Democracy arrives in Waves

Democracy arrives in Waves
Chen Shui-bian rose to Power on the Second Wave and is falling from Grace on the Third Wave
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 2, 2008

The Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall has reopened. Its new decor can't even compare with the decor of a night market souvenir shop. Nothing suggests the solemn dignity of a memorial to democracy. Nothing suggests a memorial to a great nation's artistic and cultural achievements. The hall is a chaotic mess, and reflects nothing but the obsessions of a barbaric political regime filled with hatred and consumed by a desire for revenge.

The instigators of the changes originally wanted to demolish Chiang Kai-shek's bronze statue. Failing that they wanted to "imprison him in effigy" by installing iron bars around his statue, but the DPP was afraid to alienate moderate voters. They wanted to exploit the victims of the 228 Incident by surrounding Chiang's statue with their photographs. But family members publicly opposed this political gesture. They wanted to exploit the victims of the White Terror by surrounding Chiang's statue with their photographs. But they were reluctant to inadvertently elevate real, live Communist agents into "martyrs of democracy." This is how they wound up the current result, which resembles nothing so much as a five and ten cent store or a magazine stand. The result is a disorderly hodge-podge utterly incapable of evoking the solemn mood of a hall "commemorating democracy." All it can do is reveal the ruling regime's barbarism and superficiality. All it can do is make the ruling regime appear ridiculous. The physical chaos reflects the ruling regime's intellectual confusion as it attempts to apply its own spin control to the Republic of China's democracy.

Since the ruling regime wants to "commemorate Taiwan's democracy," we may as well recapitulate the evolution of democracy on Taiwan over the past 60 years. Due to space constraints, we can only examine the broad outlines and cannot go into detail.

If we review the progress of the democratic opposition movement over the past 60 years, the process can be divided into three waves. In chronological order, they are: The First Wave. No denial of Chinese identity. The Second Wave. The rise of "Taiwanese nativism." The Third Wave. Opposition to Chen Shui-bian/DPP kleptocracy.

The first wave of the democratic tide protested the KMT's authoritarianism and martial law. It did not involve the denial of one's Chinese identity. Between the 228 Incident in 1947 and the ROC's expulsion from the UN in the 70s, except for a handful of exiles, society had almost no "Taiwanese consciousness." The Chinese Civil War was raging at the time. Some people on Taiwan endorsed law and order and harsh punishments against agents provocateurs and supported the KMT government. Other people, such as Hsieh Hsueh-kung, hoped that the Chinese Communists would win the civil war and govern Taiwan. In short, people were either Nationalist or Communist. All were Chinese. Almost no one advocated "Taiwan independence." In 1949, after the central government relocated to Taiwan, the political opposition movement split in two. One branch, including Lei Chen and Yin Hai-kuang, perceived the struggle over democracy as an "internal conflict." Another branch perceived the struggle between the CCP and the KMT as an "us vs. them struggle," and saw Communist agents everywhere. These two opposition movements had two things in common. One. Both advocated or at least did not deny that they were Chinese. It was rare to encounter anyone who advocated "Taiwan independence." Two. Participants were mainly mainlanders. The so-called "White Terror" was a wave of repression against these advocates of democracy. Many of these "Communist agents" were of course "pro-unification." Others, such as Lei Chen, who argued 50 years ago that "reclaiming the mainland was hopeless," weren't necessarily "pro-unification." Of course some were victims of injustice. During the late 60s people returned from overseas and began to identify with the island. The Defend Diaoyutai Movement, the revival of liberalism in the late 70s, and the "China Tide" movement remained within the framework of a Chinese identity. Although "Taiwan independence" was beginning to develop both overseas and on the island, it remained a non-mainstream movement. Today a "Chinese identity" and "Taiwan's democracy movement" are presumed to be in opposition. So-called "mainlanders" are vilified as "anti-democratic," in a ludicrous manner totally at odds with the facts. In fact, Taiwan underwent a long period during which the "democracy movement" could not be equated with either denial of one's Chinese identity or with being "pro-unification." This was the situation during the "White Terror" and prior to the lifting of martial law.

The second wave of democratic opposition was "Nativist" oriented. It began in the 70s as part of a domino effect resulting from the ROC's expulsion from the UN in 1971, and a "broken window effect" resulting from the Chungli Incident in 1977. Long-suppressed "Nativism" and "Taiwan independence" soon become the dominant force within the political opposition. Actually, under martial law in the 70s, "Nativist" opposition took the form of demands to "Return to the Constitution" and to lift martial law. Only after the DPP promulgated its "Taiwan Independence Party Constitution" did the opposition democratic movement demand "Taiwan independence" and "Nativism." Even then, "Nativism" and "Taiwan independence" did not call for enmity between Taiwan and mainland China, but suggested that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait could become "fraternal nations." Nor did it vilify "mainlanders." It defined them as "residents of Taiwan." In 2000, Lee Teng-hui lost power as a result of his "black gold" politics and repeated attempts to subvert the constitution. The "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" moderated the DPP's demands from "Taiwan independence," to "an independent Taiwan," and from a "Nativist path" to "clean government" and a "New Centrist Path." The DPP's lip service to moderation, combined with a political schism within the KMT, enabled the DPP to seize power. This amounted to a major victory for "Nativist" oriented elements within the democratic opposition movement.

The Third Wave of the democratic tide began with Chen Shui-bian's "Two Bullets" political dirty tricks, which enabled him to refuse to vacate the Presidential Palace. It reached its climax when the million strong Red Shirt Army filled the city streets like a lava flow, protesting rampant "Green Government" corruption. A vote of non-confidence in Chen Shui-bian and the DPP has become the theme of this year's legislative and presidential elections. In other words, the theme of the third wave of the democratic tide is "anti-corruption," "anti-Chen Shui-bian," and "anti-DPP." The Republic of China's democracy movement has arrived in waves. The Wild Lily student protests against KMT authoritarianism were a democratic opposition movement. The Red Shirt Army protests against DPP kleptocracy were a democratic opposition movement. Chen Shui-bian and the DPP have reneged on their promise to establish "fraternal relations" with mainland China. They have gone back to referring to "mainlanders" as "Chinese pigs." They are referring to democratic dissidents such as Shih Ming-teh and Tsao Hsing-chen as "Chi-Com fellow travelers." They know their demands for the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" are cynical "self-deception." Yet they persist in promulgating their "Resolution for a Normal Nation," obstinate to the bitter end. The foul stench of corruption permeates the air, facilitating violations of the constitution and the law. The DPP and Chen Shui-bian rode to power on the crest of a wave of "Taiwanese values." Now it is being questioned for trampling over those same values. The theme of the third wave of Taiwan's opposition movement is the rebuilding of those "Taiwanese values." Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party have lost the respect and trust of the community, and now face severe challenges.

Three waves of democracy. Each wave had its own theme. Each wave addressed issues raised by the previous wave. Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party continue to gnaw on the corpses washed ashore by the first wave on February 28, 1947, and the second wave of "Taiwanese nativism." They ignore the massive surge of the third wave that is protesting Chen Shui-bian and the DPP's moral bankruptcy and is demanding the restoration of moral values Chen Shui-bian and the DPP have forsaken. The "Memorial" mentions only the 228 Incident. It makes no mention of "Charlie" and "Pearl," who dared to speak truth to power. The "Memorial" mentions only the Wild Lily student protests against the KMT. It ignores the one million strong Red Shirt Army protests against Chen Shui-bian's brazen corruption. If the "Memorial" ignores this third wave, how can we talk about "Taiwan's democracy?" If the memorial refuses to display the awe-inspiring spectacle of the hundreds of thousands of "A-bian step down!" banners held high by one million Red Shirt Army protestors, how can we talk about "Taiwan's democracy?"

Three waves of democracy, one after another. As Chen Shui-bian gnaws on the corpses washed up by the first wave, while riding the crest of the second wave, he may well find himself inundated by the third wave. When posterity "commemorates Taiwan's democracy," no one will be left untouched by the surging waters of the third wave.

民主大潮‧生生不息：陳水扁在第二波興起第三波倒下
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.01.02 02:55 am

中正紀念堂大廳重新開放，裝置得不如夜市的民俗禮品雜貨店；這裡看不出任何「紀念民主」的莊嚴意味，更看不到一個「國家級」的「紀念館」應具的藝術及人文的表述水準；滿室的亂七八糟，雞零狗碎，只是反映了當權者一肚子的政治垃圾，及難登大雅的野蠻與淺薄。

主事者原想拆去蔣介石的銅像，或將之「禁錮」，但怕民進黨失去「中間選民」的選票；又想用二二八死難者圍住銅像，但家屬公開表示反對這種政治操作；再想改用「白色恐怖」死難者圍住銅像，但又不宜公然將其中真正的「匪諜」奉為「民主烈士」……。於是就布置成現在這副雜貨店、海報攤的怪樣；不能激發觀眾「紀念民主」的莊嚴心緒，只是令人看穿了操作者的野蠻與淺薄而啼笑皆非。現場布置的錯亂，反映了當權者對「台灣民主」認知與操弄的錯亂。

不過，既然要「紀念」台灣的「民主」，亦不妨在此對六十年來台灣民主運動的進程作一回顧。惟因篇幅所限，只能述其梗概，難求周備。

回顧台灣過去六十年的民主反對運動進程，可以大略分成三波大潮。依時序先後：第一波，未否定中國關聯；第二波，本土取向興起；第三波，以反貪倒扁為主軸。

第一波的民主大潮，以對抗國民黨政權的戒嚴威權體制為主題，未否定中國關聯；自二二八起，約迄至七○年代退出聯合國止。二二八事件中，除少數流亡人士倡議「託管」，民間幾無「台獨意識」；當時國共內戰正熾，台灣民意一支主張嚴懲禍首、澄清吏治，但仍支持國民黨政府統治；另一支則希望中共在內戰獲勝，來主持台灣局面，謝雪紅等即是。換句話說，當時的民意非「國」即「共」，皆為「中國取向」，幾乎未涉「台獨」。一九四九年中央政府來台後，反對運動亦分兩支，一支將民主視為「內部矛盾」，如雷震、殷海光等；另一支則視「國共鬥爭」為「敵我矛盾」，數以萬計的「匪諜案」皆是。這兩支政治反對運動的共同特質是：一、主張或未否定「中國關聯」，亦即極少主張「台獨」；二、重要參與者以外省人為主力。所謂「白色恐怖」，即是對這一波民主大潮的鎮壓。這些人中，不少的「匪諜」固然是「統派」；但也有許多未必是「統派」，如雷震在五十年前即主張「反攻無望論」；當然，其中更有冤錯假案。後來，至六○年代末期的回歸認同、保衛釣魚台運動與自由主義回潮，及七○年代末期的《夏潮》，亦皆仍在「未否定中國關聯」的範疇之中；當時，「台獨」在海外及島內雖皆已有發展，但在島內反對運動的比例上尚非主流。也就是說，今日常以「中國關聯」與「台灣民主反對運動」為敵對的概念，或將「外省人」視為「反民主」，極其謬誤，完全不符史實；其實，台灣曾在很長的一段歲月中，「民主運動」的主力並未否定「中國關聯」，但亦不能將之與「統派」劃上等號。解嚴前所謂的「白色恐怖時代」，大抵是如此光景。

第二波民主反對運動的大潮則是「本土取向」，大略始自一九七一年「退出聯合國」的「骨牌效應」，及一九七七年「中壢事件」的「破窗效應」；壓抑已久的「本土」及「台獨」迅速成為反對運動的主流。其實，七○年代中期「本土取向」的反對運動興起時，在戒嚴氛圍中，仍以「回歸憲政」為訴求；直至解嚴後民進黨頒布《台獨黨綱》，始公開以「台獨」、「本土」為訴求。但即使當時主張「本土」及「台獨」，並未主張與中國反目，而是希望兩岸成為「兄弟之邦」；亦未完全否定「外省人」，而視其為「台灣全體『住民』」的一支。至二○○○年，李登輝因「黑金毀憲」的「本土路線」而喪失政權，陳水扁則因《台灣前途決議文》（由「台獨」變成「獨台」）、「清流共治」及「新中間路線」的「本土路線」，而在國民黨的分裂中，實現了政黨輪替，贏得了政權，這是「本土取向」反對運動的大勝利。

第三波的民主大潮，則自陳水扁以「兩顆子彈」當選連任即告爆發，至綠朝貪腐引發的百萬紅衫軍「岩漿」穿街過市、蔚為高潮，迄今則「對陳水扁投下不信任票」已然成為明年兩大選舉的主題；也就是說，這第三波民主大潮是以「反貪倒扁」為主軸。若從台灣民主運動生生不息的角度來看，野百合是對抗國民黨威權統治的民主反對運動，紅衫軍則是對抗民進黨貪腐失政的民主反對運動。民進黨及陳水扁如今未能實現與中國成為「兄弟之邦」的許諾，又將「外省人」指為「中國豬」，且將所有民主異議者如施明德及曹興誠指為「中共同路人」；更明知「正名制憲」是「自欺欺人」，卻仍頒布《正常國家決議文》，蠻幹到底；又非但貪腐已至臭不可聞，益且違憲亂法，傷天害理。因而，民進黨及陳水扁固然藉「台灣價值」而興起，如今卻因違背並踐踏「台灣價值」而受質疑；於是，台灣的政治反對運動如今興起了第三波的大潮，以重建「台灣價值」，拯救「台灣價值」為主題；陳水扁及民進黨失去了社會的尊敬與信任，面臨極為嚴峻的挑戰。

三波民主大潮，每一波有每一波的主題，每一波有每一波的任務。但是，陳水扁及民進黨，至今仍然沉湎於啃食第一波的二二八屍骨，及誇示第二波的本土啟蒙；竟完全無視於民主大潮已然進入洶湧澎湃的第三波，是以抗議陳水扁及民進黨的失政敗德為主題，是以重建被陳水扁及民進黨所摧殘的「台灣價值」為任務。因此，「紀念館」裡只有二二八，卻無「查理與阿珠」；只「紀念」抗議國民黨政權的野百合，卻未「紀念」山洪爆發一般反貪倒扁的紅衫軍。然而，若不「紀念」這第三波的民主大潮，豈能說是「台灣民主」的真版本？若不展示高舉「阿扁下台」標語的百萬紅衫軍之轟動場景，豈能說是「台灣民主」的全版本？

三波民主大潮，後浪推前浪。陳水扁因啃食第一波的屍骨，及駕御第二波的憧憬而興起，如今卻可能在這第三波反貪倒扁的民主大潮中滅頂。後人「紀念」台灣的「民主」，沒有人會遺漏這洶湧澎湃的第三波大潮。