Who is Being Used? Ah-Bian, or the DPP?

Who is Being Used? Ah-Bian, or the DPP?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 18, 2009

For the leader of a democratic nation to be involved in corruption is not news. On Taiwan however, the corruption of former President Chen Shui-bian and his family has left the Democratic Progressive Party in a quagmire, unable to extricate itself. Even more seriously, the DPP has retreated to populism and extremism in a desperate effort to save itself. As a result, two-party politics on Taiwan is headed toward extreme polarization, and the quality of its democracy is in for serious decline. An isolated presidental corruption case has set back the development of democracy. Such a scenario is difficult to imagine in other democratic countries.
The Chen corruption case is unquestionably responsible for the DPP's moral degradation. Before the DPP took office, its bottom line was political ethics came first, the letter of the law came second. Therefore if a party member's conduct was obviously flawed, party discipline took precedence over the law. During the Chen presidency, when evidence of his corruption emerged, this standard was eroded. But at least the DPP still affirmed that legal conviction was the lowest standard for the establishment of guilt.

Unfortunately when the Chen family, its relatives and cronies were indicted and sentenced for a string of major crimes, Chen Shui-bian and the DPP began singing an entirely different tune. Ah-Bian himself said he was guilty only of a "moral and culture crime." He has no criminal liability. Key Green Camp players have blasted the court's verdict as a "feudalistic" moral judgment, and not a legal decision. At this point, not only has the DPP revealed its moral vacuum, it has also twisted the meaning of the law, narrowly defining it as mere courtroom thrusts and parries. It has completely ignored the fact that morality is a cornerstone of the law.

Why can't a political party that bills itself as "democratic" and "progressive" extricate itself from the quagmire of the Chen corruption case? The DPP has plenty of talented people, most of whom have long experience. Why don't they realize they must disassociate themselves from Chen's corruption? Why have they allowed the party to become mired so inextricably in such a predicament? In the social sciences, their dilemma is referred to as a "shared tragedy,"

In his 1968 essay "The Tragedy of the Commons," economist Garrett Hardin observed that as long as property is held in common, it will surely be abused. The DPP's stealing of credit for the closely-related democratic movement is a classic example. A single organization monopolized a shared historical legacy by grossly distorting history.

Hsu Tien-tsai yesterday suggested emulating the Red Shirt Army, and launching a mass movement to support Ah-Bian. His suggestion was mocked as "using Chen Shui-bian." In fact, it would be more accurate to characterize such a ploy as "using the DPP." Long before Hsu Tien-tsai's suggestion, DPP leaders and elected officials were already "using the DPP." Political hopefuls arrived in droves at the detention center to pay homage to Ah-Bian. Either that, or they conspicuously waved placards and banners proclaiming their support for Ah-Bian during protest marches. The "Princes" of the DPP initiated an even higher-level power struggle. Whether one supported Ah-Bian became a bludgeon with which one could defeat one's opponent.

Behind closed doors these DPP key players surely realize that supporting corruption is disadvantageous to the DPP's long-term development. But these DPP key players are caught in a "prisoners dilemma." The DPP's public image is, after all, "common property." It may or may not provide any individual DPP official with any immediate and obvious benefits. On the other hand, as long as DPP officials stand behind Ah-Bian, they immediately receive support from extremist factions within the party. Given long term DPP factional struggles and impending party primaries, this trend is likely to worsen. Since the majority of DPP key players are preoccupied with personal power, the DPP as a whole will inevitably decline, undermining its long-term interests. This is classic case of the contradiction between collective interest and individual interest.

What concerns us is not the interests of the DPP elites. After all, the DPP is not merely the private property of a few hundred thousand party members. It is the result of countless peoples' concerted efforts. It is the result of their blood, sweat, and tears. But because of a party "oligopoly," the ruling DPP has departed from its early pledge of "integrity, diligence, love of the land." President Chen Shui-bian came to treat the DPP as his private property. On the surface his assumption of the party chairmanship was to unite the party and the administration. But in fact it was to turn the DPP into a tool to expand his personal power and to accumulate wealth. The Chen corruption case shows how business consortia exploited Ah-Bian's status as DPP party chairman. Personal bribes to Ah-Bian were passed off as "campaign contributions" to the DPP. The party chairmanship and campaign contributions became plausible pretexts for corruption.

Ah-Bian, his relatives, and his cronies have abused this common property. The countless high and low ranking officials who benefitted along with Chen Shui-bian are hardly going to object to the abuse of the DPP's good name. They are hardly going to object to the debasement of its "progressive" ideals. The damage done to the Republic of China's political culture has been inestimable.

The DPP's "common property" has been defiled. This may not concern the DPP's elites. But any rational political leader must consider the fact that "if one overturns the bird's nest, the eggs will not survive." They must break Chen Shui-bian's spell. They must liberate themselves. It is not that difficult. If DPP officials unite and disassociate themselves from Ah-Bian, the DPP can take its first step toward rebirth. But if the DPP considers only the selfish interests of its elites, then even something so simple becomes utterly impossible.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.09.18
社論－扁被消費 還是民進黨被消費
本報訊

國家領導人涉入貪腐，在任何民主國家都不是新鮮事，但在台灣，前總統陳水扁一家的貪汙情狀，竟然讓民進黨陷入泥淖、無法自拔；更嚴重的是，民進黨退縮以民粹、極端化自保，台灣的兩黨政治也因此走向極端對立，民主品質嚴重下降。一樁總統貪腐案竟讓民主發展倒退，這樣的演變，則是在其他民主國家難以想像的。

扁案造成民進黨道德淪喪的後果，這是無庸置疑的。執政前的民進黨，政治道德先行，將法律視為最後的底限，因此，黨員只要操守出現明顯瑕疵，黨紀必然先於法律處理；這套標準在扁總統任內出現涉貪傳聞時，就已見侵蝕，但是當時的民進黨至少還認定，應由法律做最後的判準。

可悲的是，當扁家及親信數大弊案陸續遭起訴及判決時，陳水扁及民進黨的調子也跟著逆轉，扁自認只是犯了「道德文化罪」，因此不必負司法上的刑責；綠營更有要員痛批司法判決是「封建」的道德審判，而不是法律判決。至此，民進黨不但完全道德虛無化，更錯誤解讀，將法律窄化成法庭攻防，完全疏忽道德也是法律的基礎。

以「民主」、「進步」為名的政黨，為何走不出扁案這一關？民進黨人才濟濟，多屬幹練之士，面臨扁案、為何連淺顯的切割道理都不懂，而讓舉黨掉入無法自拔的困局？在社會科學上，這樣的困境被稱為「共有的悲劇」，一九六八年經濟學家哈定發現，只要是共有的財產，就一定會被濫用，民進黨及密切相關的民主運動史，就是典型名器被個人佔用、濫用的歷史。

許添財日前有意效法紅衫軍、發起挺扁群眾運動，被譏諷為是在「消費陳水扁」，其實嚴格來說，這應稱為「消費民進黨」，而且早在許添財之前，民進黨大將及公職人員早已紛紛展開「消費民進黨」的作為。因此，要參選的人絡繹於途、赴看守所探視扁，不然就是在遊行場合刻意標舉挺扁急先鋒的旗號，民進黨的天王們展開的是更高層的權力鬥爭，挺不挺扁都可成為鬥跨對手的血滴子。

民進黨要角捫心自問，必然知道挺貪腐不利民進黨長期的發展，但是民進黨要角都掉入兩難的「囚犯困局」，畢竟，民進黨的公眾形象是典型的「公共財」，對個別公職人員未必有立即明顯的利益；相反的，只要他們個人挺扁，卻立刻可以受到黨內極端派支持，而在黨內初選出頭，此一趨勢更因民進黨長期的派系競爭而惡化。可以說，當多數的民進黨要角都斤斤計較個人權力時，整體民進黨也因此沉淪，長期也同樣傷害民進黨公職的利益。這是典型的集體理性與個人理性矛盾的例子。

但是我們要憂慮的，並不是民進黨菁英的利益而已，畢竟，民進黨並不是數十萬黨員的私產而已，它是無數人眾志成城、流血流汗的成果，但只因為政黨「寡頭壟斷」的特性，民進黨執政後已開始背離當年「清廉、勤政、愛鄉土」的誓言，而陳水扁總統後期更將民進黨當做個人私產，他兼任黨主席表面上是為了黨政一體，但實質上、民進黨卻成為他個人擴大權力及斂聚財產的工具，從這次扁案的審判過程就可以看到，不少財團利用扁當黨主席的模糊地帶，以「政治獻金」之名行賄賂之實，黨主席及政治獻金都為犯罪找到合理化的藉口。

扁及親信如此糟蹋公共財，跟著陳水扁坐享好處的大小官員們，更不會在意敗壞民進黨名器後，所謂的進步理念因此被汙名化，對台灣政治文化的傷害難以衡量。

民進黨此一「公共財」被敗壞，也許不是民進黨菁英在意的，但是任何理性的政治人物，也必然會考量「覆巢之下無完卵」的道理，要打破阿扁魔咒，躍出囚犯困境，其實很簡單，只要所有的民進黨要員團結一致與扁切割，就可踏出民進黨復興的第一步，只是，當民進黨菁英都只考量個人利益時，連此一簡單的道理，都未免顯得知易行難!