Discussing Democratic Evolution with the DPP

Discussing Democratic Evolution with the DPPUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 19, 2010

Incidents of physical assaults committed by the DPP within the Legislative Yuan are nothing new. The latest assault gave the DPP yet another convenient excuse to walk out of the emergency session. The DPP's tricks are clearly getting old. Let us take a moment to review the history of democracy on Taiwan. The era of reform was characterized by shrill slogans and violent acts. But martial law was lifted over 20 years ago. Yet the DPP remains attached to physical conflict. It assaults fellow legislators and sheds their blood at the slightest pretext. We travel the road to democracy, but somehow the farther we travel, the bleaker the landscape becomes.

Twenty years ago, DPP legislators assaulted their colleagues. They threw chairs and tore out microphones. They resorted to any and all means imaginable. They ended the so-called "10,000 year legislature." They promoted political reform and ended single-party rule. Their methods were radical, but received considerable public support. Their aim then was to make politics on Taiwan more mature and democratic. But the Legislative Yuan has been democratically elected for the past twenty years. One-party rule is long dead, as dead as the "10,000 year legislature." Two ruling party changes have taken place at the central government level. So why is the DPP still addicted to confrontation? Why does it persist in assaulting fellow legislators? Why does it persist in forcibly occupying the podium? Why does it persist in referring to majority rule as "majoritarian violence?" Does the DPP truly not realize that it is going nowhere?

Consider the spirit of representative government. The proportion of seats within the legislature are the result of popular elections. Legislators are authorized by voters to exercise law-making powers within the legislature, in accordance with parliamentary procedure. The power to legislate is the essence of representative politics. The current legislature has a Pan Blue majority and a Pan Green minority. This may not meet with the approval of the DPP, but it was a collective political decision on the part of the Republic of China electorate. Every political party must defer to such expressions of the public will. This is the basis of democracy.

The DPP has never won a majority within the legislature. The reason why is simple. It maintains an overwrought, extremist stance on national identity, and a narrow, bigoted view of "ethnic identity," or more accurately, "community group affiliation." As a result, it has never gained the trust of a democratic majority. Add to this the fiasco of the DPP's eight years in power, during which it proved utterly incapable of governing the nation or formulating a strategy for economic development. Its time in office only increased people's misgivings. The DPP stubbornly refuses to engage in soul-searching. Instead, it blindly lashes out in anger. Such behavior only leaves the public more disgusted, and only makes it harder for the DPP to make a comeback.

The process by which legislators are elected has undergone a long string of reforms. The reforms may involve the single district, two-vote system. They may involve the halving of the number of seats in the legislature. But the DPP took part in their passage and even proposed many of the reforms. The process by which legislators are elected to office is above reproach. Yet the DPP obstinately refuses to admit that a democratic majority considers its platform unacceptable. It endlessly resorts to stonewalling. It even incites and organizes street demonstrations. Such behavior is not merely high-handed and undemocratic. It shows that the DPP is unwilling to abide by the basic rules of democracy. Is the DPP truly unaware of these realities?

Elections are an essential component of democracy. A rational legislative process is an important component of democratic politics. The problem with the DPP is that it remains preoccupied with symbolic political gestures. It glosses over or avoids substantive policy matters. Over time, this deprives the government of checks and balances. It renders the legislative process crude and imbalanced. The DPP has long been derelict in its duty as an opposition party. Its irrational opposition to ECFA is merely the most recent example. Such opposition epitomizes the Green Camp's obstructionist attitude for the past twenty years.

In recent years, the Republic of China's democracy has stalled. A major factor is the DPP's refusal to let go of the past and move toward the future. During the early stages of the Republic of China's democratic evolution, the DPP made an undeniable contribution. But the Republic of China's politics has matured. Unfortunately the DPP refuses to mature along with it. An opposition party that can only assault fellow legislators is an opposition party that can only debase and marginalize itself. An opposition party that can only engage in mindless obstructionism, is an opposition party that has forfeited any right to lead the nation. How can the DPP possibly contribute to the growth of the Republic of China's democracy?

Look back at the DPP's path for the past twenty years. Look at what it has lost. It lost the enthusiasm and ideals of the "dang wai" era. It lost sight of the goals it set for itself. Twenty years is a long time. The DPP leadership has changed completely. Society on Taiwan has undergone generational change as well. The DPP would have the public believe that the assaults committed against fellow legislators are part of a "sacred struggle for democracy." Who, pray tell, buys into that?

The Republic of China's democracy must evolve. Both ruling and opposition parties must promote that evolution. We would like to remind the DPP of three things. One. The DPP must return to its proper role as a loyal opposition party. Two. The DPP must adopt opposition tactics consistent with the principle of proportionality. Three. The DPP must adopt a constructive approach to policy matters. Only by doing so can the DPP rediscover its purpose as an opposition party. Only by doing so can the DPP regain the public trust. A political party can refuse to grow up. But the public on Taiwan can hardly be expected to do the same.

和民進黨商榷民主「進化論」
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.07.19 02:32 am

立法院再打一架其實不是新鮮事，在野黨藉口退出臨時會，顯然也已招式用老。回顧台灣民主歷程，從改革年代走來，一路口號響亮、行動猛烈；但解嚴廿年過去，民進黨竟仍留戀肢體衝突的格局，國會動不動就演出暴力流血場面。這趟民主旅程，越走風景似乎越蕭瑟。

試想，廿年多前民進黨在立法院打架、丟椅子、扯麥克風，什麼抗爭手段沒用過？但當年是為了終結萬年國會、為了促進政治改革、為了打破一黨獨大，這些手段固然激烈，卻也能獲得民眾相當程度的支持，目的是希望台灣政治走向更成熟、更民主的境地。如今，立法院歷經廿多年的民主選舉，一黨獨大早已打破，萬年國會早已作古，政權也已兩次輪替；民進黨卻仍耽溺於對峙、霸台的衝突戰術，還在指責對手是「多數暴力」，民進黨沒發覺自己一直在原地踏步嗎？

先談「代議政治」的精神。國會席次是經由各地民眾投票而產生，立委根據選民的託付，在國會行使議事、立法之權，這就是代議政治的本質。目前的國會結構呈現藍大綠小，或許不符合民進黨的利益，但這正是台灣民眾集體的政治選擇，這樣的民意，任何政黨都應該加以尊重。這是民主政治最基本的遊戲規則。

民進黨無法在國會取得多數席次，主要原因是其國家認同有偏激傾向，族群主張亦流於狹隘，因而無法取得多數人民的信任。此外，民進黨在執政的八年，無法有效證明自己的國家治理能力，無法拿出積極的經濟策略來引導台灣的發展；這也讓不少民眾心存疑慮。民進黨不思在這些本質問題上自我反省、改進，卻一味訴諸肢體衝突，恐怕只會讓民眾愈發反感，使自己愈難以翻身。

再說，立委的產生方式歷經多次改革，無論是單一選區兩票制，或者席次減半，都是民進黨倡議並參與討論的結果。國會的產生程序既已無可置疑，民進黨卻拒絕承認自己不獲多數選民認同的事實，不斷在國會硬拗杯葛，甚至不時動員上街示威；這種表現，恐怕已不只是缺乏民主素養，而是根本無意承認民主政治了，民進黨自己難道沒有覺察到嗎？

選舉是民主的必要手段，國會理性議事則是政治實踐的重要場域。民進黨的問題，在過度沉迷於象徵性的政治杯葛，對實質性的政策討論卻蜻蜓點水，甚至刻意迴避切入；長此以往，不僅將使政府決策處於缺乏制衡的狀態，也將導致立法的粗糙和失衡。從這點看，民進黨作為在野黨，不僅是失職，也是不負責任的。反ＥＣＦＡ，只是最新的事例之一，卻集中反映了綠營廿年缺乏進步的硬拗心態。

事實上，台灣民主發展近年處於遲滯狀態，與民進黨一直留戀過往、不願往前走，有很大的關係。不可否認，在台灣民主萌芽階段，民進黨有過不可抹滅的貢獻；然而，當台灣政治到了「轉大人」的階段，民進黨卻拒絕長大。一個以打架、杯葛為能事的在野黨，其實是一種自我矮化與自我邊緣化；它失去了為國家指引方向的力量，台灣民主政治更如何提升？

回顧這廿多年走過的軌跡，民進黨失去的，何止是當初黨外前輩呼籲改革的熱情和理想，甚至也失去了自己的追求目標。廿年的時間不算短，民進黨檯面人物已經換了一批臉孔，台灣社會也已是一個世代更替，誰還會認同立院粗暴對抗是民主的神聖象徵？

台灣民主需要進化，朝野政黨皆然。我們要提醒民進黨三件事：一是回到忠誠反對黨的位置，二是採取合乎比例原則的抗爭制衡，三是運用積極的思維來思考並論述台灣的問題。如此，才能找到一個在野黨存在的價值，並重新獲取民眾的認同。一個政黨可以拒絕長大，但台灣主流社會不會選擇跟隨那樣的政黨。