losing its political bearings.

Ten years ago, the Taiwan region of China held its first direct presidential election. It looked the world straight in the eye, confident of its status as an exemplar of the universal value of democracy. Singapore to the south was an object of pity. To the western world, Taiwan was Asia's "Showcase of Democracy." Singapore's "soft dictatorship" did not pass muster.

But ten years later, whether Taiwan is better than Singapore is not so clear. Singapore leads Taiwan in the World Bank's "Doing Business 2008" ranking. It even leads Taiwan in democracy related areas such as clean government. According to Transparency International's 2007 annual report, Singapore placed fifth. Taiwan has fallen from 27th place to 34th place since 2001.

The World Bank's 2007 World Development Indicators Report reveals that Taiwan has regressed in every respect compared to a decade ago, whether freedom of speech, or political stability, or government efficiency, or rules and regulations, or corruption control. This newspaper's opinion polls show that public skepticism of the government exceeds its confidence in the government.

One could say that Taiwan regressed after it democratized. Or one could say that after democratization the people's expectations were raised. Because Taiwan's standard of reference is not just Singapore or mainland China, it is the western democratic prototype. By this standard, Taiwan's democracy has not advanced but regressed in many respects. No wonder the public feels disappointed and stymied.

Take even the simplest criterion: political fairness and political neutrality. Taiwan still does not qualify. For example, the Straits Exchange Foundation's Taiwan Business Association invited only Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidates to its Mid-Autumn Festival. This is merely one of many indicators. Every time the president speaks in public, he accuses the opposition party of "not loving Taiwan" and of "conspiring with Beijing against Taiwan," painting the political opposition as the Enemy of the People.

The government refuses to meet even the most rudimentary requirements for fairness, let alone respect the concept of institutional independence. The independent institutions established with great difficulty over the past decade, have become flagrantly partisan. The president can disregard the requirement that the Central Election Commission remain neutral, and publicly announce a timetable for a series of referenda (or more accurately, plebiscites) to correspond with upcoming elections.

Checks and balances among the branches of government lie at the heart of modern democracy. But the ruling party recognizes only confrontation. It pointedly ignores the will of the majority manifested in the composition of the legislature. Whether the issue is the "Rectification of Names" or the "Plebiscite to Join the UN," The opposition party holds a majority in the legislature. But it has been unable to offer a set of coherent political reforms to cure corruption. The public is alienated because it finds itself trapped and bereft of alternatives.

Taiwan did not regress according to every index. But amidst its progress, a negative force has appeared. The judicial system established some degree of independence over the past year. The First Lady and the vice president were indicted. This was unprecedented for Taiwan. But the political backlash from the ruling regime was also unprecedented. In order to smear the judicial system, the Green camp accused the public prosecutors of being Communists. The president filed a constitutional lawsuit. He invoked executive privilege and national security as pretexts to suppress evidence of his corruption. The new and independent judicial system now faced ubiquitous political pressure.

So many setbacks. So many disappointments. Taiwan has not come by its democracy easily. Famed democratic theorist Robert A.Dahl lists a number of conditions advantageous to democracy. The most essential is "the absence of a external force hostile to democracy." For many new and old democracies, this sort of "hostile force" doesn't exist. But the Taiwan region adopted democracy while under military threat from the mainland. The past decade or so has not been easy. Beijing has become the archenemy of Taiwan's democratic development. It has never never given up the threat to use force against it. More importantly, an immense mainland China provokes a kind of phobia on Taiwan.

As popular historian Fang Lung said, "Fear precludes tolerance." In an environment of confrontation, any attempt to establish a democratic culture is wasted effort. Most alarming of all, if those in power exploit people's fears, differentiating between "us" and "them" within one's own nation, democratic checks and balances will lose out to the power of populist demagoguery.

Why do nations exist? Strangely enough, if the ROC wants to become a "normal country" what matters is not its name, but its essence. When the majority of ROC citizens affirm our democratic system, when they believe politicians are incorruptible, when they believe in the commonwealth of nations, that is when the ROC will become a normal country. The ROC's budding democracy needs to redouble its efforts.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.10.09
請正視快速崩壞的台灣民主品質
中時社論

　今年是解嚴廿周年，就民主國家而言，這本該是個里程碑，但正如同本報昨日刊登的「遭唾棄的政治」專題，民眾對行政、立法乃至朝野政黨所呈現的都是高度的不信任，台灣未來的民主路要如何走下去，年輕的台灣似乎正在失去可參考的座標。

　十年前，剛完成第一次總統直選，台灣意氣風發地面向全世界，相信我們終於和民主的普世價值接軌，南邊的新加坡是我們睥睨的對象；對當時的西方世界而言，台灣是「亞洲民主櫥窗」，新加坡的「軟性威權主義」進不了民主的門檻。

　但十年後，台灣是否比新加坡好，卻顯得不確定。新加坡不但在世界銀行的全球經商環境排名中，遙遙領先台灣；即使在和民主相關的政府清廉度，依照國際透明組織二○○七年的報告，新加坡排名第五，台灣名次卻從二○○一年起逐年下降，從廿七名降到三十四名。

　世界銀行二○○七年的全球政府治理報告，除了言論自由外，無論是政治穩定、政府效率、法律規章、貪汙管制，台灣全部比十年前退步。本報所作的民調，民眾對朝野的不信任度，都遠高於信任程度。

　這一切與其說是民主化後的台灣退步了，還不如說，是民主化後人民的標準提高了。因為，台灣參考的標準不只是新加坡，更不是中國，而是西方民主的原型，如果從這些標準來看，台灣在追求民主過程中，有不少指標是不進反退的，難怪民眾會感到失望與挫折。

　就以最簡單的政治公平性及政治中立而言，台灣仍然不合格。例如海基會中秋台商聯誼會，就只邀民進黨總統參選人到場，但這不過是一個表徵，因為總統屢次公開發言時，就以「不愛台」、「與對岸勾結」這樣的語言來指控在野黨，將在野黨視為國家的敵人。

　如果最簡單的公平性都做不到，更遑論尊重抽象的獨立機關，這十年來好不容易建立起來的獨立機關，卻開始邁向黨派化，總統可以無視中選會必須超然中立的立場，竟然公開宣布，各項公投與選舉搭配的時間。

　政治機關間的制衡，是現代民主運作的核心，但是，我們的執政黨只知對抗，不論「正名」還是「入聯」，都刻意忽視國會多數的意見；而掌握國會多數的在野黨，六年來拿不出一套改革貪腐政治的法制。面對這樣的政治環境，人民的失落感正是來自於無從選擇，也找不到出路。

　當然，並不是每一項指標，台灣都是退步的，但在進步中，卻出現了反挫的力量，這一年來，司法體系逐漸建立獨立性，第一夫人及副總統被起訴，在台灣都是史無前例的，但是政治力道的反撲也是空前絕後，為了阻卻司法，綠營抹紅檢察官、總統打憲法官司、祭出國家機密特權；新生的司法力量，面對的是撲天蓋地的政治壓力。

　即使有這麼多挫折、失望，我們必須承認，台灣的民主得來不易，有名的民主理論大師羅伯特．道爾（Robert A.Dahl）列出有利民主的條件中，最關鍵的就是「不存在強大的敵視民主的外部勢力」，對很多新舊民主國家而言，這種「敵視」通常不存在論，但台灣卻一直是在大陸的軍事威脅下實踐民主，過去這十幾年一路走來，確實是相當不容易。畢竟對岸之所以成為台灣民主發展的大敵，除了它從不放棄武力威脅外，更重要的是，龐大的中國在台灣內部造成某種「恐懼感」。

　就像通俗史學家房龍所說，「恐懼讓人們不寬容」，在一個對立的環境中，要建立普及的民主文化已是事倍功半，更令人驚心的是，若當權者利用人們的恐懼，在國家內部區分同志與敵人，任何民主的監督勢力將屈服於民粹的暴力。

　國家存在的目的究竟為何？相當吊詭的是，台灣要成為一個所謂的「正常國家」，其實並不在它的名稱，而在它的實質，當大多數的台灣人，肯定我們的民主體制，相信政治人物是清廉、天下為公的，台灣就會是一個正常的國家。年輕的民主台灣，真的還需要再加油！