Cross-Strait Policy: Determined by Helmsmen, or Public Opinion?

Cross-Strait Policy: Determined by Helmsmen, or Public Opinion?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 27, 2010

This newspaper published a series of "Six New Year's Editorials," as well as an editorial entitled, "Cross-Strait Antidote: From Reunification to Reconnection." We raised a number of cross-Strait issues, and received a number of responses from both sides. One of the responses from the Taiwan side compared Taiwan to a ship at sea. It argued that the captain of the ship must fulfill his duty as helmsman. He can hardly allow the ship to drift with the current.

"Navigating the seas requires a helmsman" was a slogan from the Cultural Revolution. It was also a symbol of authoritarianism. It likens the relationship between those in power and the general public, to the relationship between a ship's helmsman and the ship's passengers. It represents a feudal rather than democratic mindset.

The Helmsman Theory argues that "the Ma administration follows public opinion, rather than leads public opinion." The Helmsman Theory argues therefore that Ma Ying-jeou is "a helmsman without direction." The Helmsman Theory opposes the idea that "Taiwan's future should be decided by 23,000 million people." It argues that in cross-Strait policy, the Ma administration should "lead public opinion." that it should be a helmsman with a direction.

In fact however, under a democracy "the views of those in power" and "public opinion" are one and the same. They are not in opposition to each other. Those in power derive public policy from public opinion. The public is in turn inspired by those in power. The two interact with each other. This is how democracy normally functions. The Chen regime incited eight years of unrest. The Ma administration's cross-Strait policy calls for "no reunification, no independence, no use of force." It has established three direct links and signed ECFA. One cannot claim that the Ma administration "lacks direction." One cannot claim that the Ma administration is "drifting with the current." One cannot claim that Ma Ying-jeou has defaulted on the role of "helmsman." We believe the Ma administration's cross-strait policy , reflects both views of those in power, and mainstream public opinion.

If one wishes to talk about the Helmsman Theory, then Chen Shui-bian is the perfect example. He had a "firm direction." He advocated Taiwan independence. He obstinately refused to respond to the aspirations of the public for cross-Strait reconciliation. Instead he insisted on promoting Taiwan independence. His attempt to "lead public opinion" was a perfect expression of the premise that "navigating the seas requires a helmsman." But in the end, Chen Shui-bian as helmsman failed to establish Taiwan's direction. Instead, as American analysts put it, "public opinion led Taiwan out of the Chen Shui-bian Nightmare." As we can see, viewing the helmsman and public opinion as separate and opposed to each other, leads to serious mistakes. Even Beijing says it is "pinning its hopes on the Taiwan public." Why is public policy formulated in accordance with public opinion characterized as "drifting with the current?" Why assume that the direction taken by the public is not the right direction?

In cross-Strait policy, even the opinion of isolated members of the public must be carefully considered. The common people on both sides are suffering. Why assume that the views of any helmsman will not conform to public opinion? Why assume that they must override public opinion?

On Taiwan, when it comes to political views or political values, democracy trumps cross-Strait matters. If one wishes to oppose Taiwan independence, one must resort to democratic means. One must have faith that democracy is capable of dealing with the issue. Otherwise, one may well end up like Chen Shui-bian. If one advocates reunification, reintegration, or reconnecting, on the other hand, one must also resort to democratic means. Consider the rapid progress made over the past two years. Democracy is something Taiwan demands. It is also something Beijing is pursuing. How can cross-Strait issues be decided by a helmsman whose views are diametrically opposed to public opinion? It matters not whether the helmsman is in Taipei or Beijing. Otherwise, why speak of "pinning one's hopes on the Taiwan public?"

As for the Helmsman Theory, why link that to this newspaper editorial? Advocates of the Helmsman Theory believe that Ma Ying-jeou's advocacy of the "1992 Consensus," "One China, Different Interpretations," "Republic of China", and "no reunification, no independence, no use of force," is phony, fraudulent, lacking in direction, and ineffective. They consider it the equivalent of Chen Shui-bian's advocacy of Taiwan independence or an independent Taiwan. These people assert or insinuate that this newspaper's editorial pages are a mouthpiece for the Ma administration. They accuse this newspaper editorials of advocating Taiwan independence, an independent Taiwan, the two-states theory, a Republic of China in name only, as lacking direction, and drifting with the current. What do such absurd and bizarre charges represent, but a 21st century version of the Inquisition?

Long ago we declared that our editorials have nothing to do with the Ma administration. Once again we solemnly declare that our editorials have "zero" connection with the Ma administration. Such smear tactics have actually appeared in the writings of self-proclaimed scholars. This is truly astonishing. If in order to establish their own doctrine, these critics wish to characterize Ma Ying-jeou as an advocate of "Taiwan independence," We would take strong exception. But we would point out that we do not speak for Ma Ying-jeou. These are merely matters of opinion, subjective evaluations by third parties. But to claim that the United Daily News advocates Taiwan independence, an independent Taiwan, the two-states theory, or a Republic of China in name only, is absurd. Such vicious attacks merely make one wonder whether such individuals have any cognitive ability.

Cross-Strait issues have been the subject of much discussion. Even a fool can occasionally have a good idea. Even a wise man can make a mistake. The defects of democracy cannot obscure its virtues. We could have engaged in a constructive dialogue. We could have addressed each others' shortcomings. But if one arbitrarily accuses others of advocating "Taiwan independence." or of "lacking direction," merely to flatter oneself, then isn't one setting oneself up as a "helmsman?"

蒼生尋岸：大海航行靠舵手或民意？
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.09.27 03:15 am

本報《元旦六論》及《兩岸解藥：從統一論到連結論》系列社論，討論兩岸議題，在兩岸皆見回響。其中有一種來自台灣內部的說法是：在兩岸局勢中，台灣像是一條船在大海中航行，船長須當舵手，豈可隨波逐流？

「大海航行靠舵手」是文革口號，也是專政圖騰。將主政者與人民的關係，比喻成舵手與乘客的關係；這是封建政治文學，但未必是民主政治的生理。

「舵手論」認為，在兩岸政策上，「由於馬政府的思維是跟著民意走，而非引導民意」，因而認定馬英九是「一個沒有方向的舵手」。「舵手論」者也反對「台灣前途應由二千三百萬人決定」的說法，認為馬政府在兩岸政策上應有「引導民意」的作為，當一個主導方向的「舵手」。

其實，在民主政治中，「主政者的意念」與「民意」，二者並非分割與對立的概念。主政者從民意中提煉政策，及民眾受到主政者情操的感召，二者相激相盪，皆是民主政治的正常生理。據此以論馬政府的兩岸政策，在扁政府八年的動亂之後，標舉「不統／不獨／不武」，完成了三通直航、簽訂了ECFA；這恐怕不能說馬政府「沒有方向」，亦好像不能說馬政府「隨波逐流」，也似乎不能說馬英九有虧於「舵手」的角色。我們認為，現階段馬政府的兩岸政策，大致反映出主政者意念與主流民意在此階段的最佳交集。

說到「舵手論」，陳水扁應是最鮮明的例證。他有最堅定的「方向」，硬是主張台獨；他也絕不回應民意希望兩岸和解的願望，非要主張台獨。這種「引導民意」的意志，正是「大海航行靠舵手」的典範。然而，最後陳水扁這位「舵手」並未能宰制台灣的「方向」，反而是「民意」帶領了台灣走出「陳水扁的夢魘」（美國的評論）。可見，在民主政治中，將「舵手」與「民意」視為分割與對立的概念，極易出錯。何況，連北京也說，「寄希望於台灣人民」，則為何說在台灣民意中提煉政策即是「隨波逐流」？更為何認為民意的「方向」就一定不是正確的「方向」？

在這個連一家釘子戶的「民意」都要仔細斟酌的兩岸情境中，為何會在兩岸蒼生怒海尋岸的苦難中，假定「舵手」的意志縱然不符「民意」，卻仍應凌越民意？

在台灣，不論就政治觀點或政治價值言，民主問題都超越兩岸問題；若是反對台獨，要用民主方式達成，並要相信民主體制有能力處理這個問題（否則陳水扁為何有此下場？）；倘是主張兩岸「統一」、「統合」或「連結」，也要以民主方式進行（看看這兩年進度神速）。民主是台灣的堅持，也是北京的追求。兩岸問題豈可由一名假設與「民意」背離的「舵手」決定？不論這名「舵手」是在台北或北京。否則，何必談什麼「寄希望於台灣人民」？

至於「舵手論」為何扯上本報社論？「舵手論」者認為，馬英九的「九二共識」、「一中各表」、「中華民國」、「不統／不獨／不武」，不是假的、騙人的，就是沒有方向、沒有效用；且不啻就等同於「與陳水扁一樣」的台獨或獨台。接下來，這些人就不斷明示或暗示，本報系列社論是在為馬政府放話，於是就將本報社論，也說成是台獨、獨台、兩國論、假中華民國、沒有方向、隨波逐流。這種荒謬離奇的場景，豈不是廿一世紀的文字獄與火刑柱？

我們早已聲明，系列社論與馬政府「完全無關」；現在可以再鄭重說一次，系列社論與馬政府的關係是「零」。這種扣帽子的手段，竟然出現在自命為學者之輩，實在令人駭異。若為了樹立自己的「學說」，將馬英九說成「台獨」，我們頗不以為然，但爾我皆「子非馬英九也」，這畢竟只是雙方對第三者見仁見智的評價；不過，若說聯合報社論是主張台獨、獨台、兩國論，是假中華民國，這種誅心之論則恐怕會令人有「此人究竟有無認知能力」的質疑。

兩岸議題，議論紛紜；一得之愚固可貴，千慮一失亦瑕不掩瑜，原可相激相盪，截長補短。但若恣意將他人誣為「台獨」或「沒有方向」，以自我抬舉，豈是自立為「理論舵手」的正途？