DPP Infighting over the Five City Elections

DPP Infighting over the Five City Elections
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 11, 2010

During the 2008 presidential election, Chen Shui-bian and Frank Hsieh engaged in an internal DPP power struggle. They fought over personal power and the party's future. Eventually this internal struggle hijacked the DPP's presidential campaign.

Chen Shui-bian hoped to manipulate the presidential election. He hoped to maintain his status as the standard bearer for the Taiwan independence movement. He hoped to use that status to evade prosecution for corruption after leaving office. Presidential candidate Frank Hsieh was initially reluctant to express solidarity with Chen and reluctant to endorse the demand for a referendum on UN membership. But he lost to Chen Shui-bian. He also lost his bid for the presidency.

The upcoming mayoral elections for the five directly administered municipalities mirror internal struggles within the DPP for personal power and over the party's future. Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang are in coopetition over personal power and the party's future. Tsai and Su are the only two candidates for the 2012 presidential election. Su Tseng-chang, who is running for Taipei mayor, has vowed that if elected, he will serve out his term in full. Tsai Ing-wen, who is running for Xinbei City mayor, has said only that if elected, "we will be responsible to the end." Even this tiny difference leaves a lot to the imagination. Also, now that ECFA has become a plank in the DPP election platform, it will only intensify the Tsai vs. Su power struggle.

The DPP has demagogued the issue of ECFA so long it can no longer stop. Opposition to ECFA has become the clarion call in four out five DPP mayoral campaigns, including Tsai Ing-wen's campaign for Xinbei City mayor. Only Su Tseng-chang, in his campaign for Taipei mayor, has expressed reservations about opposing ECFA. So far he has made only two remarks about ECFA. He said "Entering (mainland) China means getting locked in (mainland) China" and "I favor opening, but with conditions." Given public sentiments in Taipei City, Su Tseng-chang may be wise to go easy on ECFA. On the other hand, Tsai Ing-wen, along with the three other DPP mayoral candidates, have been demagoguing the issue of ECFA. She has even threatened to raise such a ruckus that no one will have any peace. This is clearly inconsistent with the interests of Su Tseng-chang's election campaign.

Up until the Two Yings Debate, Tsai Ing-wen had yet to express any opposition to ECFA. She merely adopted a "go slow, add conditions" position. After losing the debate however, her rhetoric changed. She spoke of "abolishing ECFA once we assume power," and of "holding a referendum to abolish ECFA." She referred to the ROC as a "government in exile." She expressed opposition to our "economics above all attitude" and doubts about our "export-orientation." After Tsai Ing-wen announced her candidacy for Xinbei City mayor, and the TSU proposal for a referendum on ECFA was shot down, she adopted an even harder line on ECFA. She denounced ECFA as a "duet sung by the KMT and the CCP." She adopted the rhetoric of class struggle, claiming that "the conglomerates will benefit, but the poor will be victimized." Tsai Ing-wen has used the occasion to move closer to the Deep Greens. She is attempting to seize the party leadership, and shrink Su Tseng-chang's manuevering room. Su Tseng-chang initially proposed a "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" scenario. But Tsai Ing-wen wants a "Five Cities Network." Su Tseng-chang's marginalization is clear to see. Coopetition between Tsai and Su in the five mayoral elections has become a two way power struggle over who will call the shots in the five mayoral campaigns, and a prelude to the 2012 presidential election.

Internal DPP struggles over the five mayoral elections are more than a power struggle between Tsai and Su. Other demands have been made, including calls to "share party power" and demands that "the princes of the party must become standing committee members." Chen Chih-chung has announced his candidacy. DPP city council candidates have formed a "Chen Shui-bian Alliance." This represents another sort of inner-party struggle. This scenario confirms Taiwan's political destiny. Internecine power struggles within the DPP are an insoluble problem. They will go on forever. Then will be played up during elections. The larger interests of Republic of China citizens on Taiwan will never be addressed.

Tsai Ing-wen has already been thoroughly "DPP-ized." She has already embarked upon a one way path, politically and socially. She has already passed the point of no return. To consolidate her status within the party, and to gain an advantage over Su Tseng-chang, she has encouraged the DPP to adopt an anti-ECFA stance. She has spouted such extremist rhetoric as "a duet sung by the KMT and the CCP," and "the conglomerates will benefit, but the poor will be victimized." This is remarkably similar to how Chen Shui-bian encouraged the DPP to adopt such extremist rhetoric as the "rectification of names" and "one country on each side." The only difference is the issue at hand. Chen Shui-bian's thinking was "as long as the head gets through, the body can get through." But if Tsai Ing-wen categorically repudiates ECFA, and incites rich vs. poor class struggles, neither the head nor the body will get through. One can safely predict the outcome of both the five mayoral elections and the 2012 presidential election. Does Tsai Ing-wen really wish to incite class struggle on Taiwan? With the 2012 elections looming, does she really wish to turn the clock back to the era prior to cross-Strait flights and ECFA? If she does, then even if the head gets through, the body will not get through.

Taiwan is afflicted by a lethal defect. That defect is not the consensus formed by mainstream society. That defect was created by the DPP. Due to internal power struggles, the DPP is incapable of ever reaching a final consensus. Internal differences over the party line may provide leverage for political struggles within the party and on the island of Taiwan. But they are useless in cross-Strait relations and in the global arena. They cannot offer Taiwan any kind of future. Coopetition between Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang has once again left us with an insoluble dilemma.

伴隨五都選舉的民進黨內鬥
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.06.11 03:09 am

二○○八年總統大選，伴隨著發生民進黨內陳水扁與謝長廷的權力與路線鬥爭。最後，黨內鬥爭甚至凌駕了總統大選。

當時，陳水扁欲藉主導操作總統大選，以保全其台獨旗手的地位，做為卸任後因貪腐弊案對司法抗爭的本錢；競選總統的謝長廷原本對挺扁及入聯公投等操作均有保留，但皆不敵陳水扁，最後輸掉了總統大選。

如今的五都選舉，其實也與民進黨內的權力與路線鬥爭正在平行發展。蔡英文與蘇貞昌之間的競合關係，是這場權力與路線鬥爭的主軸。蔡蘇是民進黨問鼎二○一二總統大選的「唯二人選」，蘇貞昌選台北市長，有「當選任滿」的承諾；蔡英文選新北市長，卻只說「若當選，我們負責到底」。僅是此一差異，已有極大想像空間；何況，如今ＥＣＦＡ儼然已成民進黨五都選戰的主題，更將深化蔡蘇鬥爭。

民進黨將ＥＣＦＡ爭議炒作到今日地步，已是欲罷不能；看現今情勢，包括蔡英文在內的四都皆將持反ＥＣＦＡ的明銳立場，唯獨在台北市的蘇貞昌似仍有保留。蘇對ＥＣＦＡ，目前大約只有「前進中國／鎖進中國」，及「贊成開放／必須配套」這兩句口訣。以台北市的民情而言，蘇貞昌對ＥＣＦＡ輕描淡寫或許才是上策；蔡英文卻帶著其他四都大炒反ＥＣＦＡ，甚至揚言要鬧到「永無寧日」，這顯然未必符合蘇貞昌的選情利益。

蔡英文一直到四月雙英辯論時，猶未明白宣示「反對ＥＣＦＡ」；當時，她尚持「緩簽／配套」的立場。辯論失利後，她的言論明顯改變，包括：「執政後，公投廢ＥＣＦＡ」、「流亡政府論」、「否定經濟掛帥／質疑出口導向」等等。及至蔡英文宣布參選新北市後，又值台聯ＥＣＦＡ公投案被駁回，她的立場更趨尖銳，逕指ＥＣＦＡ是「國共唱和」，並緊咬「財團受益／窮人受害」的階級鬥爭論述。蔡英文藉此向深綠靠攏、佔奪黨內領導地位的同時，卻也壓縮了蘇貞昌的政治空間。蘇貞昌原本提供的劇本是「雙城奇謀」，但蔡英文要唱的是「五都連線」；如今，蘇貞昌的邊緣化已是有目共睹。蔡蘇在五都選舉中的競合關係，其實是二人在五都的龍頭地位之爭，亦是二○一二總統大選的前哨戰。

與五都選舉平行發展的黨內鬥爭，尚不止是蔡蘇角力而已。「釋出黨權」與「天王入中常會」則是另一齣。陳致中宣布參選，及市議員參選人出現「陳水扁連線」，也呈現了另一層面的黨內鬥爭。此一場景，再次印證了台灣政治上的一種宿命，那就是：民進黨的內鬥是一個不可能有解答的題目，而民進黨的內鬥既是沒完沒了，再透過選戰等戲碼的放大操作，台灣的大局也就不可能找到出路。

蔡英文已徹底「民進黨化」了；此去她在政治路線上及社會信任上已走上不歸路，皆已過了折返點。她為了自己的黨內地位，並對蘇貞昌取得優勢，將民進黨反ＥＣＦＡ的論述，引向「國共唱和／貧富鬥爭」的極端；這與陳水扁將民進黨引向「正名制憲／一邊一國」其實是異曲同工，只是換了一個題目。陳水扁的想法是「頭過身就過」；但蔡英文若全面否定ＥＣＦＡ，以炒作貧富鬥爭為能事，姑不論在五都選舉中，「頭」能不能過；但可預言，此一路線的「身」，恐怕絕無可能在二○一二過得了關。蔡英文難道想煽動一個階級對立的台灣，在二○一二回到前直航及前ＥＣＦＡ的時代嗎？恐怕即使是頭過，身也不會過。

台灣的致命問題，其實不在主流社會沒有形成最大公約數的共識，而是民進黨的內鬥找不到終局解答所致。黨內路線的搖擺與鬥爭，做為在黨內及島內政爭的槓桿則有餘；卻不能在兩岸關係及全球化平台上，為台灣找到生路。蔡英文與蘇貞昌的競合關係，再次呈現了此一無解的內鬥課題。