Democracy and The Rule of Law, From Tranquility to Anxiety

Democracy and The Rule of Law, From Tranquility to Anxiety
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 21, 2010

Judgments have been rendered in some of the Chen family corruption cases. On November 11, 2008, Chen Shui-bian was taken into custody, On November 11, 2010, a judgment was rendered in the Chen Shui-bian corruption case. At first, no one knew when the Chen corruption case would reach a resolution. They always assumed it would evolve as Chen Shui-bian described, "stalled between the second and third instance trials." The public was once filled with anxiety and anger. Now, only two years later, the gavel has come down in the third instance trial. Judgments have now been rendered in the trial of the century.

Anxiety and suspicion are the primary emotions felt on Taiwan. People feel anxiety because they cannot endure the waiting. People feel suspicion because they cannot trust the system. The public on Taiwan is fickle. But given the record of the Chen corruption case, democracy may require a little more patience and calm.

Two years ago, Chen Shui-bian was taken into custody for the very first time. No one knew how the case would evolve. Under Chen Tsung-ming, the Special Investigative Unit remained hamstrung. Huang Fan-yen fled the country. Efforts to recover embezzled funds from Switzerland ran into a myriad of obstacles. Chou Chan-chun released suspects without bail. All this aroused public suspicion and anger towards the justice system. But despite public controversy and setbacks, judgments were finally rendered in at least some of the Chen corruption cases. They have at least, not been too far off the mark. They have at least, not deviated too much from the public's perception of the law and justice.

Two years have passed. For the public, the experience has been long and difficult. But as far as the justice system is concerned, two years to reach a third instance judgment is considered swift. It is the amount of time necessary to undergo all the required steps. During this period, many people directed their anxiety and suspicion at President Ma Ying-jeou. They concluded that his "weakness" and "lack of drive" contributed to a watch and wait attitude among justice system officials. But suppose Ma Ying-jeou had intervened in the case while it was still in the courts? Suppose he had issued directions to any entities or officials within the justice system? Not only would he immediately have been accused of "political interference in the administration of justice," the credibility of the justice system would have been destroyed. The judgment rendered in the Chen corruption case could not have be accepted as calmly as it has been today.

After two years of investigations and trials, the once almighty Chen Shui-bian has been forced to bow before the law. The once glib DPP has been rendered speechless. Looking back over the past two years, we see that progress toward democracy and the rule of law has not been easy on Taiwan. Nevertheless it has been made. The road to democracy and the rule of law has not been as smooth as we once imagined. But it may also be reached right before our eyes.

The sublimation of democracy sometimes occurs in silence and darkness. Only a few months ago, the DPP denounced ECFA, accusing the Ma administration of bringing ruination and humiliation upon the nation. Now it has fallen silent. In the end, time will tell. What are such changes but forward steps on the rugged road toward democracy? Consider the water spinach controversy. It was initially spun as a major scandal. But after a few days of clarification, it turned out to be mere political farce. Chou Chan-chun is a judge with a clear-cut political stance. He provided society with a valuable object lesson. Chou Chan-chun twisted the Chen corruption case according to his whims. But he inadvertently proved that "The courts are not operated by the KMT." Consider such controversial officials such as Chen Tsung-ming and Yeh Sheng-mao, who were finally purged from the justice system, thereby ensuring its independence and integrity. If, as some advocated, Ma Ying-jeou had forced them to step down as soon as possible, we would be looking at a completely different picture. Looking back at the situation today, it was better to allow the system time to operate. The president must never intervene in the administration of justice.

Consider also the Red Shirt Army of four years ago. A red tide consisting of one million Red Shirt Army supporters swarmed onto Ketegelan Boulevard, laying seige to the city. In the end, they left peacefully. Chen Shui-bian remained ensconced in his official residence, coldly mocking them. On the surface, the Red Shirt Army retreated in defeat. On the surface, Chen Shui-bian consolidated his power and his position. But a mere year and a half later, the legislative elections and presidential elections revealed the will of the people. They forced the DPP government to step down, and Chen Shui-bian to prostrate himself before the law. Had the Red Shirt Army stormed the presidential palace, they would have undermined the 2008 presidential election, The current judgment in the Chen corruption case would have been compromised. Another group of people might storm the presidential palace in the future. Had that been the case, the Red Shirt Army on Taiwan would have been no different than the Red Shirt Army in Thailand.

As we all know, democracy is not an efficient system. Its wheels grind slowly. But it is able to strike a balance between respecting the will of the people and maintaining justice. Politicians on Taiwan have used democracy as an aphrodisiac. Too many expectations of democracy have led to excessive anxiety and suspicion about democracy. The Chen corruption case has undergone twists and turns. As the public looks back at these years of change, it may be able to observe the development of democracy and the rule of law with greater equanimity. A democracy tempered by the flames of anxiety, will hopefully be more robust and enduring.

民主法治，在從容與焦慮之間錘煉
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.21

扁家弊案部分定讞。二○○八年十一月十一日陳水扁被收押，二○一○年十一月十一日扁案定讞。早先，不知扁案何日是終期盡頭之時，總以為勢必如陳水扁所說「在二三審之間徘徊」，民間充滿焦慮與憤懣；如今三審落槌，發現也只不過是兩年光陰，世紀大案已告定讞。

焦慮與猜疑是台灣政治社會的主要情愫。焦慮就是等不及，猜疑就是不信任。但從扁案的經歷來看，台灣這個浮躁的社會，未來對民主政治的發展演進，也許應當多幾分耐心與從容。

兩年前，當陳水扁首度遭到羈押，誰也無法預測案子將如何發展；陳聰明主導下的特偵組放不開手腳，加上黃芳彥潛逃，向瑞士索回匯款又枝節橫生，乃至周占春的無保縱放等，都讓民眾對司法體制疑忿交加。然而，如此波折迤邐地一路行來，至少已有部分扁案在輿論喧囂中終告定讞，不算走得太離譜，至少未太偏離法理及民意所認定的公義。

兩年的時間，民眾的感覺是漫長難捱的；但就司法而言，兩年卻是高效率的表現，也是完成程序的必要時間。這段期間，不少人把焦慮與猜疑轉投向馬英九總統，認為他的「軟弱」與「沒有魄力」助長了司法人員的觀望與延宕。但試想，其間只要馬英九曾就扁案細節稍加過問，或對任何司法單位或司法官員作出指示，不僅「政治干預司法」的罪名立刻會加到他頭上，且整個司法的公信力亦將因此而遭到毀滅。如此一來，扁案的判決，也就無法像如今這樣，被各界以平常心接受了。

經過兩年偵審，曾經不可一世的陳水扁終須向法律低頭，一向雄辯滔滔的民進黨也囁嚅無言以對。站在兩年的時間跨度上，大家可以看到台灣民主法治的進程雖非一帆風順，卻仍在穩健前行；民主法治的進程即使不如想像中快速，卻也可能在不經意間就已在眼前實現。

民主的昇華有時是發生在潛滋暗長的無聲之處。不過數月前，民進黨還把ＥＣＦＡ指為馬政府禍國殃民、喪權辱國的惡行，如今卻已絕口不提；畢竟時間能證明一切，這樣的變化，不也正是台灣坎坷崎嶇的民主道路上的一個進步景觀？再以花博的「空心菜」為例，原本以為是一個天大的弊案，結果經幾日澄清沉澱後，卻發現竟是一場政治鬧劇。甚至像周占春這樣立場鮮明的法官，在當前的台灣社會亦具社教意義；扁案因周占春的曲折，至少證明了「法院不是國民黨開的」。更別說，陳聰明及葉盛茂等受到議論的司法官員亦終於在體制內受到清理，保全了體制的獨立與完整；但倘若陳聰明及葉盛茂等，如有些人當初所主張「馬英九應當讓他們盡快下台」，那麼現在必是完全不同的景象了。如今回顧，寧可給體制一些必要的運作時間，但也絕不可出現一個把手伸進司法的總統。

另一個例子是四年前的紅衫軍。當時百萬紅潮在凱道上洶湧圍城，最後和平退場，而陳水扁卻坐在玉山官邸冷言譏嘲。表面上看，紅衫軍敗退，陳水扁鞏固了他的權位；但只要再將時間延長一年半，立委選舉及總統大選中展現的人民意志，教民進黨政權黯然下台，繼而讓陳水扁今天伏倒在司法審判跟前。倘若紅衫軍當時衝入了總統府，二○○八的總統大選必受傷害，今日的扁案定讞也就變質走味；他日恐怕更會換另一批群眾衝入另一總統主持的總統府。倘係如此，台灣的紅衫軍就與泰國的紅衫軍無異了。

眾所皆知，民主不是一套很有效率的制度，卻能在緩慢的程序中維持民意與正義的平衡。台灣是一個被政客利用民主春藥催化的社會，對民主過多的期待，也換來過多的焦慮與猜疑；從扁案的周轉起伏，民眾回看這些年來的變化，也許更能體會如何從容看待民主法治的成長與發展；經過焦慮錘煉後的民主，應該會更強韌與更恆久。