The Same Tired Rhetoric: Politics on Taiwan Spins Its Wheels

The Same Tired Rhetoric: Politics on Taiwan Spins Its Wheels
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 7, 2010

Political discourse on Taiwan has been plagued by the same tired rhetoric, repeated ad infinitum. Recently the situation has gotten worse. The level of political discourse has actually regressed. This warrants close consideration -- even alarm. First, the DPP announced their mayoral candidates for the five directly administered municipalities. Their slogan was "the second siege of the cities from the countryside." This was followed by a speech by Tsai Ing-wen, in which she said "the Republic of China is a government in exile," igniting intense controversy.

Slogans such as "besiege the cities from the countryside," and "government in exile" are fighting words. For some they may well inflame passions. For others they may cause anxiety and unease. What is most noteworthy about these slogans however, is not that they are so provocative, but that they are so stale and petty parochial. Two changes in ruling parties have taken place. Yet certain political parties still invoke them in an effort to incite voter sentiments. These slogans actually elicited a positive response. What does that tell us, if not that democracy on Taiwan has regressed?

The DPP first shouted the slogan "besiege the cities from the countryside" twenty years ago. Ten years it succeeded in "transforming the blue sky into the green earth." Ten years ago, it successfully effected a change in ruling parties at the central government level. Yet Tsai Ing-wen is singing a "besiege the city" marching song. She seems to be attempting to blank out eight years of unbridled Chen regime corruption and incompetence, in order to allow the DPP to make a comeback. The problem is that over the past twenty years politics on Taiwan has changed. It has undergone repeated ups and downs. Once society was filled with hope as it looked forward to democratic reforms. Today society finds itself mired in "ethnic" (communal) schisms and political and economic debacles. Society today has a totally different face. Society today has a totally different atmosphere. The Green Camp is now trotting out its old slogans. But besides provoking public frustration with democracy's problems, what sort of vision and inspiration can it offer for the future?

Even more shocking was Tsai Ing-wen's "government in exile" rhetoric. It was even more reactionary and retrograde than Lee Teng-hui's 1994 rhetoric about "alien regimes." It inadvertently revealed the fundamental thinking in her heart of hearts. Tsai Ing-wen was once seen as a rational and clear-headed leader. Her rise to the leadership of the DPP was viewed as a positive development. But ever since she revealed her hidden side, the public has become skeptical about her true character.

Rhetoric about so-called "alien regimes" or "governments in exile" maliciously incite social divisions. Worse still, they are fundamental betrayals of moral and political responsibility. Tsai Ing-wen was the chief policymaker behind the "avoid haste, be patient" and "closed door" policies. Does she feel no responsibility whatsoever for her "government in exile" rhetoric? Last year Chen Shui-bian took advantage of his status as a former Republic of China "president in exile" to go crying to Washington, raising both eyebrows and doubts about his sanity. Tsai Ing-wen openly abetted Ah-Bian's "government in exile" rhetoric. Just where does she hope to lead the DPP? Just where does she intend to push the ROC?

In fact the regression of political discourse on Taiwan did not begin this year. Symptoms of regression have been apparent for years. They have merely been drowned out by raucous political mobilization and overshadowed by facile political sophistry. One might say this exemplifies the degeneration of political thought and practice on Taiwan.

Take the death penalty controversy for example. It was the result of bipartisan "cooperation." Over the years, both blue and green administrations have taken a highly technical approach toward the abolition of the death penalty. The judicial, legislative and executive branches have made no effort to seek fundamental solutions rooted in the law. Only the Ministry of Justice made a half-hearted effort to abolish the death penalty through "non-implementation." Even the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty has made no effort to abolish the death on the basis of humanitarianism, or to convert the public on the basis of human rights. All it does is stubbornly delay the execution of death row inmates by demanding constitutional interpretations, in order to maintain Taiwan's "human rights image." Once such superficial efforts run up against public opinion, the cover provided by the judiciary is immediately blown.

Why does democracy on Taiwan continue to spin its wheels? For three main reasons. One. The Green Camp refuses to forsake its expedient strategy of inciting of "ethnic" (communal) animosities. This ensures that politics will continue to incite hatred and confrontation, rather than foster equality, freedom, and empathy. Two. The Blue Camp worships at the altar of pragmatism. It is adept at muddying the political waters, but terrified of debating higher principles. It has never been able to clarify the issues or assuage Green Camp doubts. Instead it has repeatedly danced to the Green Camp's tune, and repeatedly returned society to its starting point. Three. The meaning of democracy has been distorted. Democracy on Taiwan has been reduced to mere electioneering. After each election everyone immediately begins planning for the next round of competition. Implementation of policies and serving the public are lost amidst the smell of cordite.

Over the past twenty years, the public on Taiwan has endured painful democratic changes. They have listened to countless moving political slogans. They have participated in one town hall meeting after another, and one street protest after another. In the end, their reward has been anguish at seeing their society torn apart, frustration at witnessing their political leaders blowing hot and cold, and dismay at the realization that their vaunted democracy is going nowhere. After two changes in ruling parties, being forced to listen to politicians shouting the same tired old slogans truly is depressing.

論述輪迴：台灣政治的原地踏步現象
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.06.08 02:21 am

台灣政治上最近出現的論述輪迴與退化現象，值得深思與警惕。先是民進黨推出了五都選戰人選，喊出「第二次鄉村包圍城市」的口號；接著，蔡英文在演講時，提出「中華民國是一個流亡政府」的說法，引發強烈爭議。

「鄉村包圍城市」和「流亡政府」都是充滿挑戰意味的口號，可能勾起一些人重燃戰火的激情，也可能引發另一些人憂心動盪的焦慮。值得注意的其實不是口號本身的挑釁意味，而是其內容的陳腐與褊狹。經過兩次政黨輪替，政黨卻還在引用陳年老調來訴求選民，而且居然能迸出火花，台灣的民主豈不是在向後倒退？

民進黨最早喊出「地方包圍中央」，是廿一年前的事，並在十多年前實現「藍天變綠地」，更在十年前完成中央的政黨輪替。如今蔡英文高唱「包圍」戰歌，彷彿跳過扁政府貪腐無能的八年不提，民進黨即可捲土重來再造顛峰。問題是，台灣廿年來政治起伏，從當年整個社會對民主改革充滿渴望，到如今族群撕裂、政經顛躓，不僅面目全非，氛圍也大不相同。現在綠營重拾舊口號，除了勾起人們對民主磨難的嘆惋，能帶來對台灣前景的鼓舞嗎？

更令人吃驚的，是蔡英文的「流亡政府」說，比起李登輝一九九四年的「外來政權」說，還要更倒退千里，也不經意地反射出她心底的基本思維。作為民進黨領導人，蔡英文被認為理性清新，這是可喜的現象；但從她偶或流露的詭譎多變或刻意隱匿的一面，卻讓人對她的底蘊充滿疑慮。

所謂外來政權或流亡政府，其危險不僅是在刻意製造對立而已，更嚴重的，是從政治道德面根本背棄了自身應負的責任。蔡英文其實是從「戒急用忍」到「鎖國」政策的主要操刀手，對於她在「流亡政府」中的角色，難道毫無應負的責任嗎？再說，陳水扁去年藉前中華民國「流亡總統」之名向美國告狀，引起舉世側目，認為這絕非神智清明之舉；而蔡英文竟然公開跟進阿扁的流亡說，這想把民進黨帶向哪裡？又將把台灣推向何方？

其實，台灣的論述退化，並不是今年才發生的事，這樣的現象已經存在多年，只是一直被喧囂不寧的政治動員及華而不實的表層論述所掩蓋。甚至可以說，論述退化其實正是台灣政治思維退化及實踐無能的共同結晶。

以死刑的爭議為例，就是兩黨「合作」造成的結果。多年來，藍綠政府都採取高度技術主義的手法來處理「廢死」，司法、立法及行政部門無一企圖從法律面尋求根本解決，只讓法務部以消極的「不執行」來達成虛假的廢死。包括廢死聯盟，也不在人道訴求或人權教育上下功夫，只一味透過釋憲的程序杯葛讓死刑犯苟延殘喘，以維持台灣在「人權形象」上的評分。這些表面功夫，一碰到民意沸揚，司法的掩護當然要立刻破功。

台灣的民主為何原地踏步，從論述上看，主要原因有：一，綠營不願放棄族群動員的便宜戰略，使得政治持續被導向仇恨及對峙。一個被仇恨動員的社會，很難產生平等、自由的同理心。二，藍軍的現實主義作祟，擅於和稀泥而怯於論戰，始終無法釐清或化解綠營的質疑，卻一再隨綠營的戰歌起舞，讓社會反覆被帶回原點。三，由於對民主的曲解，台灣的民主政治被簡化到只剩下「選舉」，每次選舉結束，馬上又進入下一回合的爭逐；至於施政、服務人民的問題，完全被埋沒在煙硝中。

這廿年，台灣人民經歷了痛快淋漓的民主變革，聆聽過無數動人的政治口號，追逐過一場又一場的政見會及街頭運動；到最後，品嘗到社會撕裂的痛苦，見識了政治領袖翻雲覆雨的本事，同時也認清了民主停滯不前的窘境。兩次政黨輪替之後，聽到政治人物還在呼喊如此陳腐的口號，真是教人憂鬱不安。