Defects in the Republic of China's Primary System

Defects in the Republic of China's Primary System
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 13, 2008

During the Spring Festival, Blue and Green camp presidential candidates competed with each other making courtesy calls on religious figures. This inadvertently provoked talk of "internal conflict" within the DPP. The hard-won appareance of internal harmony within the Hsieh/Su ticket came into question. During the primaries Su Tseng-chang and Frank Hsieh pummeled each other. Circumstances eventually forced them to become partners, but they still hold grudges. Voters remain concerned whether Hsieh and Su are truly united and able to govern.

When Hsieh and Su attacked each other, four candidates were in competition. These four candidates enjoyed grossly unequal access to resources. One of the main reasons is that the DPP lacks a fair and objective primary process. As a result, Lu, Yu, Su, and Hsieh each reverted to their basest instincts. Add to this Chen Shui-bian's capricious behavior, Yu Shyi-kun's manipulation of the electoral system, pro-Green media clamor, and the result was a primary in which every candidate went straight for the jugular. Not only was no quarter given to comrades, the party was ripped apart. Internal conflict of this kind is no accident, nor is it confined to Hsieh and Su.

Contrast this with the party primaries being held in the United States. Not only is the timeframe longer, the mobilization is more massive. But because the two parties have an unwritten code of conduct, their party primaries do not degenerate into bloody hand-to-hand combat destructive of the party and the nation. Their sitting president is not permitted to interfere in the primaries or hand-pick his successor. Party officials keep their distance from their own candidate. These ought to be the minimum standards for political party conduct. Yet on Taiwan they are constantly trampled into the dust.

Outside observers uniformly favor the Democratic Party in the upcoming election. They have high hopes for either Clinton, an icon of feminism, or Obama, an icon of ethnic progress. The Republican Party uses a winner-take-all delegate awards system. Therefore it is able to choose a candidate earlier on. The Democratic Party on the other hand, uses a proportional representation system. This has led to an ongoing see-saw struggle between Clinton and Obama. To avoid detriment to the larger scenario, to avoid splitting the Democratic Party and to defend against a unified Republican Party, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has asked the two camps to arrive at a decision soon. Only then can the Democratic Party adopt a unified stand against the GOP.

It is worth noting that despite such a hard-fought election, both the Clinton and Obama camps have maintained the necessary decorum. They have rejected mud-slinging and unnecessary personal attacks. When former president Bill Clinton stumped for his wife, he made reference to African American minister Jesse Jackson's primary victories in South Carolina. He said such victories didn't mean Obama was any closer to the presidency. This was seen as a serious slip of the tongue and cost Hillary points. Clearly voters expect far more from them than politicians imagine.

The restraint shown by the Clinton and Obama camps is the result of their concern for the good opinion of Democratic Party voters. Clinton and Obama each have their own strengths. Each has the support of different ethnic groups. Together they are indestructible. Separately they each have their own merits. But if the two attack each other during the primaries, engaging in mutual vilification, both will be harmed. The result will be harm to the interests of the Democratic Party and the American values their supporters hold dear. That is a risk neither party can afford to take, and that is why no one dares to take such a risk.

During last year's DPP primaries Su Tseng-chang accused Hsieh of accepting illegal political donations. He blasted Hsieh's "One China Constitution" thesis. He even called Hsieh "devious," a characterization that has stuck. Frank Hsieh compared Su's ambition to that of Wang Mang. He characterized Su and the New Tide Faction as evil incarnate. The two sides may not have lost, but they were both harmed, because they stooped to character assassination too vicious to smooth over. How can anyone believe the two could ever truly cooperate after that?

Nor was the Green Camp alone. The Blue Camp lost the presidency in 2000 because a struggle between Lien and Soong split the KMT. Even today, the grudge between Wang Jying-ping and Ma Ying-jeou has not been resolved. This is because the two parties lack an effective and convincing primary process. Because the two parties leave no quarter during the primaries, by the time the election rolls around, they have even fewer scruples about their methods. They will play the "You don't love Taiwan" card, or even accuse their opponents of "treason to Taiwan" as a matter of reflex. For the sake of selfish political advantage, they have debased the election process. Whither democracy?

When we compare the ROC presidential election to America's presidential election, all we can feel is disappointment and embarrassment. The Republic of China is about to celebrate its centennial. Eight years after regime change, the two largest parties still lack a presentable primary process. What right do they have to talk about progress? Politics is not a game for political elites. If they cannot learn self-restraint, they should at least acknowledge the electorate's capacity to distinguish right from wrong.

從美國大選看台灣初選的裂痕
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.02.13

春節期間，藍綠候選人競相拜會宗教界人士，意外點燃民進黨的「內爭」說，「長昌配」勉力維持的表面合作再度引起討論。謝長廷和蘇貞昌在初選中曾互出重手，兩人後雖迫於形勢不得不攜手搭檔，但雙方心結並未解開；謝蘇若勝選能否齊心治國，自是選民關注的問題。

當初謝蘇之所以慘烈廝殺，除了四強相爭、資源卻極不對等外，民進黨內缺乏一套客觀平準的初選制度，是主要因素。也因此，呂游蘇謝各憑山野起家的本能搏鬥，加上陳水扁的忽偏忽倚、游錫?對選制的操控，乃至親綠媒體的鼓譟，使初選打到刀刀見骨，不僅全然不留同志情分，也把一個政黨打到四分五裂。所謂「內爭」，自非無的放矢，也不僅止於長昌間的瑜亮情結。

對照美國正在進行的兩黨初選，不僅角逐時間更長，動員幅度也更廣、更強；但因兩黨各有一套既成規範，初選不致演成對黨或國家具破壞力的格鬥。包括現任總統不可能染指欽點接班人選，包括兩黨總部對黨內候選人維持等距的態度，都是政黨政治的基本倫理；在台灣，這些界線卻一再被踐踏，某些越界行為甚至被畸形地誇耀。

這次美國大選，外界一致看好民主黨選情，不論是希拉蕊的女性身分，或是歐巴馬的種族象徵，都讓人充滿期待。然而，共和黨因採取「贏者全拿」的代表票制，因而能在初選中更早產生候選人；相對的，民主黨則因採取「比例代表制」，使得希拉蕊和歐巴馬相爭的態勢一直呈現拉鋸，糾纏不下。為避免「分裂的民主黨」對抗「統一的共和黨」的態勢持續，而影響最後的大局，民主黨主席迪恩已要求雙方陣營加速分出高下，以便一致對外。

值得注意的是，即在如此緊繃的選戰中，希拉蕊和歐巴馬雙方陣營都仍維持一定的君子風度，未發動抹黑、扒糞戰略，或作不必要的人身攻擊。前總統柯林頓在為妻子站台時，僅引黑人牧師賈克遜之前例指在南卡初選獲勝並不意味更接近總統之路，都被視為嚴重的「失言」與「失分」；可見，選民對政治期待值，已遠超過政治人物的想像。

的確，能讓希拉蕊和歐巴馬陣營保持戒慎與克制的，即是他們對於民主黨員的敬畏或顧忌。希拉蕊和歐巴馬各有所長，也各自擁有不同族群選民的支持，兩人相加則所向無敵，分開單打獨鬥則各有千秋。但若兩人在初選中互相攻伐、彼此中傷，最後在大選戰線受創的，卻將是整個民主黨的利益，及其支持者所渴望的美國價值；那是任何一方都無法承擔的風險，因此誰也不敢輕率犯界。

反觀去年民進黨初選，蘇貞昌不僅指謝收受政治獻金、批其「憲法一中」主張之可慮，更留下「奸巧」的金句，至今仍如影隨形。而謝長廷則以「王莽」暗喻蘇的野心，更藉由媒體將蘇與新系的合流打成十惡不赦。最後，雙方雖非「兩敗」，實質卻已「俱傷」；因為彼此所遂行的都是難以療癒的人格謀殺，誰能相信兩人轉身攜手即能再合作無間？

不僅綠營如此，藍營當年因連宋之爭造成黨的分裂，終致失去江山；以迄於今，王馬之間始終芥蒂猶存，亦皆因黨內缺乏一套有效又足以服眾的初選機制。正由於兩黨在內部初選階段即殺聲震天，及至正式選舉對陣，下手便更無所顧忌，將對手打為「不愛台」乃至「賣國」已成為家常便飯。為求一己之勝，將選舉踐踏至此，民主被置於何地？

從美國初選看台灣的大選，讓人失望，也讓人汗顏。民國馬上就到了一百年，台灣歷經政黨輪替也已八年，兩黨卻連一套像樣的初選制度都端不出來，還奢談什麼進步？政治不是少數人的遊戲，即使學不會自我節制，至少該對選民分辨是非的品味表示一點敬意吧！