A Ruling and Opposition Party Summit Can Be More than Political Gamesmanship

A Ruling and Opposition Party Summit Can Be More than Political Gamesmanship
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 8, 2010

Former Vice President Annette is the founder of the Jade Mountain Weekly. Yesterday she interviewed President Ma Ying-jeou at the Presidential Palace. The two engaged in a number of ascerbic exchanges. Afterwards Annette Lu appeared on a TV talk show. She revealed that she had posed the very same questions to former President Chen Shui-bian.
Annette Lu referred to this dialogue as a "Ruling and Opposition Leaders National Policy Debate." Next week's issue of Jade Mountain Weekly may well be characterized as a "Virtual Debate between Ma and Chen on National Policy." Call it a dialogue. Call it a debate. The person Ma Ying-jeou most needs to dialogue with or debate is DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen. It is not Annette Lu. Even less is it Chen Shui-bian.

The Ma administration has been in office for one year and eight months. Pundits have repeatedly stressed the need for direct communications between the ruling and opposition parties. But they have never been able to bring about a meeting between the "two Yings," i.e., Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen. According to Annette Lu, Ma has already made it known that he has agreed to such a meeting. Tsai has already acknowledged receipt of Ma's invitation. The very next day however, Tsai Ing-wen announced that while the DPP did not oppose communications between the ruling and opposition parties, "The important thing is that we need to know that the KMT is sincere. Communications must be over substantive issues. If the meeting is merely for the sake of political gamesmanship, there is no really no need."

Tsai Ing-wen's remark is nothing new. In 2008, the DPP lost the presidential election. Morale hit bottom. In the 2009 legislative by-election it scored a victory. Pundits called for a meeting between the "two Yings." A national policy dialogue between ruling and opposition leaders would be beneficial to political development and social harmony. Which party has or lacks political momentum would not be an issue. But Tsai Ing-wen refused to say anything other than "If the meeting is merely for the sake of political gamesmanship, there is no really no need." Ma Ying-jeou repeatedly offered Tsai Ing-wen both verbal and written invitations, but Tsai slammed the door in his face.

Tsai Ing-wen cited "political gamesmanship" as her reason to turn down the president's invitations. She did so with little hesitation. Anyone familiar with politicians' political calculations, knows that "political gamesmanship" is one of the most basic skills of the professional politician. But Tsai Ing-wen ignored a simple fact. Ma Ying-jeou is the one politician for whom this charge simply does not stick. Ma Ying-jeou is widely known as the one person least adept at political gamesmanship. He has been in office one year and eight months. His approval rating has hit rock bottom. Some pundits are even accusing him of "incompetence," largely because he lacks political finesse and is woefully inept at political gamesmanship.

During the Lee Teng-hui era, Huang Hsin-chieh, Shih Ming-teh, Hsu Hsin-liang, and newcomer Chen Shui-bian were all President Lee Teng-hui's guests of honor. The Democratic Progressive Party had just been reborn from the "dang wai" (party outsider) movement. The circumstances were favorable to the party. But its substantive strength was still considerably less than the KMT's. None of the Democratic Progressive Party leaders at the time criticized President Lee of poltical gamesmanship. None of them turned down his invitations. When Chen Shui-bian was in office, he urged opposition leaders to communicate with him. At the time the KMT and PFP had enough legislative seats to impeach Chen. Yet neither the chairmen of the two parties, Lien Chan and James Soong, refused to dialogue with the government. On the contrary. It was Chen Shui-bian who engaged in out of the blue political gamesmanship when he met with Lien Chan and James Soong. First he met with Lien Chan. No sooner had Lien Chan left the presidential palace, than the Executive Yuan announced that it was halting work on the Number Four Nuclear Plant. This led to a series of political repercussions. Lien Chan was no longer willing to meet with Chen. Nevertheless James Soong was still willing to participate in a secret meeting with Chen Shui-bian. Again the one who resorted to political gamesmanship was Chen Shui-bian. First he met with Soong. Then he spread rumors of a "Secret Soong Chen Meeting" between Soong and Mainland official Chen Yunlin.

Lien Chan and James Soong's experiences with ruling and opposition party "communications" have less than pleasant, thanks to Chen Shui-bian and the DPP. Is Tsai Ing-wen concerned that Ma Ying-jeou will engage in the same political gamesmanship that the DPP and Chen Shui-bian engaged in with Lien Chan and James Soong? If so, Tsai Ing-wen's concerns are misplaced. If Ma Ying-jeou had a tenth of Chen Shui-bian's skill at political gamesmanship, he would not be in his current predicament.

If Tsai Ing-wen's objection is that "communications must be over substantive issues," that is another matter. After all, dialogue between political leaders is not idle chatter. Before ruling and opposition party leaders engage in dialogue, they must make careful preparations. The two parties differ on a number of policies, particularly cross-Strait policy. No dialogue can avoid these issues. Therefore the two sides must consider how to allow compromise and concessions. Only then is a dialogue possible. Only then can "substantive issues" be dealt with. Such a goal may appear difficult. But it is not that difficult. Take a random example. Former Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Lin I-hsiung was determined to amend the laws, lowering the threshold for public referendums. Would Tsai Ing-wen refuse to allow this party elder to visit the presidential palace? Take another example. Legislative Yuan President Wang Jin-pyng and SEF Chairman Chiang Pin-kung believe the legislature should set up a cross-Strait affairs group. Ma Ying-jeou has so far refused to comment. Would Tsai Ing-wen refuse to meet with Ma in order to get the ball rolling? Years ago the KMT proposed setting up a cross-Strait affairs group. At the time DPP presidential office and executive branch leaders were the ones who stonewalled. Could that be why Tsai Ing-wen is embarrassed to broach the issue?

The Ma administration has been in office for one year and eight months. Ma Ying-jeou is no longer a leader who commands the support of over 70% of the public. Tsai Ing-wen is no longer the Democratic Progressive Party savior who cleaned up the mess left by Chen Shui-bian. A "two Yings" meeting would not benefit either leader at the expense of the other. It would merely benefit the Republic of China. It would merely give a little consideration to its many problems. Tsai Ing-wen must have the courage to transcend the DPP's usual political calculations and mindset. Only then can she emerge from under the shadow of the party's "Princes." Only then can she transform herself into a leader worthy of leading the nation.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.02.08
朝野高峰會 可以不是政治操作
本報訊

前副總統呂秀蓮日前以《玉山週報》創辦人的身分，入府專訪馬英九總統，兩人機鋒四起；會後，呂秀蓮即於晚上親上政論節目中透露，相同的問題已經問過前總統陳水扁，可以想見，這場事前被呂秀蓮定義為「朝野領袖的國政對談」，下周呈現在《玉山週報》，有可能成為馬、扁的「紙上國政辯論」。但不論是對談或辯論，馬英九最需要朝野對話的對象是民進黨主席蔡英文，而不是呂秀蓮，遑論隔空虛擬的陳水扁。

馬政府執政一年八個月，輿論三番兩次力陳朝野溝通或直接對話之必要，卻始終無法促成雙英會。照呂秀蓮的說法，已經轉達馬有相同意願見蔡，蔡則表示「知道了」。沒想到，隔天蔡英文一點轉圜都不給，直截了當說，民進黨不反對朝野溝通，「重點在要感受到誠意，溝通要有實質意義，如果只是淪為政治操作，那就不必了。」

蔡英文這句話一點都不新鮮，從二○○八年民進黨敗選，士氣跌到谷底，到二○○九年三合一與立委補選勝利，多數輿論一以貫之鼓勵雙英會，因為朝野領袖的國政對話於政治發展、社會和諧都有利，和哪一個黨氣勢旺或弱無關。蔡英文則從頭到尾只會說，「如果是政治操作就不必了！」這句話讓馬英九不論口頭或書信邀請，都打不開溝通之門。

蔡英文以「政治操作」拒絕總統的對話邀請，說來一點也不勉強，因為對任何熟悉政治算計的政客而言，「政治操作」是最基本的專業技巧。不過，蔡英文顯然忽略了，這句話獨獨用在馬英九身上不具說服力。馬英九是政壇公認最不懂得玩政治的人，執政一年八個月，民意聲望直直落，甚至被若干批評者重話指責為「無能」，大多和他缺乏政治手腕、不擅政治操作有關。

前總統李登輝執政時期，從黃信介、施明德到許信良，乃至後起之陳水扁，無人不是李的座上客，當年的民進黨才從黨外脫胎換骨，形勢雖好，實力卻遠遠不及國民黨，但是，當時的民進黨領袖，沒有人小鼻子小眼睛地批評總統政治操作而拒絕。陳水扁執政時期，力邀在野領袖溝通，當時的國、親兩黨國會席次加起來可以提出總統罷免案，兩位黨主席連戰和宋楚瑜也沒有拒絕入府對話，反倒是陳水扁在會見連宋時，以莫名奇妙的政治操作，前腳會連，連戰座車才離開總統府，行政院就宣布停建核四，以致往後政治波瀾不斷；即使如此，後來連戰不願再與扁見面，宋楚瑜還是密會陳水扁，結果大搞政治操作的還是陳水扁，前腳陳宋會，後腳就放話「宋陳密會」，密會的陳則是對岸的陳雲林。

連宋有這麼不愉快的朝野溝通經驗，全拜陳水扁和民進黨之賜，蔡英文莫非以民進黨或陳水扁之心，度馬英九之腹？果若如此，那蔡英文真是過慮了，如果馬英九有一、二陳水扁的本事，馬的處境不會像現在如此困窘。

如果，蔡英文介意的是「溝通要有實質意義」，那又另當別論，畢竟領袖對話不是閒聊天，朝野領袖對話前，必須經過縝密的前置作業，因為兩黨在若干政策、特別是兩岸關係大方向與政策作為上確有差異，既要談就不可能不觸及這些問題，既要觸及，兩方都必須思考妥協退讓之道，才有可能讓彼此的對話，產生「實質意義」。這樣的目標，看起來有點難，卻沒這麼難，隨便舉例，為公投苦行的民進黨前主席林義雄，念茲在茲的就是修法降低公投門檻，蔡英文難道不能為前輩入府一談嗎？再舉例，包括立法院長王金平和海基會董事長江丙坤都認為立法院應該成立兩岸事務小組，馬英九迄今不肯鬆口，蔡英文難道不能見馬，發揮臨門一腳的功能嗎？除非蔡英文有感於當年國民黨提出國會成立兩岸事務小組，阻擋拒絕的是民進黨府院高層，開不了這個口。

馬政府執政一年八個月，馬英九不再是挾七成以上民意支持的高聲望領袖，蔡英文也不再是才扛起民進黨後扁爛攤子的委屈主席，雙英會沒有誰拉抬誰的問題，只有肯不肯為台灣多做一點點、多想一點點的問題，只有勇敢跨出民進黨最擅長的政治算計與思維，蔡英文才能真正擺脫黨內天王陰影，躍升為足堪領導國政的領袖。