Does the DPP have the Qualifications to Begin a Social Movement?

Does the DPP have the Qualifications to Begin a Social Movement?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 6, 2009

Summary: Tsai Ing-wen has decided that for the DPP, this year will be "The Year of the Social Movement." She announced that in March the DPP will launch a series of social movements. Perhaps Tsai Ing-wen and her comrades should first ask themselves two questions: One. Does the DPP know where it is going? Two. Does the DPP know where the public on Taiwan wants to go? As long as we are discussing social movements, let's ask the DPP to give society's values precedence. Merely taking to the streets and screaming one's head off will not transform the DPP into a social movement.

Full Text below:

Tsai Ing-wen has decided that for the DPP, this year will be "The Year of the Social Movement." She announced that in March the DPP will launch a series of social movements. Perhaps Tsai Ing-wen and her comrades should first ask themselves two questions: One. Does the DPP know where it is going? Two. Does the DPP know where the public on Taiwan wants to go?

If the DPP is confused about where it intends to go, yet persists in leading its diehard supporters onto the streets, it will have a hard time winning public support and public sympathy. Such a movement can only be termed political mobilization. It does not qualify as a social movement. Nor can it return the Democratic Progressive Party to power. Furthermore, If the DPP refuses to engage in serious soul-searching, if it refuses to ask where the people want to go, if it has no sense of the public mood, it will find it impossible to inspire the masses or play a leadership role. How can a political party that has lost its compass expect the masses to follow?

Tsai Ing-wen has yet to be baptised in the fires of a social movement. Yet her basic strategy is to ignite a social movement. She is probably thinking that, one the one hand, social movements will give the party a fresh start, and on the other hand, social movements worked for the Democratic Progressive Party years ago. Why not now? She's forgetting that people have memories. They can learn. Something Tsai Ing-wen considers fresh, most people consider stale and indigestable. Even more importantly, strategies that were effective in earlier times may have lost their luster after years of exploitation. They may even be badly tarnished. The Democratic Progressive Party must give itself a fresh infusion of progressive values. It must polish up its party logo. Ad hoc Green Camp street demonstrations, in conjunction with Chen Shui-bian's juvenile antics while in custody, will not fly. If the Democratic Progressive Party thinks such a strategy will put the party back on its feet, it is seriously deluded.

Let's not forget that during its reign, the Democratic Progressive Party lost its claim to be a defender of democratic values. During its eight years in office, it came close to strangling all social movements on the island. Many social movement leaders were coopted by the Chen Shui-bian regime. Seduced by power, they abandoned their professed ideals and became mere hacks. Others failed to fit in and looked for a way out. Their former positions were no longer secure. Others eagerly accepted patronage and financial support. They became Democratic Progressive Party flunkies and lost all sense of independence. DPP ideology trumped all. The rights and interests of mainland spouses were trampled underfoot. Cross-strait human rights issues were ignored or suppressed. Social movements on Taiwan have been badly hurt in recent years. Who was the main culprit, if not the Democratic Progressive Party?

The Democratic Progressive Party hopes to return to power on the backs of social movements. It has seriously miscalculated. It has falsely equated street movements with social movements. Society must be transformed through social action. But social action must be preceded by conceptual thought, not by turning the streets into battlefields. In recent years many social movements have demonstrated their compassion for foreign spouses or rural communities. They have made extraordinary contributions to society. They have never raised a hue and cry in the streets. They have merely given of themselves, day after day. Without heartfelt goodwill, without long-term effort, how can one possibly transform a society?

The DPP labors under the delusion that it holds a monopoly on the leadership of social movements. It boasts of regaining power on the streets, by piggybacking on social movements. Its tone may be confident, but in its heart it know it is all bluster. The Democratic Progressive Party has forgotten that today social movements lack legitimacy and cohesion. The DPP is in large part responsible for this. To make matters worse, the Democratic Progressive Party, which has been reduced to an opposition party after eight years in power, does not even compare to the Democratic Progressive Party in its infancy. Back then it rode the whirlwind into political prominence, bearing decades of public longing for democracy. Back then, the political opposition and social movements shared the same goal, the pursuit of social justice. Today the public looks at the DPP and sees only hypocrisy and decadence. The public may be frustrated with the KMT's ineptitude. But who on Taiwan believes the Democratic Progressive Party offers a better alternative?

Street movements have a special kind of magic. Unfurl a banner and the hopes of handful of people can be transformed into a mass movement. This is the main reason for the DPP's endless optimism. But if the DPP has no intention of abandoning electoral politics, it had better learn to distinguish between street sentiment and voter sentiment. It has better not wallow in self-deception. And to imagine that social movements can serve as political viagra, is the height of self-deception.

The same hold for social movements. After years of seeing democracy on Taiwan caught in one dilemma or another, they must rethink their values and goals. They must find a way to a genuine civil society. They must refuse to become political pawns or cannon fodder. Only then can social movements advance their own values, and not have their energy sucked into a political black hole.

As long as we are discussing social movements, let's ask the DPP to give society's values precedence. Merely taking to the streets and screaming one's head off will not transform the DPP into a social movement.

民進黨還有重回社運路線的資格嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.02.06 03:33 am


蔡英文把今年訂為民進黨的「社會運動年」，並宣布三月起將展開連串社會運動。對於此一戰略，蔡英文和她的同志們也許應先問自己兩個問題：一，民進黨知不知道自己要走到哪裡去？二，民進黨知不知道台灣社會想走到哪裡去？

如果民進黨不清楚自己要走到哪裡去，只是一再動員基層支持者上街，恐難引起廣大民眾的參與及共鳴。那樣的運動，只能名之為政治動員，不足以稱為社會運動，更不可能支撐民進黨重回執政。進一步說，如果民進黨不反省，也不想知道台灣社會希望走到哪裡去，摸不清社會的底蘊和心理，它也就不可能稱職扮演激勵群眾或引領風潮的角色。一個迷途的政黨，如何期待群眾追隨？

未曾經歷社運洗禮的蔡英文之所以選擇以社運為基本戰略，一則是認為這有另闢蹊徑的新鮮感，再則是民進黨早年運用這招很有效。但別忘了，人民不僅有記憶，社會也是懂得學習的；蔡英文以為新鮮的東西，多數民眾其實已經煩膩不已了。更重要的是，早年有效的策略，經過多年時光的淘洗，不僅光華褪盡，甚至已蒙上厚重的汙垢。民進黨若無法為自己灌注新的進步價值，重新擦亮政黨招牌，就憑著綠營在街頭即興操兵，再加上陳水扁在獄中耍寶耍賴呼應，民進黨要藉此重振雄風，簡直是緣木求魚。

且不說民進黨在執政期間失落了多少民主價值，在這八年，它也把台灣的社運帶進了一個近乎窒息的狀態。不少社運領袖進入扁政府任職，有人得了榮華忘了志業，淪為墮落官僚；有人因格格不入而狼狽求去，連原有的隊伍都不保；有人則接受招安及金錢資助，成為民進黨附庸，失去了獨立性格。何況，由於民進黨的意識形態作祟，不僅大陸配偶的權益問題變成禁忌，許多兩岸人權議題都遭刻意忽略或打壓。如此看來，台灣社運近年元氣大傷，民進黨不正是摧殘元凶？

民進黨把重返執政的希望寄託在社運上，還存在一個更大的謬誤，是錯把「街頭」和「社運」畫上等號。社會的改造需要透過運動來推展，但亦必須借重思考來啟發行動，而不是把街頭當成戰場。這幾年，有不少獨立社運團體默默關懷外籍配偶或村鎮文化生態等議題，都做出不凡的成績，他們從不曾大張旗鼓在街頭狂飆吶喊，實踐的只是日復一日的關懷及付出。若沒有潛心的思索，沒有長期的耕耘，如何能產生夠深度的社會改造？

可惜，民進黨仍誤以為自己擁有領導社運的壟斷權，大言不慚地揚言要藉他們的力量，幫自己從街頭奪回政權。口氣很大，內心卻恐是相當虛弱；民進黨甚至忘了，今日社運界正當性和凝聚力的消散，民進黨正要負很大的責任。更糟的是，執政八年後重新淪為在野的民進黨，和它早年在野的地位已完全無法相提並論。當年民進黨能乘風而起，承載著台灣社會數十年的民主渴望，是因為反對運動與社會運動有著「追求社會正義」的一致目標；而如今，人們看到的只是一個虛偽沉淪的民進黨，就算民眾不滿國民黨施政，但誰會相信跟隨在迷失的民進黨後面能找到活路？

街頭運動有一種特殊的迷幻效果：只要張開布條，主事者就能把一小撮人的聚會幻想成一場群眾運動；這是民進黨樂此不疲的主因。但民進黨若無意全面捨棄選舉路線，它就必須認清「街頭民意」和「選舉民意」的落差，沒有曖昧地帶可鑽。若以為社運是「大力丸」，那絕對是自欺的幻想。

社運界也一樣，在目睹台灣民主多年的進退失據之後，它需要重新思考自身的價值與目標，走出一條真正屬於民間社會的路，拒絕再成為政治的附庸或馬前卒。那樣，社會運動才能在自主的信念中前進，也才不致使自己的能量被政治黑洞吸走。

既然談社運，就請民進黨要保持「以社會為念」的初衷。只會走上街頭叫罵，其實成不了社會運動。