Local Democracy? Or the Road to Black Gold?

Local Democracy? Or the Road to Black Gold?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 23, 2009

As former U.S. Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill once said, all politics is local. The importance of local politics goes without saying. But Taiwan's problem is that any discussion of local political issues always focuses on the needs of the politicians, rather than on the needs of the public. Several counties and cities will soon be upgraded. Several days ago rumors emerged that a number of politicians were promoting local elections for District Chiefs. This is a clear example.
Will District Chiefs in Directly Administered Municipalities be locally elected? If so, it would mean a change from what we have now. But it is not something we can't talk about. But the reason politicians are promoting District Chief elections is that once cities and counties are upgraded, many village, town, and city representatives will be out of a job. That is why representatives of four counties and municipalities scheduled for an upgrade have launchd a signature drive demanding local elections. We hope village, town, and city representatives can extend their terms or postpone any elections until the current system is repealed in 2014. Calls for District Chief elections appear to be designed with the needs of current village, town, and city representatives in mind.

Even a well-intentioned policy is likely to produce unintended results, and negative consequences. Therefore a policy rooted in ulterior motives is almost sure to end badly. If existing village, town, and city elections are used as the template for future District Chief elections, the fate of District Chief elections will be entirely predictable.

Fair or not, the main reason the KMT was accused of engaging in "money politics" in the past was local elections. Local elections were plagued by vote-buying and violence. The high costs of such election campaigns were recouped by means of public works projects, land speculation, and bid rigging, after the official was elected. None of this is news. These have long been part and parcel of corrupt local politics. For the public, this sort of local political participation in public policy is not a channel for public policy. It is the source of black gold. The result is a vicious circle. Good people are unwilling to return home to participate in local politics. The rosy pictures the public on Taiwan has of local self-government have been totally shattered.

It was precisely because local politics were plagued by such problems in the past, that members of the public called for the appointment of village and town representatives. But neither the KMT nor the DPP have been able to implement such a policy. The main reason they can't, is that local politicians and local factions are in bed together. Even national legislators and local political bosses influential in county and municipal elections are involved. That is why no one is able to change the system. That is why politics on Taiwan has always remained corrupt, from the local level all the way up to the center.

The public should of course be encouraged to participate in direct elections and political oversight. It is not necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater. One need not reject District Chief elections entirely based on a past history of local corruption. We may wish to consult the precedent of Taipei and Kaohsiuing, two existing, ready-made examples of Directly Administered Municipalities. Their District Chiefs are appointed. But their administrative mechanisms seem to be working well. The past performance of civil servants in Taipei City left much room for improvement. But under pressure from an elected mayor, the attitude and performance of the District Office have clearly improved. It would appear that the direct election of District Chiefs is not the only way to improve the administrative efficiency of local government.

Some people think that citizens in the modern era can hardly be satisfied with the way government bureaucrats serve the public. They hope members of the public will use people power to demand municipal reform. But even under the existing system, city council members from all political parties actively participate in community campaigns affecting only individual boroughs. Needless to say, many community campaigns cross district lines. An individual's daily activies are not necessarily confined to any one district.

The local election of District Chiefs will not uphold the rights and interests of the public or enhance local self-government. The Taiwan provincial government was "streamlined" because the government had too many levels, and was a detriment to administrative efficiency. If District Chiefs are elected, this will create yet another level of government. For newly upgraded Directly Administered Municipalities hoping to make progress, such redundancies will create obstacles to administrative efficiency.

Kaohsiung County Magistrate Yang Chiu-hsing says that by law, the urban planning schemes promoted by most counties and cities must be approved by village and town governments. Many village and town governments are subject to substantial pressure from local political bosses. Therefore they find it difficult to make efficient use of their budgets. They find it difficult to promote the construction of important public works projects. We have with great difficulty eliminated one level of government. We look forward to an increase in administrative efficiency. How can we possibly agree to turn the clock back?

The most heavily criticized aspect of local politics was black gold politics. But it was hardly the only problem. By the time local governments divided the spoils, construction projects and resources were completely fragmented. Given such precedents, shouldn't we think long and hard about who would benefit before we demand District Chief elections?

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.07.24
社論－區長民選？還是黑金之路？
本報訊

就如前美國前眾議院議長歐尼爾所說，所有的政治都是地方政治，地方政治的重要性不言可喻，但是台灣的問題在於，對重大地方政治議題的討論，著眼的永遠是政治人物的需要，而不是民之所欲，日前傳出部分縣市在未來升格，若干基層政治人物有意推動區長民選，就是明顯例子。

未來直轄市的區長，是否採民選產生，雖與現制不同，但並非全不能討論，問題在於，政治人物目前考慮推動區長民選的動機，主要是著眼於縣市升格後、原鄉鎮市民代的出路，因此，才會出現升格的四縣市基層民代發動連署，希望鄉鎮市民代表能延任或延選，等到民國一○三年後再全部廢除，而因此繼起的區長民選，就頗有為現任鄉鎮市民代量身打造的考量。

一項政策即使立意良好，都可能會產生意外、不佳的後果，更何況，政策若是一開始的立意就別有用心，幾乎就注定難有好下場，可以說，如果以現有的鄉鎮市作為未來區長民選的藍圖，則區長民選的下場可以想見。

不論公不公平，過去國民黨被指為「黑金政治」，最主要的關鍵，正就是在於基層選舉，選舉時賄聲賄影、暴力陰影不斷；經過這樣昂貴的選舉，當選後藉勢包工程、炒作土地、工程綁標，就更不是新聞，這些作為老早就嚴重地敗壞地方政治。對人民而言，這種類型的地方政治不僅不是參與公共政策的管道，反而是黑金罪惡的淵藪，結果更是惡性循環，優秀的人才更不願返鄉從政，台灣人民對地方自治的美好想像，完全被摧毀。

正因為過往地方政治的諸多問題，過去才會出現「鄉鎮長官派」的芻議，但是，無論是國民黨、還是民進黨政府都無法貫徹，最主要的原因在於，基層政治人物不但和地方派系環環相扣，更是立委、縣市長選舉的重要「樁腳」，因此誰都動不得，但也因為如此，台灣的政治，就這樣一路從地方敗壞到中央。

當然，如果從鼓勵人民直接參與、監督政治的角度來看，未必要因噎廢食，非要以過去敗壞的地方政治，來否定區長民選之議。我們不妨以北、高現成的兩個直轄市例子來看，雖然是區長官派，但此一區長「行政機關化」的作法，似乎運作良好，事實上，早年台北市公務員服務績效有待改進，但是在民選市長的壓力下，各區公所的服務態度、績效，都有一定的進步，看來，區長民選並非改善地方政府行政效率的唯一條件。

也許有人認為，作為一個現代公民，當然不會以政府服務態度為滿足，還希望能以市民、公民的力量，來推動市政改革，不過，依目前的狀況，即使是僅和個別里相關的社區運動，都可見到各黨派市議員積極參與，更不用說，有許多市民運動其實是跨區的，常有的狀況是，市民的生活圈，未必侷限於一區。

可以說，推動區長民選，看不出對民眾權益或地方自治有必然助益。更重要的是，過去精省，就是因為政府層級太多，不利行政效率，未來如又採區長民選，又橫生一個政府層級，對於剛改制、希望能雄圖大展的直轄市，恐怕是疊床架屋，造成施政上的障礙。

高雄縣長楊秋興就說，一般縣市推動都市計畫，依法得經過鄉鎮公所程序，許多鄉鎮公所顧及龐大地方人情壓力，因此預算難以有效集中運用，而讓許多重要建設難以推動，如今好不容易減少一個層級，行政效率可望大幅增加，豈有走回頭路的道理。

確實，過去台灣基層政治最為人詬病之處，不只在於黑金政治，而在於各地分割資源後，建設、資源都因此零碎化。面臨這些前例，政治人物推動區長民選前，更應該好好深思，誰才是區長民選的獲利者？