The DPP Cheers Chen Chu to Avoid an Internal Debate

The DPP Cheers Chen Chu to Avoid an Internal Debate
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 27, 2009

The final impact of Chen Chu's visit to the Mainland on the Democratic Progressive Party remains to be seen. But hardline Taiwan independence advocate Wang Hsing-nan's suggestion that Chen Chu be awarded the Blue Sky White Sun Medal to fellow hardline Taiwan independence advocate Chen Chu is truly laughable.

During Chen Chu's official visit to Beijing, she uttered the words, "our central government's President Ma Ying-jeou." Theoretically and substantively, it was tantamount to proclaiming to the Beijing authorities that the DPP has revised its definition of Taiwan independence.

When word of her remarks got back to Taipei, the Democratic Progressive Party virtually mobilized the entire party, praising Chen Chu for having the wisdom and courage to "assert our national sovereignty." The DPP deftly shifted the focus away from an issue that deserves deep thought and close consideration.

Chen Chu's visit to the Mainland should have motivated the DPP to conduct a major internal debate on national identity and cross-Strait policy. But now it seems the entire party has reached a quiet understanding. The DPP will put a lid on the entire affair and never mention it again. Even Taiwan independence elements are biting their tongues. Chen Chu's words: "our central government's President Ma Ying-jeou," was a potential source of inner-party turmoil. Even this has been blown up into a major political achievement. This is both pathetic and risible.

Let's take a closer look at Chen Chu's language. The Democratic Progressive Party continues to champion its Taiwan independence Party Platform and its Resolution for a Normal Nation. So why did Chen Chu reaffirm the Republic of China in front of the Beijing authorities? The DPP expressed gratitude and appreciation to Chen Chu for her impromptu statement. But let's look at the logical contradiction behind the DPP's position. Why does the DPP affirm the Republic of China in front of Beijing, but run wild through the streets of Taiwan waving "Nation of Taiwan" flags?

This behavior is typical of the Democratic Progressive Party. It seeks only to achieve an immediate impact. It refuses to confront its self-contradictions. Chen Chu's visit to the Mainland was a major event. Perhaps amidst the DPP's "Ah Q" applause, it lost sight of the larger issue. Perhaps the proposal that Chen Chu be awarded a medal, is merely a means of defusing its embarrassment. Perhaps this is the reason the DPP is reluctant and afraid to debate the issue.

Every time an opportunity arises for a debate, the DPP has demonstrated a remarkable ability to disappear. This is perhaps the reason the DPP has been able to repeatedly squeak by. But it is also the reason the DPP remains trapped and must continue looking for a way out. Therefore every time we see the pragmatist/reformists within the Democratic Progressive Party clash with the fundamentalists, they end up hugging each other moments later. Principles that should have been clarified, are deliberately kept muddy. The party is still being held hostage by a tiny number of radicals.

Over the past two decades, The KMT has undergone several major schisms. Jaw Shaw-kang split and formed the New Party. James Soong split and formed the People First Party. In general, the minority that split represented changing mainstream public opinion. Although the schisms brought down the KMT, they also checked tyrants within the party. Finally, after eight years out of office, the KMT has been rebuilt both in its form and in its values. Schisms within the Democratic Progressive Party, on the other hand, are quite different. Hardline advocates of Taiwan independence and hardline supporters of Chen Shui-bian are few and far between. They consider Chen Shui-bian their spiritual leader, but they lack bona fide leaders such as Jaw Shao-kang and James Soong. All they have is the likes of Koo Kuan-min and Huang Ching-ling. Worse still, they lack the wherewithal to split from the Democratic Progressive Party on their own initiative. The DPP does not dare to disassociate itself from them. They dare not disassociate themselves from the DPP. Therefore the DPP remains incapable of using Chen Chu's visit to the Mainland as a catalyst for internal debate. Taiwan independence elements within the Democratic Progressive Party need only raise high the Nation of Taiwan banner, and the Democratic Progressive Party will be forced to salute. It will forever remain their hostage, forever incapable of driving them out. So why bother to debate?

Tsai Ing-wen and Chen Chu took the Taiwan independence elements by surprise. Taiwan independence elements have been badly hurt, yet dare not complain. This truly is a miracle. Chen Chu kept her May 17 Mainland itinerary secret. Tsai Ing-wen ensured that the May 17 protest march ended peacefully. Taiwan independence elements felt they had been played for fools. Yet the leadership of the Democratic Progressive Party remains afraid to debate the issue. Why begin a major debate over a small number of hardline advocates of Taiwan independence and hardline supporters of Chen Shui-bian? The hardline advocates of Taiwan independence do not want to debate the DPP leadership. They merely want to take them hostage. Isn't this the very reason hardline advocates of Taiwan independence and hardline supporters of Chen Shui-bian are still able to hijack the DPP?

Chen Chu affirmed the Republic of China in front of the Beijing authorities. Her gesture must not be seen merely as an impromptu gesture. Rather, it sums up the DPP's dilemma. Unless the DPP resolves its internal contradictions, how can DPP supporters be expected "to grow," as Tsai Ing-wen hopes?

The DPP must conduct a comprehensive review of its position regarding national identity and cross-Strait policy. Only then will it be able to establish a viable program for governing the nation. It must not engage in self-deception by suggesting that Chen Chu be awarded a medal. Instead, it should do some serious soul-searching.

民進黨為陳菊喝采以迴避黨內大辯論
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.05.27 05:32 am

陳菊登陸在民進黨內發生的效應尚待觀察。但鐵桿台獨王幸男，主張頒贈青天白日勳章給同是鐵桿台獨陳菊的提議，卻令人啼笑皆非。

陳菊在北京官式訪問中，表達對「中央政府我們的馬英九總統」的政治認同，在邏輯上及實質上，皆不啻是向北京當局宣示民進黨的台獨主張已有修正。

消息傳回台北，民進黨幾乎全黨一致借力使力，盛讚陳菊「表達國家主權」的智勇；四兩撥千斤，就如此這般地將一個應當深刻思辨的題目轉移了焦點。

陳菊登陸理應帶動民進黨內對國家認同及兩岸政策的大辯論；但如今看來，全黨皆頗有默契地按住鍋蓋不容掀開，甚至獨派也默不吭聲。陳菊的一句「中央政府我們的馬英九總統」，竟然被渲染成重大的政治成就，頃刻間一場可能出現的黨內大風暴，儼然竟變成了皆大歡喜的舉黨光榮。可悲，亦復可笑。

細究陳菊的語言。民進黨迄今仍然主張台獨黨綱及正常國家決議文，但為何陳菊卻在北京當局面前表達對中華民國的認同？民進黨對陳菊這句話的臨場效應大表激賞，但真正的問題卻是必須回過頭來解釋這句話的邏輯矛盾。為何向北京宣示認同中華民國，卻在島內舉著台灣國的旌旗滿街跑？

這正是民進黨的一貫手法，任何說詞只講求片刻的當場效果，根本不問在整體邏輯上的自相矛盾。陳菊登陸的大事件，或許就在民進黨的阿Ｑ式喝采中，流失了大辯論的契機；而主張贈勳給陳菊，不只是用以化解尷尬，其實也是在提供不願大辯論、不敢大辯論的理由。

在每次可能出現大辯論的契機之時，民進黨皆有使之消失於無形的本事。這或許正是民進黨屢次皆能得過且過的道理，但這也正是民進黨迄今仍然覓無生路的原因。因而，每次見到民進黨內務實改革派與基本教義派劍拔弩張，但一轉眼就在一觸即發之際雙方又抱在一起；原本應說清楚的道理，還是沒有說清楚，整個黨也仍然被少數偏激勢力所挾持。

過去二十年，國民黨曾出現過幾次大分裂。趙少康另立新黨，宋楚瑜另立親民黨。大體而言，當時分裂出去的少數，反映了主流民意的趨勢；結果雖拖垮了國民黨，卻亦制裁了黨內的獨夫，最後經失去政權八年後，終於在今日重建了國民黨在形體及價值論述上的整合。但是，民進黨內的分裂因子卻大異其趣；極獨及挺扁者非但是少數，且他們除奉陳水扁為精神領袖外，沒有像趙少康、宋楚瑜那般的實際領導者（只有辜寬敏、黃慶林），更致命的是他們絕無可能自動從民進黨分裂而去。民進黨不敢與他們切割，他們更不可能與民進黨切割；故而，這一次民進黨似乎仍無可能藉陳菊登陸進行黨內大辯論，因為獨派只需在民進黨的遊行隊伍中繼續高舉台灣國的大纛巨旌，民進黨就只能拿香隨拜，永遠被附身挾持，趕它不走。何必辯論？

獨派這次被蔡英文及陳菊偷襲，受創深重，卻不敢呻吟，誠是奇觀。陳菊在五一七前隱瞞登陸行程，蔡英文在五一七又堅持和平收場；這些皆被獨派解讀為欺愚玩弄。但民進黨當局不敢大辯論，居於少數的極獨挺扁者又何必掀起大辯論？不要民進黨辯論，只要挾持民進黨，這種「分而不裂」的生態，豈不正是極獨挺扁者能挾持民進黨的原因？

陳菊當著北京當局宣示對中華民國的政治認同，絕不能只是視為臨場的機智表現；這其實正完全暴露了民進黨的進退維谷及左支右絀。若不將其間矛盾疏理清楚，民進黨的支持者如何能如蔡英文所期望地「成長」？

民進黨應對國家認同及兩岸政策的通盤論述進行全面檢討，以建立一個可大可久的國家治理方案。不可用對陳菊頒獎喝采來自欺欺人，而應深思猛省。