Does the Democratic Progressive Party Know the Meaning of "Economic Democracy?"

Does the Democratic Progressive Party Know the Meaning of "Economic Democracy?"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 26, 2009

The Democratic Progressive Party maintains that its demand for a popular referendum on ECFA is not "political mobilization," but rather a demand for the establishment of "economic democracy."

We would like to ask the DPP a question. Hundreds of FTAs have been signed the world over. Which one of them has ever required a public referendum? Leave aside the European Union, which involved political integration in addition to economic integration. If ECFA must first undergo a public referendum, then one has already revealed one's hand. How can one possibly negotiate with the autocratic Beijing regime? We would also like to ask the DPP another question. You were in power for eight years. You imposed an "Active Management" policy externally, and a "Second Financial Reform" policy internally. When did you ever demonstrate the slightet iota of respect for "economic democracy?" When did you ever offer anyone the opportunity to vote in a public referendum?

Speaking of "economic democracy," the Democratic Progressive Party really ought to reflect on its dismal record during its eight years in power. During last year's Legislative and Presidential Elections, the DPP suffered disastrous defeats. The United Daily News discussed the issue of economics and democracy in its editorials. Now that the DPP has seen fit to dredge up the issue of "economic democracy," let us revisit the past.

On May 1 of last year, the UDN News published an editorial entitled "Partisan Politics: the Global Economy and the Single Member District." We noted that over the past two decades, democratization on Taiwan was equated wtih nativization. The primary yardstick applied in partisan politics was: Are you an "alien political regime" or a "native political regime?" Do you "love Taiwan" or are you "selling out Taiwan?" Are you "Taiwanese" or "Chinese?" But with the rise of globalization, with the rise of Mainland China, with the gradual marginalization of Taiwan, the primary social issue on Taiwan has become economic well-being. The Republic of China has adopted a free market economy. It must cope with globalization. The public expects those in power to enhance their economic well-being. The Republic of China has implemented democracy on Taiwan. The public can vote to determine the future of the nation. Therefore, a future which will improve their economic well-being will receive voter support. A future which will sabotage their economic well-being will encounter public opposition.

The yardstick for partisan political competition on Taiwan has gradually and imperceptibly changed from "democracy equals nativism" to "democracy equals economics." Democracy is no longer the hostage of nativism. Ballots are now perceived as a means by which the public can better its economic well-being.

Accordingly, in 2008, the power of the Taiwan independence movement swiftly declined. The Democratic Progressive Party lost power in part due to its moral degeneracy. But the main reason it lost power was that its Closed Door Policy and polarization of society undermined the peoples' economic well-being. It ran counter to their new understanding of democracy. The results of the 2008 Legislative and Presidential Elections showed that the ideology of Taiwan independence was perceived as economically destructive. Therefore it was judged "anti-democratic." Because economic independence was infeasible, political independence came under question.

In the past, by applying the values of "democracy equals nativism," Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian could use political ideology to determine economic policy. But now, looking forward, based on the yardstick of "democracy equals economics," political parties must allow their economic agendas to determine their political agendas. Under a free market economy, people choose to survive. Under a democracy, people can determine the future of the nation. Any political path that runs counter to the economic well-being of the public, will find it difficult to gain the support of the public on election day.

If the DPP wants to talk about "economic democracy," the DPP should give the above discussion serious consideration. In other words, "economic democracy" ought to imply rational governance. It should not be reduced to the level of public referenda promoted purely for the sake of populist demagoguery.

Over ten countries have signed FTAs with Beijing. Over 20 countries are about to sign FTAs with Beijing. This framework is the largest economic entity in the world. It encompasses nearly half the population of the world. Taipei must not be excluded from this framework. Therefore, from the perspective of "economic democracy," whether to sign ECFA with Beijing is no longer even an issue. The issue is how to sign to our best advantage and not incur losses. To invoke Su Tseng-chang's words, the DPP cannot regain power "merely by criticizing the KMT." In demanding a referendum, the DPP is engaging in populist demagoguery. It is treating ECFA as an electioneering tool. The Democratic Progressive Party should instead fulfill its proper role as an opposition party. Instead of mindlessly opposing ECFA, it should help ensure that the Ma administration and the Beijing authorities craft an agreement that reflects the interests of the public on Taiwan.

The DPP has breached the subject of "economic democracy." Therefore it ought to reflect on its eight years in office, on how it turned its back on the economic well-being of the public, and therefore on "economic democracy." It should attempt to make a rational connection between economics and democracy in its future political and economic discourse. Didn't the Democratic Progressive Party lose power precisely because it violated the precepts of "economic democracy?"

民進黨知道什麼叫做「經濟民主」嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.06.26 06:36 am

民進黨說：主張簽ＥＣＦＡ須經公投，不是「政治動員」，而是要建立「經濟民主」的機制。

請問民進黨：舉世簽訂數百個ＦＴＡ，哪一個經過公投（歐盟進入政治整合時除外）？議簽ＥＣＦＡ若須經過公投，己方底牌盡揭，將如何與底牌全蓋住的北京專制政府談判？再者，請問民進黨，貴黨過去執政八年期間，對外「積極管理」，對內「二次金改」，又有哪一項尊重過「經濟民主」，更有哪一項曾交付「公投」？

談起「經濟民主」，民進黨確實應當痛切反省自己過去執政八年在「經濟民主」上的惡劣表現。去年立委與總統選舉，民進黨慘敗，本報社論曾經著文討論過「經濟」與「民主」的關聯；值今既然有人提出「經濟民主」的議題，不妨與民進黨溫故知新。

去年五月一日，本報社論題為〈政黨競爭的新標尺：全球經濟與單一選區〉，內文指出：過去二十年，台灣「民主化」的主題是「本土化」；政黨競爭的主要標尺是「外來政權／本土政權」、「愛台／賣台」、「台灣人／中國人」等等。但是，隨著全球化、中國崛起，及台灣邊緣化等的趨勢出現，「經濟民生」逐漸成為台灣的主要社會議題。一方面，由於台灣採行自由經濟並面對全球化，人民率皆期望執政者能改善經濟民生的環境；另一方面，台灣又實行民主政治，人民可以透過選票來操持國家路線。因此，能夠增進改善經濟民生的國家路線，會受到選民支持；對經濟民生不利的國家路線，會遭到選民的反對。

於是，在不知不覺間，台灣政黨競爭的標尺，漸由「民主／本土」的聯結，轉變為「民主／經濟」的聯結。「民主」不再被「本土」的假議題所挾持，「選票」被視為可以改善「經濟民生」的手段。

準此以論，台獨勢力在二○○八年急遽式微，除了是因民進黨失政敗德以外，最主要的原因亦在台獨的鎖國與內耗，不利台灣的經濟民生，所以也就不符合現今的民主認知。二○○八年立委及總統選舉的結果顯示：台獨是「害經濟」的，所以台獨也是「反民主」的；由於「經濟的台獨」不可行，所以「政治的台獨」受質疑。

過去，在「民主／本土」的舊標尺下，李登輝與陳水扁可以用「政治路線」來決定其「經濟路線」；但是，今後在「民主／經濟」的新標尺下，政黨似乎應以「經濟路線」來決定其「政治路線」。因為，在「自由經濟／人民要活下去」，及「民主政治／人民可以選擇國家路線」的交互作用下，任何政黨若堅採與民生經濟背道而馳的國家路線，恐怕難以在民主選舉中獲得支持。

若要談「經濟民主」，以上論述或許可供民進黨認真參考；亦即，「經濟民主」的真諦應反映在「治國理性」上，而不宜淪為「公投」之類的政治操作。

準此以論，面對十餘國家已與中國簽訂ＦＴＡ，且累計二十餘國家即將與中國簽訂ＦＴＡ，此一架構已是接近全球半數人口的最大經濟體，而台灣顯然不可自外於此一架構；故而，若從「經濟民主」的觀點來看，這已不是要不要與中國簽ＥＣＦＡ的問題，而是應當將焦點擺在如何始能趨利避害地簽。亦即，不能「光靠罵國民黨」（蘇貞昌語）。因而，與其玩弄民粹公投，將ＥＣＦＡ當作選舉動員的政治玩具，民進黨何不善盡在野黨的角色，對馬政府及彼岸北京政府，用心用力地在「如何簽」方面表達台灣民間的聲音？

既然民進黨提出「經濟民主」的概念，正可藉此反省過去八年執政期間「經濟」背離「民主」的異象，並設法在民進黨未來的政經論述中，將「經濟」與「民主」作一理性的聯結。民進黨之敗，豈不正是敗在違反「經濟民主」？