The Democratic Progressive Party's Last Chance to Break with Chen Shui-bian

The Democratic Progressive Party's Last  Chance to Break with Chen Shui-bian
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 1, 2008

The Democratic Progressive Party's Committee for Clean Government will decide how to deal with Chen Shui-bian this week. This is the Democratic Progressive Party's last chance to make a clean break with Chen Shui-bian.

Chen Shui-bian and the DPP are not on an equal footing. One. They are not on an equal footing in terms of maneuveuring room. Chen Shui-bian only needs to control a small number of Green Camp supporters to make big trouble for the DPP. The Democratic Progressive Party, on the other hand, must remain accountable to the community as a whole. Two. They are not on an equal footing in terms of time. Time is on Chen's side. The longer the situation remains unclear, the better for Chen Shui-bian, and the worse for the Democratic Progressive Party.

The Democratic Progressive Party has been slow to deal with Chen Shui-bian. It lost the opportunity to take matters into its hands, within both the party and the larger community. Take party members for example. One. Should the Democratic Progressive Party condemn Chen Shui-bian's corruption, or sympathize with him? Two. Does the Democratic Progressive Party consider Chen Shui-bian's brand of Taiwan independence Orthodox Taiwan independence? Or should the DPP condemn Chen Shui-bian's brand of Taiwan independence? Should it denounce it as false? As heresy?

The Democratic Progressive Party must adopt a clear and unequivocal position regarding Chen Shui-bian. If it fails to do so, Green Camp followers will perceive Chen Shui-bian as the standard-bearer for Taiwan independence. They may even conclude that Chen Shui-bian engaged in corruption only for the sake of the DPP, to fund the DPP's election campaigns and political protests. How then will the DPP be able to help Green Camp followers discern right from wrong? How then will the DPP be able to prevent Green Camp followers from sympathizing with Chen Shui-bian and feeling solidarity with him? The DPP Central Standing Committee has failed to establish a clear set of standards of right and wrong regarding Chen Shui-bian. By failing to do so, it has left Chen Shui-bian room to wriggle.

The public is waiting for the Democratic Progressive Party to take a stand on Chen Shui-bian's brand of Taiwan independence and corruption. If the Democratic Progressive Party cannot solve the Chen Shui-bian problem, how can it solve the problem of Taiwan's future? If the Democratic Progressive Party fails to engage in serious soul-searching on Chen Shui-bian's brand of Taiwan independence, what will the public think of the DPP? If the Democratic Progressive Party shies away from criticizing Chen Shui-bian's flagrant corruption, how can the public trust the DPP?

Chen Shui-bian is seeking warmth from diehard supporters. He is working his way from south to north. The arguments he has rallied in his own defense are beginning to take shape. The impact of his arguments on society are becoming apparent. Chen Shui-bian has made two major revisions to his defense strategy since stepping down. One. While in office, his main defense was to use the Executive Privilege of secrecy to shield other defendants. After stepping down, his main defense has been to pass the buck for any crimes he cannot weasel out of onto Wu Shu-chen. Two. While in office, his main defense was that the funds were for secret diplomacy. After stepping down, his main defense has been that the funds financed Democratic Progressive Party election campaigns and political protests. He offered two major defense arguments. One. Chen Shui-bian is also a victim. He is a victim of Wu Shu-cheng, aka "Lady MacBeth." Two. Even though the accounts remain unclear, most of the funds were nevertheless to be used on behalf of the Democratic Progressive Party and the Green Camp. Chen Shui-bian clearly hopes to turn these two themes into Green Camp articles of faith. One. I did not embezzle money. What Wu Shu-chen did had nothing to do with me. Two. The books may contain irregularities, but the funds were to be used for the Democratic Progressive Party and the Green Camp. This defense strategy may not be of much use in the courtroom, but they may have an impact in the Green Camp. They may provide Chen Shui-bian with sufficient leverage to hijack the Democratic Progressive Party.

Therefore the longer the Democratic Progressive Party waits before dealing with Chen Shui-bian, the denser the smokescreen Chen will be able to lay down. The Democratic Progressive will lose the opportunity to influence party members and the general public. It will lose the initiative. Chen Shui-bian's arguments may not change the big picture, but they may allow him to become the moral arbiter for hardline Green Camp supporters. They may give the public the impression the Democratic Progressive Party is indifferent to right and wrong. Chen Shui-bian is fighting like a caged animal. The Democratic Progressive Party may be dragged down with him.

Based on Chen Shui-bian's ability to manipulate the facts, he may be able to create an image of himself as someone who did not engage in corruption, but instead selflessly channeled wealth into the party's coffers. If so, he will be able to consolidate his status as the standard bearer for the Taiwan independence movement. Even if he is tried and found guilty, he needs only a pardon. Even though he has been stripped of political authority, Chen Shui-bian can still become the leader of the Democratic Progressive Party. This is a long term concern for the Democratic Progressive Party's reformist faction. Chen Shui-bian must not be regarded as merely a temporary inconvenience. For the DPP to distance itself from Chen Shui-bian, does not mean merely ridding itself of Chen Shui-bian. It means establishing a new set of standards for right and wrong within the Green Camp.

To sum up, the DPP must repudiate Chen Shui-bian. It must compete with Chen Shui-bian for the right to define the party's values. It must compete with Chen Shui-bian for the right to define Taiwan independence, to define democracy, to define the rule of law, to define ethics, to define integrity, to define honor, to define justice, and finally, to define the nature and image of the Democratic Progressive Party. When the viper bites the hero's hand, the hero cuts the hand off. This is the DPP's last chance to make a clean break with Chen Shui-bian.

民進黨與陳水扁切割的最後時機
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.10.01

民進黨廉政委員會本周將對陳水扁作出處置，這應當是民進黨與陳水扁切割的最後時機。

民進黨與陳水扁處於不對等的地位。一、空間上的不對等：陳水扁只須掌握綠營少數支持者，即可興風作浪；但民進黨必須向整個社會交代。二、時間上的不對等：曖昧不明的情勢拖延下去，對陳水扁有利，對民進黨不利。

民進黨遲未對陳水扁作出處置，在黨內群眾及黨外社會皆失去操作的準據。對黨內群眾言：一、民進黨對陳水扁的貪腐應當同情或譴責？二、民進黨是否認為「扁式台獨」即是台獨的經典？反過來說，民進黨應否對「扁式台獨」有所批評，甚至指明他是假台獨？

民進黨若不對陳水扁作出明確處置，亦即是不對上述這兩大問題表達立場；綠營的群眾自然仍視陳水扁為台獨旗手，甚至認為陳水扁是為了民進黨而貪汙（用於選舉、遊行），則如何導正綠營群眾的是非，又如何阻止綠營群眾對陳水扁的同情與聲援？黨中央未能在綠營內部建立一個「如何認定陳水扁」的是非標準，陳水扁就有了操作的空間。

同理，社會大眾亦在等待民進黨對陳水扁的「台獨」與「貪腐」表達立場。倘若民進黨連陳水扁這個題目都沒有能力解決，民進黨豈有能力解決整個台灣的問題？倘若民進黨對「扁式台獨」亦不知檢討，則社會大眾將如何看待民進黨？倘若民進黨對陳水扁的奇貪惡腐亦不敢批評，社會大眾又如何重新信任民進黨？

陳水扁的「取暖之旅」，由南部漸漸北上，其自我辯護的論述亦已漸現輪廓，在社會影響上也可能漸成氣候。陳水扁的辯護主軸，從在職時至卸任後，有二大變化：一、在任時，辯護主軸是用總統機密特權來護衛其他被告；卸任後，則是將一切無法抵賴的罪行皆推給吳淑珍。二、在任時，辯護主軸是款項皆用於機密外交；卸任後，辯護主軸則又稱錢是用於資助民進黨選舉或遊行等途。這兩大主軸，一是家有惡妻，陳水扁也是「受害人」；二是帳目雖然不清，卻是用在民進黨及綠營。陳水扁顯然欲藉這兩大主軸漸漸形成一種綠營內部的輿情：一、我沒貪汙（吳淑珍不干我事）；二、我即使帳目不清，但大量用於民進黨及綠營。這樣的辯護主軸，在法庭攻防上未必有效，但極可能在綠營內部發酵，使陳水扁能夠掌握足以挾持民進黨的支持力量。

因此，民進黨愈遲未對陳水扁作出處置，陳水扁所製造的似是而非的氛圍勢必愈加瀰漫；如此一來，如前所述，民進黨對黨內群眾及社會大眾，亦將愈加失去操作的準據。陳水扁的論述雖不可能改變全局，卻對內佔據了在綠營基層的詮釋權，並對外決定了社會大眾認定民進黨不問是非的形象；陳水扁固可藉此困獸猶鬥，民進黨卻恐將被陳水扁拖到血盡氣絕。

以陳水扁的操作能力，他極可能在綠營基層塑造其「我未貪汙／錢皆餵黨」的新形象；如此，他即可鞏固其台獨旗手的地位。即使一旦審判有罪，只須獲得特赦，縱然被褫奪公權，陳水扁亦不無「再回來領導民進黨」的可能。民進黨今日之改革派，必須有此種「遠慮」，而不能將陳水扁僅僅視為一時之「近憂」；與陳水扁切割，不只是要甩掉陳水扁這個人，而是要全力開闢出一個重建綠營大是大非標準的政治情境。

綜上所論，民進黨必須與陳水扁作出切割，主要原因在於必須與陳水扁爭奪詮釋權；爭奪對台獨的詮釋權，對民主的詮釋權，對法治的詮釋權，對政治道德的詮釋權，對政治操守的詮釋權，對廉恥的詮釋權，對正義的詮釋權，更是爭奪對民進黨之本質與形象的詮釋權。蝮蛇螫手，壯士斷腕。現在，已到了民進黨必須與陳水扁切割的最後時機。