The DPP's Dilemma: Whether to Return to the Centrist Path?

The DPP's Dilemma: Whether to Return to the Centrist Path?
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, China)
A Translation
April 28, 2008

Chen Shih-meng openly declared his support for Koo Kuan-min as DPP Chairman. This finally generated a few sparks in a relentlessly dull DPP Party Chairman Election. Chen Shih-meng openly challenged elements within the DPP who advocated the adoption of a more centrist path. Chen maintained that this would never redeem the DPP, and might even lead to everyone abandoning the DPP. Suddenly the struggle over the chairmanship of the DPP, had become a struggle between a "new centrist path" and opposition to a new centrist path. Leave aside for the moment whether this was actually the case. At least the DPP's options were finally on the table.

The current Party Chairman Election is atypical for the DPP. It is the first Party Chairman Election after the DPP's three major electoral defeats. It is one in which the Four Princes of the DPP are conspicuous by their absence. Factional rivalry is also at an all-time low. Not one of the candidates for chairman -- Koo and the two Tsais, belongs to the party's central power structure. Perhaps this is why the confrontation between the three, and the process by which the victor will emerge, are assuming forms unprecedented for the DPP.

The media has been comparing Koo and the two Tsais. Trong Tsai is viewed as a machine politician who depends upon the top down mobilization of party members and manipulation of party factions. Koo Kuan-min is viewed as the voice of Deep Green fundamentalism. Tsai Ying-wen is viewed as a centrist reformer. Each of the candidates represents one aspect of what the DPP stands for. Machine voters and factional voters have long been a problem for DPP party members and grass roots supporters. The ideological differences between Deep Green and Pale Green factions have long been part of the DPP's ideological spectrum. The DPP's post election reform, just so happens to touch upon these differences. And by sheer coincidence, each faction just happens to have a spokesman.

As a party that has suffered repeated defeats, DPP leaders are wracked with anxiety. In this, they are no different from other defeated parties in democratic nations. The DPP's anxiety takes two forms. One ascribes the party's defeat to problems with the current path. It calls for thoroughgoing path change. The other is just the opposite. It claims the party has been losing elections because it failed to adhere to its current path, therefore must increase its commitment to its current path. Many advocates of reform within the Democratic Progressive Party will be pinning their hopes on Tsai Ing-wen. They represent the first group. Chen Shih-meng has nominated Koo Kuan-min, and is openly blasting the "centrist path." They represent the second group. The different forms their anxieties take reflect the differences in their political paths.

The DPP's current plight can, to some extent, be compared to the former plight of the British Labor Party. Under the impact of Conservative Party Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's "Thatcher Revolution," the Labor Party experienced repeated setbacks. It also underwent internal struggles over the party's political path. The Labor Party's nomination process at the time used a form of "intra-party democracy." This meant party hardliners who were adept at mobilization gained the upper hand, from beginning to end. But the candidates fielded by these Labour Party fundamentalists were consistently defeated in national elections by the Conservative Party. The result was a decade in the political wilderness. Only when Tony Blair adopted a "Third Way" did the Labour Party return to political office. The story of the British Labor Party provides an object lesson for the still wavering DPP.

Perhaps it was because the three candidates for party chairman just happened to represent different faces of the DPP. Therefore whoever prevails will reflect DPP members' expectations about what kind of political party they wish to become. Whether they wish to remain mired in the swamp of machine politics and party factions, unable to extricate themselves. Whether the DPP should become a Deep Green political party. Whether the DPP should proceed down a new, broader, "centrist path." Put simply, the results of the party chairman election will decide whether the DPP will be a party that represents only party members, or a party that represents all people on Taiwan.

Because of this, we are happy to see Chen Shih-meng put the Centrist Path controversy on the bargaining table. At least this will allow the DPP to focus on the reasons for its defeat. After all, to argue about the extent of Chen Shui-bian's responsibility is a waste of valuable time and energy. So is arguing about the merits of the Blues Excluded clause. Should the DPP change its current party platform? What course of action meets with the expectations of the 5 million voters who cast their ballots for Hsieh? Perhaps those are the most serious issues facing the DPP.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.04.28
民進黨的難題：要不要重回中間路線？
中時社論

　在陳師孟公開表態力挺辜寬敏之後，終於為一路沉悶的民進黨黨主席選舉，擦出了些許火花。陳師孟直接質疑民進黨內有關「朝中間路線調整」的論述，不僅認為如此將「找不回民進黨」，甚至會造成「大家要考慮放棄民進黨」！一時之間，民進黨黨主席之爭，彷彿變成「中間路線」與「反中間路線」在對決，實況是否如此暫且不論，至少這讓民進黨在怎麼決定它自己的未來上，有了更多想像空間。

　某種程度上說，這屆黨主席的選舉，在民進黨黨史上顯得非常另類。它是民進黨連輸三場重要大選後的一次改選，也是檯面上所有天王都缺席的一次改選，更是派系較勁最淡薄的一次改選。而角逐黨主席的兩蔡一辜，一直以來都不屬於黨的權力核心，或許就是因為這樣，他們三個人的對決乃至最後由誰出線，都可以顯見出民進黨未來將呈現怎樣的風貌。

　媒體在比較兩蔡一辜的條件時，習慣性會將蔡同榮歸類為依賴人頭黨員動員、操縱派系換票的政治人物，而辜寬敏則是反映深綠基本教義路線的代言人，至於蔡英文則代表著朝中間改革路線調整的代言人。耐人尋味的是，這三位候選人所象徵的，都算得上是民進黨面貌的一部分。民進黨現有的底層黨員結構，人頭黨員與山頭派系本來就是割捨不掉的一部分，而意識形態上深綠與淺綠的分殊，也一直都是民進黨理念光譜分布的現狀。大選過後民進黨的改革，也恰恰好都觸及了這幾個部分，只是沒有想到這麼湊巧，每一部分都剛巧有一個代言人出馬競選。

　做為一個連續挫敗的政黨，民進黨內部所反映的焦慮，與民主國家所有敗退政黨所反映的焦慮其實都是一樣的。而這種焦慮恰好反映在兩種心理上，一種心理是認為黨的敗選是出在「現行路線有問題」，所以主張應全面調整路線。另一種心理則恰恰好相反，認為黨的敗選正是因為「對現有路線的堅持不夠」，因而必須更強化對既有路線的信仰。民進黨內許多主張改革的精英會寄希望於蔡英文，反映著正是前一種焦慮，而陳師孟會站出來挺辜寬敏，並公開痛批中間路線，所反映的也正是後一種焦慮心理。而這種焦慮的分歧也一定會反映在政黨的路線鬥爭上。

　一九八 ○年代的英國工黨，部分程度上正可以拿來與民進黨目前的處境相對照。那時節在保守黨柴契爾首相旋風的衝擊下，工黨面臨連番的敗選，內部自然也出現了路線上的鬥爭。當時工黨的提名採取「黨內民主」的形式，這使得黨內動員性強的強硬派一路占上風，但這批代表工黨基本教義路線的候選人，在全國大選中卻被保守黨一路壓著打，結果硬是屈居十幾年的在野黨，直到布萊爾採取向中間調整的「第三條路」，才再度掌握執政權。英國工黨的故事，對目前還擺盪在要不要調整路線的民進黨，有沒有任何啟示呢？

　或許正是因為三位黨主席的候選人，都恰好代表了民進黨的部分面貌，因而最後會是由誰出線，其實也反應了民進黨員對他們這個黨的期待與想像，他們想要未來的民進黨變成什麼樣的政黨？他們要不要民進黨繼續陷在人頭黨員與派系換票操作中不能自拔？要不要民進黨更進一步向深綠路線靠攏？還是要讓民進黨朝更寬廣的中間路線調整？講得更簡單一點，黨主席的選舉結果，將決定民進黨未來要做一個只是代表黨員的黨，還是爭取代表全台灣人的黨。

　也因為這樣，我們倒是樂見陳師孟將「中間路線」議題搬到檯面上的做法，至少這可以讓民進黨針對敗選檢討的焦距更集中，畢竟都到了這個時候，再花一堆寶貴時間去爭辯陳水扁該負多少責任，根本是在浪費口水。同樣耗費一堆精神在爭論排藍民調究竟對不對的上面，也是在浪費智慧。而民進黨究竟該不該調整現有路線？該怎麼做才算是對五百多萬的選民有所交代？或許才真的是此刻的民進黨，最該嚴肅面對的課題。