Does the DPP Dare to Say It Doesn't Need the Swing Vote?

Does the DPP Dare to Say It Doesn't Need the Swing Vote?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 21, 2009

From his prison cell, Chen Shui-bian issued the following challenge: "Who in the DPP dares to say it doesn't need 'Ah-Bian Men' (Ah-Bian Crowd) votes in 2012? " Actually the DPP ought to be asking itself, "Who in the DPP dares to say it doesn't need the swing vote in 2012?"
The "Ah-Bian Crowd" consists of hardline Deep Green Taiwan independence politicians and supporters. Even though Chen Shui-bian publicly "ceded Taiwan to the United States," the Ah-Bian Crowd stills back him. They have concluded that Ah-Bian is a Taiwan independence icon who must not fall, no matter what. As for his corruption, they have defined it as a mere "social and cultural crime." Besides, many in the DPP and the Green Camp have made abundant use of Ah-Bian's dirty money. These Ah-Bian Crowd members may not constitute a majority within the Green Camp, but they have long been the prime mover within the Green Camp. The Ah-Bian Crowd is a tail with the ability to wag the dog. No wonder Chen Shui-bian said: "Who dares to say he doesn't need Ah-Bian Crowd votes?"

But if the DPP is bound hand and foot by the Ah-Bian Crowd, how can it attract swing voters during the 2012 Presidential Election? In addition to the above mentioned "Plebian Ah-Bian Crowd," there is also a "Patrician Ah-Bian Crowd," consisting of Ma Yung-cheng, Chen Che-nan, and other Ah-Bian cronies. Swing voters cannot tolerate the Patrician Ah-Bian Crowd's corruption. They disagree with the Patrician Ah-Bian Crowd's increasingly perverse Taiwan independence agenda. Wang Hsing-nan and Huang Ching-lin are right when they say Chen Shui-bian "ceded Taiwan to the United States." But they waited too long to say it. Swing voters have yet to see the DPP engage in thorough soul-searching or criticism of the Patrician Ah-Bian Crowd's corruption. The DPP has failed to criticize or reflect upon the increasingly dubious rationales for Taiwan independence. Swing voters have deep misgivings about the DPP's inability or unwillingness to re-educate the Plebian Ah-Bian Crowd. The question the DPP should be asking itself is, "Who in the DPP can say it doesn't need the support of swing voters?"

The key is, as always, Taiwan independence. Chen Shui-bian once held that "Taiwan is an independent country. Its current name is the Republic of China." When the DPP first failed to distance itself from Ah-Bian, it still had room to maneuver. But Chen Shui-bian's pro-independence rhetoric has degenerated to the point where he has effectively ceded Taiwan to the United States. He has clearly underscored his opposition to the "backdoor listing" of "Taiwan" under the name "Republic of China." He now says that unless the Republic of China is terminated, Taiwan cannot become a new and independent country. He has now proclaimed himself the standard bearer for "de jure Taiwan independence." Some in the DPP and the Patrician Ah-Bian Crowd support him on this. Some in the Plebian Ah-Bian Crowd support him on this. Chen Shui-bian hopes to take advantage of opposition to backdoor listing and insistence upon the "rectification of names and the founding of a new nation." He hopes to link the Patrician Ah-Bian Crowd to the Plebian Ah-Bian Crowd, and thereby hijack the DPP. If the DPP cannot clarify its position in relation to this degenerate version of Taiwan independence, can it really win the trust of swing voters?

As 2012 approaches, the DPP must rethink its position on Taiwan independence. Over the next two years two themes will emerge. First, once ECFA is signed, cross-Strait relations will become even closer. Second, the Republic of China will celebrate its Centennial. These two themes will force the Democratic Progressive Party to show its hand regarding Taiwan independence. By 2012, direct airline flights will have been in place for four years. ECFA will have been in force for two years. Does the DPP still intend to overturn these policies in the name of Taiwan independence? By 2012, the Republic of China will be one hundred years young. Twenty-three years will have passed since the lifting of martial law and the implementation of full democracy. Does the DPP still intend to demand the establishment of a "Nation of Taiwan?"

The DPP originally demanded the founding of a new and independent nation, in accordance with its "Taiwan Independence Party Constitution." But later, in order to allow Chen Shui-bian to run for Republic of China president in 2000, it resorted to backdoor listing, in accordance with its "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." Later, when the political situation changed in 2008, the DPP reversed itself yet again, and demanded the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution," in accordance with its "Resolution for a Normal Nation." Now the international, cross-Strait and domestic scenario is forcing the DPP to choose between backdoor listing or becoming a committed shareholder in the "Republic of China, Inc."

Chen Shui-bian opposes backdoor listing. But what is the DPP's position? Moreover, given international, cross-Strait, and domestic developments, is backdoor listing even an option for the Democratic Progressive Party anymore? The DPP's only realistic option is to come home to the Republic of China. Buy into the business. Stop engaging in the self-contradictory and fraudulent game of backdoor listing. After all, Chen Shui-bian has already made it impossible for the DPP to continue engaging in its hypocritical and self-deluding practice of backdoor listing.

The relationship between the DPP and Chen Shui-bian is the relationship between the DPP and Taiwan independence. The relationship between the DPP and Taiwan independence will determine the relationship between the DPP and swing voters. The DPP has failed to clarify its relationship to Taiwan independence. That is why it remains a political hostage of both the Patrician Ah-Bian Crowd and Plebian Ah-Bian Crowd. If in 2012 the DPP wants the Ah-Bian Crowd's votes, it will find it impossible to retain the swing vote.

The Democratic Progressive Party should become committed shareholders in the Republic of China, Inc. It should stop entertaining any fantasies about any would-be "Nation of Taiwan."

兩岸關係：杯子理論與屋頂理論
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.10.20 03:59 am

兩岸關係「以和平取代戰爭」的大勢應當已告確立；現在的互動準則是「先經後政／先急後緩／先易後難」。但是，「政治」雖被置於「後／緩／難」的部位，卻是遲早必須面對及處理的問題。如今雖非處理的時機，但不妨預作思考。

我們曾指出，兩岸關係不可能將「政」與「經」分割成兩個截然區隔的領域；因為，在重大的經濟互動中，必然已經蘊涵了重大的政治效應。例如，三通直航或ＥＣＦＡ，皆不只是經濟事件，同時也是重大的政治事件。雖然如此，兩岸畢竟仍有高層次的政治關係必須處理。

本文嘗試提出的思考是：從杯子理論到屋頂理論。先談杯子理論。中華民國是杯子，台灣是杯子裡面的水。過去北京的思維是，只想取水，而不要杯子。想像中，此法除非訴諸流血戰爭，不可能達成；但若訴諸武力，砸破杯子，恐將面對一灘覆水。

就歷史淵源看，中華民國這一只杯子，曾以辛亥革命締造共和，並主持北伐及抗日戰爭，且台灣亦由中華民國所光復；再就現實看，今天的台灣，在中華民國的杯子裡，是一個自里長至總統皆直選的民主政體。也就是說，「中華民國」這只杯子，是「中國論述」與「民主實踐」的結晶體；無論中共或台獨，誰要砸破這只杯子，誰便須面對一灘覆水。

北京近年來的「思想解放」是值得肯定的。從「中華民國已經滅亡」，改版到「一個中國就是台灣法典中的一個中國」，再到「雖然尚未統一／仍是一個中國」；不啻已默認中華民國的地位。至於所謂「反對法理台獨」及「主張維持現狀」，也就是承認「中華民國體制不是台獨」的意思。

在北京眼中，顯然亦已認知，沒有「中華民國」這只杯子，就沒有水。若沒有中華民國這只杯子，台灣對北京會比西藏及新疆更為棘手萬倍。所以，在可以想像的時空中，「杯水合體」是未來兩岸關係的重要準則之一。

更進一步的思考是「屋頂理論」。兩岸關係可能發展至建立某種政治聯結，如今或許言之過早，但想像中的那種政治聯結，自應建立在一個超越「中華民國」與「中華人民共和國」的「第三概念」或「上位概念」之下。北京近年不再稱「一個中國就是中華人民共和國」，並謂「大陸與台灣同屬中國的一部分」；這些論述都含有「九二共識」的意味，其潛台詞則是「一中各表」。顯易可見，這類論述皆有將「一個中國」逐漸「第三概念化」的跡象。

倘若「一個中國」是「第三概念」，兩岸關係未來即不無可能在「屋頂理論」下討論如何聯結。或許有兩種可能：一、組成邦聯，在邦聯憲法或邦聯基本法下聯結。二、經由「和平協議」的特定條款，作成「維持現狀」的法制架構。這兩種想法，可能仍是過渡方案，但亦可視為終極處理。

以上看法，或許兩岸皆有人會認為不合時宜或異想天開。但是，若想砸破杯子，如何處理覆水？若想留住水，則豈能砸破杯子？

杯子理論也許聽來不順耳，但其實這不啻已然是兩岸當局的現行政策。北京希望以杯保水，台灣當局則是藉水保杯（以台灣的民主體制來維護中華民國）。理由很簡單：兩岸關係唯有賴「和平發展」始能漸進處理；既然和平是主旋律，北京與台北皆不可能砸破杯子。

杯子理論與屋頂理論，其實是一體的兩面。但「杯子理論」著眼於維持「和平發展」的過程；而「屋頂理論」則是對進行政治聯結的可能思考。唯不論未來是否走上「屋頂理論」，但如今已可證實：「杯子理論」是「兩岸關係和平發展」的中心準則，殆無疑義。