What Ever Happened to the DPP's "Political Platform for the Coming Decade?"

What Ever Happened to the DPP's "Political Platform for the Coming Decade?"China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 24, 2010

Following the Three in One Elections, the Democratic Progressive Party achieved a string of electoral victories. It has gathered momentum in the Five Cities Elections, and the KMT is feeling the heat. However, a recent reorganization of the party's power structure has caused the DPP to revert to form. The party is now caught in a power struggle. It has lost sight of the issues, and unable to offer any coherent policy proposals.

The workings of the DPP have been remarkably consistent with sociologist Robert Michel's "Iron Law of Oligarchy." To wit, the DPP's euphemistic "democratic centralism." The DPP's Central Standing Committee and Central Executive Committee elections have long been held hostage to factional power struggles. Even Annette Lu recently became another "white bunny who strayed into the jungle." She unsuccessfully tried to seize power within the Central Standing Committee. Her bid was much too naive. The DPP nomination process has long been decided by party factions or party bosses. No one has ever seized power on the basis of personal charisma.

The current "new faces, old forces" power struggle has gone too far. Chen Sheng-hong is the head of a local DPP political machine. He and his wife, DPP legislator Hsue Ling want their son to be made a member of the Central Standing Committee, so that he can run for city councilman. Chen Sheng-hong had himself transferred to the Central Standing Committee, and made Chairman of the Central Evaluation Committee. The DPP is the largest opposition party on the island. Yet it allows itself to be manipulated by a single family. The Party Chairman and Party Princes have yet to utter a single word in protest. They have demeaned themselves by kowtowing to the demands of power.

The New Tide Faction, the largest faction in the DPP, is not much better. In order to counter Annette Lu and seize three seats on the Standing Committee, it endorsed Yen Hsiao-ching, an inexperienced Kaohsiung County Councilman for Central Standing Committee member. The Central Standing Committee should not be a gerentocracy. But the new generation is politically unqualified. They were nominated to the Central Standing Committee purely to protect the interests of their respective factions. Such a Central Standing Committee will inevitably degenerate into a "smoke-filled room" for the divvying up of factional spoils, not a forum for the discussion of important policies.

Politics has always been about the distribution of power. But the conduct of the DPP is cause for concern. It is the reason why the DPP cannot find a new direction. Party elections are all about "power for the sake of power." They represent what the party is really about. The party may not be able to explain its policies. But its objective is plain for all to see -- to seize power, and nothing else.

The DPP, whose current objective is to regain power, pales before the DPP prior to gaining power. Before the DPP gained power, it understood that its cross-Strait policy was its Achilles Heel. During debates over the party's Mainland policy, party insiders and outsiders worked closely to arrive at a consensus. Dissenters wtihin the DPP expressed their opposition openly. For one, this was consistent with intra-party democracy. For another, public debate involving diverse views offered the greatest possibility of arriving at workable policy. In 1999 it allowed the DPP to propose its comparatively moderate "Resolution on Taiwan's Future," and to ameliorate voter anxiety.

In 2008 the DPP was routed. One reason was Chen family corruption. But another reason was hardline Taiwan independence cross-Strait policies that moved far away from the political center. Tsai Ing-wen has been DPP chairman for two years. Yet the DPP has deliberately refused to offer a clear cross-Strait policy. The party leadership is afraid that cross-Strait policy debate may anger Deep Greens and cause a split within the party. But refusing to discuss such issues is tantamount to allowing Deep Green hate speech to monopolize the debate. Given such an atmosphere, any cross-Strait negotiations or agreements will inevitably be characterized as "Selling out Taiwan!" ECFA will inevitably be characterized as "the establishment of a One China Market," as "the first step towards reunification," and "the disenfranchisement of the disadvantaged."

Tsai Ing-wen repeated appealed to DPP legislators to engage in rational discussion of ECFA. But Deep Greens dictated policy. Therefore bloody clashes were entirely predictable. What's worse, the DPP has yet to offer a reasonable cross-Strait policy. Its opposition to ECFA is rife with internal contradictions. If ECFA is really all bad and no good, Tsai Ing-wen should have threatened a referendum to repeal ECFA long ago. The DPP should have been eager to add a sunset clause to ECFA. But some DPP leaders are afraid Beijing might attempt to influence the election by terminating ECFA.

The DPP's internal contradictions are not limited to cross-Strait policy. The DPP has accused the Ma administration of giving tax cuts to the rich. But DPP legislators took the lead by proposing a 17.5% tax cut for big business, forcing the KMT to raise the ante. The Five Cities Elections are upon us. DPP elders are asking Lin Yi-hsiung to rejoin the party, and work for its future. But Lin Yi-hsiung demands a halt to the construction of the Number Four Nuclear Plan, or a referendum to that effect. Has the DPP leadership taken this into account? The DPP has never offered a coherent energy efficiency and carbon reduction policy. Yet this is clearly an important issue that every political party in the 21st century must think through.

Any political party that wishes to return to power, must offer a set of policies appropriate for a new era. The British Conservative Party had the courage to propose unpopular measures such as streamlining the government. Nevertheless it won the support of voters come election time. For the sake of peace, Tsai Ing-wen proposed a "Political Platform for the Coming Decade." It demonstrated her desire for a responsible policy. But the DPP is courageous only during internal power struggles. It is pusillanimous during debates over important policy. That is why it is hard to be optimistic about the fate of the Political Platform for the Coming Decade.

民進黨10年政綱哪裡去了?
2010-07-24
中國時報

三合一選舉之後，民進黨連選連勝；五都選舉，氣勢更直逼國民黨。不過，日前的一場黨內權力結構改組，卻將民進黨打回原形。更嚴重的是，舉黨不但汲汲營營於權力競逐，事實上也失去討論問題的能力，更別說要能整合出一套執政後可行的政策論述。

民進黨運作一向頗為符合社會學家羅伯米契爾所說的「寡頭鐵律」，也就是該黨美其名的「民主集中制」。因此，民進黨歷來的中常委、中執委選舉，都是依派系邏輯運作。呂秀蓮這次「老白兔誤闖叢林」，在中常委爭奪戰中失利，確實有點天真過頭；畢竟，民進黨黨職選舉向來要看派系老大或黨內山頭臉色的，沒有人可以靠個人魅力出線。

只是這次「新臉孔、舊勢力」的權力角逐戰，確實玩過頭。民進黨大票倉陳勝宏、立委薛淩夫婦支持要參選市議員的兒子出任中常委，陳勝宏自己更轉任要監督中常會的中評會主委。堂堂最大在野黨，竟讓一家人這樣玩，黨主席、天王們都不敢置一詞，權力妥協鑿痕斑斑。

民進黨最大派系新潮流也不遑多讓，為了防堵呂秀蓮，並搶攻三席中常委，他們同樣推出資歷不深的高雄縣議員顏曉菁擔任中常委；中常會也許不該弄到老人政治當家，但是這些沒有太多政治資歷的新生代，擺明就是代理人，到中央幫派系護盤，看守利益。這樣的中常會，必然淪為純粹派系分贓的場所，不可能討論重大政策。

政治本來就是攸關權力分配。但，當前民進黨的作為之所以令人憂慮，在於民進黨無能擘畫新方向。因此黨內選舉的「為權力而權力」，其實就是整黨具體而微的寫照。政策如果說不清楚，民進黨的目標，就是赤裸裸的贏取權力而已。

志在奪回政權的民進黨，甚至還比不上未執政時。執政前的民進黨，至少還知道兩岸政策是選舉罩門；黨內正式舉辦中國政策辯論會，黨內外人士共襄盛舉，民進黨不同主張者大鳴大放。一來，這是黨內民主，第二、經過各界菁英言辭討論，最可能從論辯中找出可行的主張，民進黨也才可能在一九九九年時提出立場較溫和的《台灣前途決議文》，化解選民疑慮。

民進黨二○○八年大敗，除了扁家貪瀆外，極獨的兩岸政策偏離中間路線也是主因。可是，蔡英文擔任主席二年來，民進黨卻刻意不討論兩岸政策方向。黨高層憂心，對兩岸政策的討論，可能會激怒深綠、再挑起民進黨分裂危機；但是，迴避討論的後果是，民進黨形同任由深綠的仇中言論把持。在這樣的氛圍下，任何兩岸談判、協議都是「賣台」，兩岸簽ＥＣＦＡ不但是建立一中市場，更是統一的第一步，弱勢民眾也將無立錐之地。

即使蔡英文三令五申，要求黨籍立委在國會殿堂理性討論ＥＣＦＡ；但是在深綠主導政策基調下，流血抗爭完全是可以預期的結果。更嚴重的是，民進黨未提出一套合理兩岸論述，反ＥＣＦＡ反得矛盾百出；既然ＥＣＦＡ百害而無一利，蔡英文更是早就揚言執政後要公投廢止ＥＣＦＡ，民進黨應該樂見兩岸ＥＣＦＡ協議中的終止條款才是。但，近來民進黨中卻有人擔憂，未來大陸會以威脅終止ＥＣＦＡ來操作、影響選情。

民進黨政策自相矛盾之處，還不只兩岸政策而已。民進黨批評馬政府減稅政策圖利富人，但民進黨團卻率先在國會提案將營所稅降到百分之十七點五，逼使國民黨再加碼；五都選舉到了，民進黨大老又呼喚林義雄再入黨，一起為團結的民進黨打拚，只是，民進黨對林義雄相當在意的「停建核四」或「核四公投」主張想清楚了嗎?事實上，民進黨從未提出完整的能源或節能減碳政策，而這是二十一世紀每個執政黨都必須想清楚的重要課題。

任何政黨要重返執政，都必然要針對新局提出一套政策方向，如英國保守黨就勇於在大選時提出不討好的精簡財政措施，一樣得到選民支持；持平而言，蔡英文之前提出「十年政綱」，就是有心提出一套負責任的政策方向，但當民進黨內勇於爭奪權力、卻怯於討論政策時，十年政綱的最後下場，令人無法樂觀！